FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T OCTOB ER 27, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 29 5 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 :0 8- cv -6 12 55 -WPD ANDRE WATKINS, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Ja ne t Nap ol it an o, TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINIS TRATION, 60 1 S ou th 12 th Str eet Arli ng to n, VA 2 22 02 -4 22 0, ADMINISTRATOR, TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATIVE, 60 1 S ou th 12 th Str eet Arli ng to n, VA 2 22 02 -4 22 0 Kip Hawley, Defen da nt s- App el le es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 2 7, 2 01 0)Befo re BLACK, HULL andANDERSON, Circu itJu dg es .

PER CURI AM: Pl ai nt iff Andre Watk in s ap pe al s p ro se t he di st ric t co urt’s o rd er g ran ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t t o the de fen da nt s o n h is cla im s o f rac e d is cri m in at io n a nd ret al ia ti on , bro ug htpurs ua ntto Tit le VII of th e Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act o f 19 64 , 42 U.S.C. §§ 20 00 e-2 (a), 2 00 0e -3 (a) (“ Tit le VII”). Aft er re vi ew, we affi rm . 1 I. BACKG ROUND W atki ns , who is Afric anAm eri can , work edas asec ur it y scr een er fo r th e Tran sp orta ti on Secu rit y

Adm in is tra ti on (“ TSA”) u nt il he was t erm in at edforbe in g ab se ntwitho utleave . W atki ns cla im s t ha t TSA fai le d t o p ro m ot e h im be cau se of hi s ra ce an d tha t h e was term in at edaft er h e ex pr es se d h is in te nt io n t o fi le a di sc riminat io n c om

pl ai nt . A. Wa tk

in s’ s E m pl oy m ent w ith TSA On Se pt em

be r 2, 2 00 2, Watk in s b eg anworkas aTSA scr een er atth e Fo rt Lau de rd al e Air

po rt ( “ FLL”). The f

irs t year of Watk in s’s em pl oym en t was a pr ob at io na ry

pe rio d. Be cau se TSA was a n ew ag en cy in th e ear ly stag es of

We reviewa district cour t’s grant of summar

y judgme nt de novo. Thomas v. Cooper 1 L ighting , Inc., 506 F .3d 1361, 1363 (11th Cir. 2007). Summary judgme nt is appropriate when the evidenc e, viewe d in the light most favor able to the non- moving pa rty , prese nts no ge nuine issue of material fac t. I d. 2fed eral iz in g s ecu rit y at F LL, W at ki ns be ga n t rai ni ng othe r sc reen ers withi n afew da y s o f be in g t rai ne d a ndcert ifi edhi m se lf. Watk in s wo rk edth e fi rs t s hi ft, fr om 4: 00 am to 12 :3 0 p m , at Ch eckpo in t Ech o. Acco rd in g t o Watk in s, h e tr ai ne d m an y of th e em pl oyees wh o wer e la te r pr om ot edto supe rv is ory po si ti on s an d h e o fte n pe rfo rm edth e dut ie s o f supe rv is or s. He al so co nt en ds th atth ere wer e n o Afr ic an Am eri canlea ds , supe rv is or s o r m an ag ers on th e fi rs t s hi ft a t FLL. W atki ns ’s imm ed ia te supe rv is or was C athy Engl is h, an d h is sec on d- li ne supe rv is orwas Dav idCas se ll , th e act in g S cree ni ng Man ag er atFLL. Cass el l rep orte d t o C arm enCu rro , th e Co nc ou rs e Ma na ge r, who rep orte d t o Geo rg e Cru z, th e Sch edul in g Op erat io ns Offic er atFLL. Cruz ’s supe rv is orwas B ry an t Ch ev al ie r, th e Ass is ta ntFed eral Secu rit y Dire ct or at F LL. Dian e Barto n was a TSA Hum anRes ou rces Sp eci al is t. Barto n was no t i n W atki ns ’s cha in of c omm an d. Ra th er, as pa rt o f he r du ti es , Bart on pro ces se d a ll reque st s fo r pe rs on ne l ac ti on , in cl ud in g h iri ng , di sc ip li na ry act io n a ndterm in at io n, an d p rep aredot he r pape rwo rkform an ag em en t. Acco rd in g t o B art on , W at ki ns ne ve r ap pl ie d fo r a p ro m ot io n wh il e em pl oyed wi thTSA. B. TSA’s Attend an ce Po li cy Und er TSA’s writ te n At te nd an ce Co nt ro l Po li cy , an e m pl oyee is requi redto no ti fy hi s s up erv is orwithi n o ne ho ur of t he st artof h is sh iftif h e wil l b e ab se nt . 3An em

pl oyee who fai ls to no ti fy hi s s up erv is orm ay

be co ns id eredab se ntwitho ut le av e, orAW OL. An em pl oyee who is AW OL th ree o r m or e ti m es is “ rep orte d up th e ch ai n o f co m

m an d wi tha reco m

m en da ti on for

form al di sc ip li na ry

act io n up t o an d i nc lu di ng rem ov al .” The Att en da nc e Co nt ro l Po li cy in cl ud edpro gr es si ve di sc ip li ne for ex ces si ve ab se nc es (reg ard le ss of wh ethe r th ey were wi th lea ve ), ran gi ng fro m : (1 ) anin it ia l, n on -d is ci pl in ary di sc us si on when th ere wer e si x abs en ces withi n a twel ve -m on thpe rio d; (2) a Lev el I warn in g wh ensev enab se nc es oc cu rredwithi n a twe lv e-m on thpe rio d; (3) a Lev el II warn in g i f an ot he r ab se nc e o ccu rredwithi n twel ve m on th s o f th e is su an ce o f th e Lev el I warn in g; an d (4 ) a Lev el III i ss ua nc e of a le av e res tri ct io n l et te r if th ere was sec on d abs en ce wi th inth e sa m e twe lv em on th pe rio d a s t he Leve l II warn in g o r “ if the off en se is of a n e xt rem el y

ser io us na tu re s uc h a s an em

pl oyee no t n ot ifyin g t he supe rv is orwhen sch edul ed , (AW OL)” atwhi ch po in t the em pl oyee wou ldbe “ imm ed ia te ly pla cedon Leve l III.” Th e Lev el III p orti on of t he Att en da nc e Co ntro l Po li cy warn edth at

“ [e]m pl oyees wh o a re AWO L cou ldface furth er d is ci pl in ary act io n t o i nc lu de te rm in at io n.” In it ia ll y , TSA scre en ers at F LL no ti fie d t he ir s cree ni ng m an ag er i f th ey were g oi ng to be ab se nt . Beg in ni ng in Feb ru ary orMarc h 2 00 3, TSA cre at edan 4Ope rat io ns Cen te r atFLL th atem pl oyees wer e requi redto cal l t o re po rt b ei ng lat e orto reque stsi ckleave . Und er the Att en da nc e Co nt ro l Po li cy , a supe rv is orco ul d requi re an em

pl oyee to pro vi de a do ct or ’s cert ifi cat io n. Gen eral ly, TSA supe rv is or s re qu es te d ado ct or ’s no te aft er thr ee d ay s o f si ck lea ve . Acco rd in g t o B ry an t Ch ev al ie r, if aTSA em pl oyee ha d a n a tt en da nc e pr ob le m , th e is su e wou ldbe ad dr es se d i ni ti al ly w it h t he em pl oyee’s fir st -li ne supe rv is oran d wo ul d p ro ceedup th ro ug h t he lev el s o f m an ag em en t, wh o wo rk ed with Hu m anRes ou rces to de te rm in e th e ap pr op ria te co ur se of a ct io n t o t ak e wit h res pe ctto pro gr es si ve di sc ip li ne . If th e p ro bl em co nt in ue d, the is su e wou ldbe ta ke n t o t he Oper at io ns Man ag er (i n t hi s ca se , Geor ge Cru z), wh o wo ul d b rie f Ch ev al ie r on th e is su e. Wha te ve r act io n C he va li er t oo k “ wou ldbe ba se d o n t he in fo rm at io n p ro vi de d t o [h im ] fro m th e m an ag em en t t eam

an d HR.” C. Wa tk

in s’ s T empora ry Ass ig nment in K ey Wes t Fro m Octo be r 30 , 20 02 to Jan ua ry 18 , 20 03 , W at ki ns vo lu nt eere d fo r a te m po rary ass ig nm en t as a le adscr een er atKey W es t Ai rp ort. Watk in s was on e o f si xt een TSA scr een ers fro m FLL ass ig ne d t o h el p “ ro ll ou t” sec ur ity scr een in g a t Key W es t Ai rp ort. Whil e in Key W es t, Watk in s t rai ne d t he ne wly hi redTSA sc reen ers an d s up erv is or s co m in g o n b oa rdat t he air po rt a ndpe rfo rm edm any of th e dut ie s o f supe rv is or s. Ho wev er, thi s t em po rary ass ig nm en t was no t a 5pr om ot io n a nddi d n otres ul t i n asal ary in crea se . Afterwa rd , W at ki ns returne d t o

hi s n orm al scr een in g dut ie s atFLL. D. Wa tk

in s’ s Co m pl ai nt to Ba rto n So m et im e in Apri l o r May of 2 00 3, Watk in s l earn edth athi s t em po rary as si gn m en t i n Key W es t h adno t re su lt edin a pr om ot io n. Watk in s ca ll edBart on in Hum anRes ou rces forcla rif ic at io n a ndask edBart on why he di d n otrece iv e a sa la ry in crea se . Bart on to ldW at ki ns hi s t em po rary ass ig nm en t was no t a pr om ot io n. Watk in s re sp on de d tha t h e in te nd edto fil e anEEO dis cri m in at io n co m pl ai nton ce h is pro ba ti on ary pe rio d was ov er. W atki ns di d n otfil e h is co m pl ai ntimm ed ia te ly becau se he “ di d n otwantto ha ve an y bru is es on [hi s] reco rddu rin g [h is ] pr ob at io n.” It i s u nd is pu te d t ha t n on e o f th e supe rv is or s i n W atki ns ’s cha in of c omm an d was aware t ha t h e in te nd edto co m pl ai n o f di sc riminat io n. Dian e Barto n d en ie s ev er s pe ak in g wi th W at ki ns an d a ve rs th atsh e was un aware th atW atki ns was Afr ic anAm eri can or t ha t h e p la nn edto fil e a rac e di sc riminat io n c om

pl ai nt . Howev er, atsu m

m ary jud gm en t, we co ns tru e al l fa ct s in th e li gh t m os t favo rab le to W at ki ns . Thu s, we as su m e Watki ns to ldBart on he pl an ne d t o c om

pl ai n o f di sc riminat io n. E. Wa tk

in s’ s Abs ence s 6Bet weenOcto be r 18 , 20 02 an d J ul y 23 , 20 03 , W atki ns was abs en t fr om work s ix te enti m es . On Ju ly 29, 2 00 3, Geo rg e Cru z, as th e “ Pro po si ng Offic ia l,” si gn eda “ Dis ci pl in ary Pro cedur e Reque stFo rm ” rec omm en di ng W at ki ns ’s

“ [p ]rob at io na ry

rem ov al .” Cru z te st ifi edth athe reco m m en de d Watk in s’s te rm in at io n “ du e to [a] reco rdof e xc es si ve ab se nt eei sm .” The Di sc ip li nary Reque stFo rm

in di cat edth at : (1 ) th e rea so n fo r th e reque st edact io n was “ [o ]the r (s pe ci fy ): AWOL”; an d (2 ) W atki ns ’s abs en ces adve rs el y affe ct edbu si ne ss act iv ity an d e m pl oyee m or al be cau se th ey “pu t a s tra in on op erat io na l n eed s” an d cau se d “ al ready

sh ort s ta ffs to tak e up t he sl ack .” On the same dat e, Bart on in 2 Hum anRes ou rces forward edth e Dis ci pl in ary Pro cedur e Reque stFo rm to Bry an t Ch ev al ie r, who si gn editas t he “ Co nc urrin g Off ic ia l.” On Au gu st1, 2 00 3, Watk in s d idno t re po rt f orwork . Ins te ad , W atki ns , who was be in g treat edforbro nc hi ti s, g av e Dav idCas se ll , hi s s eco nd -li ne supe rv is or , a do ct or ’s no te in di cat in g t ha t h e was on co m pl et e b edres t an d c ou ldno t re tu rnto work unt il Aug us t 8 . By

th is ti m e, W at ki ns ha d u se d a ll of h is si ckleave . Thu s, W atki ns reque st edan d re cei ve d a nn ua l l eav e fo r fi ve da y s b etweenAug us t 3 an d Aug us t 7 , 20 03 . Aug us t 8 an d 9 were Watk in s’s re gu la r da y s o ff. Howe ve r, on The Disciplinar

y Procedur e Reque st Form stated that cer tain documents we re attached, 2 including a

chronology

of eve nts, witness statements and Watkins’s medical docume ntation and leave rec ords; howeve r, the c opy in the rec ord does not have the attac hments.

7Aug us t 1 0, 2 00 3, Watk in s d idno t re po rt t o wo rkas e xp ect ed .

In st ead , fro m

Aug us t 1 1 t o Au gu st15 , 20 03 , W atki ns cal le d t he Oper at io ns Cen te r an d re po rte d t ha t h e was st il l s ic k a ndwou ldbe ab se nt . W atki ns di d n ot subm ita no te to expl ai n h is co nt in ue d abs en ce af te r Aug us t 8 . Starti ng Aug us t 1 0, Cas se ll m ad e rep eat edatt em pt s t o c on ta ctW atki ns , lea vi ng m es sa ge s o n h is cel l ph on e an d wi th hi s g ran dm othe r. W at ki ns tes ti fie d t ha t h e d idno t re tu rnth es e cal ls be cau se he was t oo si ckto ge t o utof b edan d h adtu rn edhi s ce ll ph on e o ff. On Au gu st15 , 20 03 , W atki ns ag ai n c al le d t he Oper at io ns Cen te r to rep ort th athe was s ic k. Watk in s was to ldth athe co ul d n o l on ge r cal l i nt o t he Oper at io ns Cen te r an d n eed edto cal l Ca ss el l. Ho wev er, Cas se ll was o ff wo rkun ti l Au gu st 17 . On t ha t d at e, W atki ns cal le d C as se ll an d t ol d h im th athe was s ti ll si ckan d ha d re tu rn edto th e d oc to r fo r m or e te st s an d ach an ge in m ed ic at io n. Ca ss el l res po nd edth atW atki ns co ul d n otco nt in ue to cal l i n s ic k andne ed edto pro vi de do cu m en ta ti on . W atki ns ga ve Cas se ll hi s d oc to r’s ph on e num be r an d s ug ge st ed th e d oc to r co ul d fa x C as se ll th e requi reddo cum en ta ti on an d ane w return- to -wo rk da te . W atki ns lat er co nf

irmed wit h t he do ct or ’s off ic e m an ag er tha t Ca ss el l h ad cal le d the do ct or ’s off

ic e, bu t n otwhet he r th e d oc to r ga ve Cas se ll th e n eed ed

8do cu m en ta ti on . W atki ns ne ve r pr ov id edTSA with a do ct or ’s no te forany 3 ab se nc es aft er Au gu st8. F. Wa tk

in s’ s T ermina tio n On Au gu st18 , 20 03 , Cas se ll sen t a m em or an du m to Bart onin Hum an Res ou rces do cu m en ti ng W atki ns ’s att en da nc e is su es . Cas se ll co pi edhi s supe rv is or , Carm enCu rro . Cas se ll st at edth atW at ki ns ha d e xh au st edall of h is si ck an d a nn ua l l eav e an d was AW OL onAug us t 1 0 t hr ou gh Aug us t 1 4 a ndag ai n on Aug us t 1 7 a nd18 . Cas se ll ha d t rie d t o c on ta ctW at ki ns on nu m ero us oc cas io ns be gi nn in g Au gu st10 , to no av ai l. Cas se ll reco m m en de d t ha t Watk in s’s pr ob at io na ry

em pl oym en t b e te rm in at ed . Bart on tes ti fie d t ha t, af te r rec ei vi ng Cas se ll ’s m em or an du m , sh e wou ldha ve co nt act edm an ag em en t, wh ic h wo ul d ha ve in cl ud edGeor ge Cru z an d B ry an t Ch ev al ie r. A si m il ar Au gu st22 , 20 03 m em or an du m fro m Cathy Engl is h, Watk in s’s imm ed ia te supe rv is or , to Geor ge Cru z al so do cu m en te d Watk in s’s ab se nc es . Eng li sh ’s m em or an du m

att ach eda co py of th e Ope rat io ns Cen te r’s at te nd an ce reco rdforW atki ns fro m

Ju ly 22, 2 00 3 t o Au gu st22 , 20 03 , in di cat in g Watk in s was AW OL from

Aug us t 1 2, 2 00 3 o nwa rd . Cassell denies spea

king w ith W atkins any

time after

August 8 or callingWatkins’s 3 doctor. 9Acco rd in g t o B ry an t Ch ev al ie r, al l t erm in at io n d eci si on s p as se d t hr ou gh hi s

of fic e. On Au gu st29 , 20 03 , Che va li er p rep areda m em or an du m term in at in g W atki ns ’s em

pl oym en t. Ch ev al ie r’s m em or an du m st at ed : (1 ) “ On Oct ob er 1 8, 20 02 , Jan ua ry

14 , Feb ru ary 28 , Marc h 2 9, M ay 4, 6 , 16 , & 17 , Ju ne 8 & 15 , Ju ly 9, 10 , 11 , 14 , 22 & 2 3, [a nd ] Aug us t 3 , 4, 5 , 6 & 7 , 20 03 y oureque st edan d wer e gr an te d s ic k l eav e an d a nn ua l l eav e in li euof s ic k l eav e”; (2) W at ki ns was AWOL si nc e Aug us t 8 , 20 03 an d h adno t co nt act edTSA to reque stlea ve ; (3 ) be gi nn in g on Aug us t 1 0, 2 00 3, Watk in s’s s up erv is orha d m ad e num ero us un su cces sf ul at te m pt s t o c on ta cthi m ; an d (4 ) W at ki ns ’s ext en de d AWOL was no t co m pa ti bl e with e m pl oym en t wi th TSA. Ch ev al ie r te rm in at edW atki ns ba se d o n h is fai lu re t o c om e to workforth e m on th of Au gu st . Duri ng de po si ti ontes ti m on y , Che va li er ac kn owl ed ge d t ha t o n Ju ly 29, 2 00 3, h e rec ei ve d a ndsi gn edth e Dis ci pl in ary Reque stFo rm ap pr ov in g W atki ns ’s pro ba ti on ary rem ov al forbe in g AWOL. Che va li er ex pl ai ne d t ha t wh il e W atki ns ’s supe rv is or s h adalr eady “ de te ct eda pr ob le m

in att en da nc e” an d reco m m en de d t erm in at io n a s ea rly as J ul y 29 , 20 03 , W atki ns was n otform al ly ch arg edwith b ei ng AW OL un ti l Au gu st8, 2 00 3. G. Dis tri ct Co urt Pro ceed in gs W atki ns pro se f

il edth is act io n a ll eg in g tha t TSA v io la te d Ti tl e VII b y

10de nyin g h im pro m ot io ns ba se d o n h is race an d b y term in at in g h im

in ret al ia ti on fo r hi s t hr eatto fil e a rac e d is cri m in at io n c om pl ai nt . W at ki ns na m edas de fen da nt s M ic ha el Ch ert of f, th e Sec ret ary of

th e Dep art m en t o f Hom el an d Secu rit y (“ DHS”), an d Ki p Hawl ey , Adm in is tra to r of TSA. W at ki ns so ug ht

4 rei ns ta te m en t wi th a po si ti on co m m en su rat e wit h h is ex pe rie nc e, ba ckpa y in cl ud in g s ic k a ndan nu al lea ve , andco m pe ns at ory an d p un it iv e d am ag es . Fo ll owi ng di sc ov ery, th e d efen da nt s m ov edforsu m m ary jud gm en t, ar gu in g th atW atki ns ha d n otest ab li sh eda pr im a fac ie cas e o f ei th er ra ce d is cri m in at io n o r ret al ia ti on . The d efen da nt s al so arg ue d t ha t the y ha d arti cu la te d aleg it im at e, no nd is cri m in at ory

reas on for

term in at in g Watk in s, n am el y hi s ex ces si ve ab se nt eei sm

an d AWOL st atus in mid -Au gu st . The di stric t co urt g ran te d the de fen dant s’ m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, co nc lu di ng th atW atki ns fai le d t o e st ab li sha pr im a fac ie cas e o f ei th er ra ce di sc riminat io n o r ret al ia ti on . W at ki ns fil eda m ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n, wh ic h th e d is tri ctco urt d en ie d. Watk in s fi le d t hi s ap pe al . II . DISCUSSI ON On ap pe al , W atki ns ch al le ng es th e d is tri ctco urt’s en try of s umm ary

L ater , J anet Na

politano, curre nt Secre tary of DHS, wa s substituted for Mic hael Cher toff. 4 11jud gm en t o n h is di sc riminat ory fai lu re-t o- pr om ot e an d re ta li at io n c la im s. Whe re, 5 as he re, a p la in ti ff rel ie s o n c irc um st an ti al ev id en ce, we ev al ua te whet he r su m m ary jud gm en t i s ap pr op ria te us in g t he McDo nn el l Do ug la s fr am ewo rk . 6 Co m bs v. Pl an ta ti on Pat te rn s, 1 06 F.3d15 19 , 15 27 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ). If th e pl ai nt iff m ak es ou t a p rima facie cas e, th e b ur de n s hi fts to th e em pl oyer to art ic ul at e a l eg it im at e, no nd is cri m in at ory reas onforit s ac ti on s an d the n t o t he pl ai nt iff to pre se ntev id en ce tha t the em pl oyer’s reas onis pre te xtfor di sc riminat io n. Id . at 1 52 7- 28 ; s ee al so Crawfo rdv. Ca rro ll , 52 9 F .3d96 1, 9 76 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) (ev al ua ti ng Tit le VII ret al ia ti on cla im s atsu m m ary jud gm en t us in g t he McDo nn el l Do ug la s fr am ewo rk ). A. Fai lu re-t o- Pro m ot e Cla im To es tabl is h acla im

of d is cri m in at ory

fai lu re t o p ro m ot e, th e p la in ti ff m us t pr es en t ev id en ce tha t (1 ) he be lo ng s t o apro te ct edcla ss ; (2 ) he ap pl ie d fo r an d was qu al ifi edfora pr om ot io n; (3) he was re jecte d fo r th atpro m ot io n; an d (4 ) an em pl oyee ou ts id e h is pro te ct edcla ss rece iv edth e p ro m ot io n. Walk er v . Mo rth am ,

It is unclear whether

Watkins i ntended to bringa discriminatory discharg e cla im. The 5 district court addr essed suc h a cla im and conclude d that Watkins had failed to establish a prima fac ie ca se. Watkins does not challeng e this ruling on a ppeal. Rathe r, Watkins’s brief f ocuses solely on whether

he pre sented e vidence of a discriminatory failure to promote him to a supervisor position. Thus, we a ddress only Watkins’s failure-to- promote cla im. McDonne ll Dougla s Corp v. Gree n, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S. C t. 1817 (1973). 6 1215 8 F .3d11 77 , 11 86 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ). The p la in ti ff n eedno t s ho w he app li edfor

a p ro m ot io n t o s at is fy

th e p rima facie cas e if

th e em pl oyer us es anin fo rm al pr om ot io n s y st em

th atdo es no t p os t o pe ni ng s o r ta ke ap pl ic at io ns Jo ne s v . Fi res to ne Tire a ndRubb er Co ., Inc ., 97 7 F .2d52 7, 5 33 (11 th Cir . 19 92 ). Und er th es e ci rcu m st an ces , th e p la in ti ff n eedon ly sho w th atth e em pl oyer ha d s om e reas onor dut y

to co ns id er the pl ai nt iff

for th e p ro m ot io n. Id . Here, Watk in s fa il edto est ab li sh a pr im a fac ie cas e o f fai lu re t o p ro m ot e ba se d o n ra ci al di sc riminat io n. As anAfric anAm eri can , W at ki ns is a m em be r of a p ro te ct edcla ss . W atki ns po in ts to hi s s eco nd -li ne supe rv is or , Davi d C as se ll , who is whi te , as a n e m

pl oyee ou ts id e h is pro te ct edcla ss who was p ro m ot edto a supe rv is orpo si ti on . W atki ns cla im s tha t Ca ss el l, l ik e Watki ns , st art edou t as a sc reen er an d t he n was pro m ot edto ch eckpo in t m an ag er an d t he n c he ck po in t supe rv is orov er an ot he r Afri can -Am eri can lea d s cree ne r, Alv in Tuck er. Howev er, Watk in s d idno t p res en t an y ev id en ce o f Cas se ll ’s two pro m ot io ns orth atW atki ns hi m se lf app li edforan d was de ni edeit he r po si ti on . Ind eed , W atki ns fai le d t o p res en t ev id en ce tha t h e ap pl ie d fo r an y ot he r TSA po si ti on , ex cep t the tem

po rary ass ig nm en t as lea d s cree ne r atth e Key W es t ai rp ort, a

13po si ti onth atwas n ota pr om ot io n a ndwhi ch W at ki ns rece iv ed . Furth erm or e, 7 W atki ns ha s n ei th er cl ai m edno r sh own th atTSA us edanin fo rm al m ean s o f pr om ot in g e m

pl oyees s uc h tha t h e n eedno t s ho w he app li edfora pr om ot io n. Defen da nt s, o n the othe r ha nd , pre se nt edth e swo rnst at em en t o f Hum an Res ou rces Sp eci al is t Ba rto n t ha t Watk in s n ev er ap pl ie d fo r a p ro m ot io n wh il e em pl oyed b y TSA. Becau se W at ki ns fai le d t o c reat e a g enui ne is su e o f m at eri al factas t o t he sec on d andth irdpro ng s o f th e p rima facie cas e, th e d is tri ctco urt pr op erl y gra nt edsu m

m ary jud gm en t t o t he de fen da nt s o n Watk in s’s fa il ur e-t opr om ot e cl ai m . 8
Watkins’s briefs in the district court a nd in this C ourt contain va gue stateme nts that he 7 applied for

TSA promotions. To ex plain the lack of supporting doc umentation, Watkins st ates that he wa s not permitted to keep c opies of his application documents and that the de fenda nts remove d the orig inal documents fr om his personnel file. None of these a lleg ations were made under oath, and Watkins’s unsworn statements in his briefs a re not a dmissibl e evide nce. See Ellis v. England, 432 F .3d 1321, 1326 (11th Cir. 2005) (e x plaining that “mere conclusions and unsupported fa ctual alleg ations are leg ally insufficient to def

eat a summary judgme nt motion”). To the extent W atkins asserte d a disparate impact discrimination claim or a pattern or 8 prac tice discrimination claim, these claims fail. At summary judgme nt, Watkins relied solely on the fa ct that there wer e no Af rica n Americ an super

visors on his morning shift, and did not prese nt the kind of statistical evidenc e that would show that TSA’s pr omotion practice s disproportionately

impacted Af

rica n Americ an applica

nts. See Spivey

v. Be verly

Enter., I nc., 196 F.3d 1309, 1314 ( 11th Cir. 1999) (explaining that prima f acie case of disparate impact cla im require s proof of c ausation by offe ringstatistical evidence that a cha lleng ed employ ment prac tice had a dispropor

tionate impact that re sulted in discrimination); EEOC v. J oe’s Stone Crab, I nc., 220 F.3d 1263, 1273- 74 (11th Cir. 2000) (e x plaining that a plaintiff may establish a patter

n or prac tice cla im by

prese nting strongstatistical evidence of dispara te impact couple d with anec dotal evidenc e of the employer’ s intent to treat the prote cted c lass differ ently ). More over, a s to the pattern or

prac tice cla im, W atkins did not seek dec laratory or injunctive re lief or e stablish himself as a c lass repr esentative. See Davis v. Coca-Cola B ottling Co. Consol., 516 F.3d 955, 968-69 (11th Cir. 2008) (c oncludingthat plaintiffs, proce edingindividually , cannot pr osecute 14B. Reta li at or y Di sc ha rg e Cla im

To es tabl is h apri m a fac ie cas e o f ret al ia ti on , a pl ai nt iff m us t s ho w: “ (1 ) th at [h e] eng ag edin st atut or il y pro te ct edex pr es si on ; (2 ) th at[he ] su ffer edanadve rs e em pl oym en t ac ti on ; an d (3 ) th atth ere i s s om e cau sa l re la ti on sh ip be twee n t he two ev en ts .” Tho m as v. Co op er Lig ht in g, In c., 50 6 F .3d13 61 , 13 63 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). InMarc h o r Apr il 20 03 , W at ki ns ’s com pl ai ne d t o Hu m anRes ou rces Sp eci al is t Ba rto n abo utno t re cei vi ng a pr om ot io n wh enhe was t em po rari ly as si gn edto Key

W es t Ai rp ort an d t ol d h er h e p la nn edto fil e anEEO com pl ai nt aft er h is pro ba ti on ary pe rio d e xp ire d. Th e p art ie s d o n otdi sp ut e th at(1) th is ev id en ce s at is fie d Watk in s’s b ur de n t o s ho w he e ng ag edin st atut or il y pro te ct ed ex pr es si on , and(2) W atki ns su ffer edanadve rs e em pl oym en t ac ti on when Ch ev al ie r te rm in at edhi m on Aug us t 2 9, 2 00 3. Th us , th e o nl y is su e is whethe r W atki ns pre se nt edev id en ce o f a cau sa l co nn ect io n b etweenhi s co nv ers at io n wi th Bart on an d h is term in at io n app ro xi m at el y th ree o r fo urm on th s l at er. Whi le cau sa ti on canbe est ab li sh ed“by sho win g c lo se tem po ral pro xi m it y be twee n the st atut or il y

pro te ct edact iv it y

an d t he adve rs e em

pl oym en t ac ti on ,” witho utad di ti on al ev id en ce, t em po ral pro xi m it y

“ m us t b e v ery cl os e” an d “ [a] th ree t o fo urm on th di sp ari ty . . . is n ot[cl os e] eno ug h.” Id. at13 64 (in te rn al Title VI Ipattern or

prac tice cla ims for injunctive or dec laratory relief ). 15qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Furt he rm or e, “ te m po ral pro xi m it y

alo ne is in su ffi ci en t to crea te a ge nu in e is su e o f m at eri al factas t o c au sa l co nn ect io n wh ere t he re i s un reb ut te d e vi de nc e th atth e d eci si on m ak er d idno t h av e kno wled ge th atth e em pl oyee en ga ge d i n p ro te ct edco nduc t.” Brun gart v . Bel lS ou th Tele co m m s., In c., 23 1 F .3d79 1, 7 99 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ) (i nv ol vi ng FMLA ret al ia ti on cla im an d ci ti ng Clo ve r v. To ta l Sys. Serv s., In c., 17 6 F .3d13 46 , 13 55 -5 6 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 9) , whi chin vo lv eda Tit le VII ret al ia ti on cla im ). Co ns tru in g the ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to W at ki ns , hi s p ho ne cal l t o B art on oc cu rredat t he en d o f May 20 03 . Giv enth atat l eas t thr ee m on th s se pa rat edW atki ns ’s con ve rs at io n wi th Bart on an d h is Aug us t 2 9, 2 00 3 te rm in at io n b y

Ch ev al ie r, W atki ns can no t re ly sol el y up ontem

po ral pro xi m it y

to sh ow caus at io n. Mo re i m po rta nt ly, W atki ns di d n otrefu te th e te st im on y of t he supe rv is or s i n hi s ch ai n o f co m

m an d (i nc lu di ng Cas se ll , who in it ia te d t he term in at io n p ro ces s, an d C he va li er, wh o c on cl ud edit ) th atth ey were u na ware o f hi s co nv ers at io n wi th Bart on or h is pl an s t o fi le anEEO com pl ai ntof r ace d is cri m in at io n. Onth e su m m ary jud gm en t re co rd , on ly Barto n kne w of Watk in s’s thr eatto fil e anEEO co m pl ai nt , andBart on ’s kn owl ed ge can no t b e im pu te d t o Watk in s’s s up erv is or s. See B ru ng art , 23 1 F .3dat 7 99 -8 00 (de cl in in g t o a do ptan“ im pu te d kno wled ge ” 16th eo ry

th atkn owl ed ge po ss es se d b y ot he rs is im

pu te d t o ade ci si on m ak er). Mo reo ve r, W atki ns pre se nt edno ev id en ce tha t Ba rto n i nf lu en cedany

of t he supe rv is or s i nv ol ve d i n t he de ci si on to term in at e h im . See St im ps on v. Ci ty of Tus cal oo sa , 18 6 F .3d13 28 , 13 32 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th e “ cat ’s paw” th eo ry of c au sa ti on , inwhi ch “ th e p la in ti ff s ho ws tha t the de ci si on m ak er fo ll owe d th e b ia se d re co m

m en da ti on [of

a no n- de ci si on m ak er] with ou t i nd ep en de nt ly in ve st ig at in g t he co m

pl ai ntag ai ns t the em

pl oyee” an d the “ reco m

m en de r is us in g th e d eci si on m ak er as a m ere c on du it , or ‘cat ’s paw’ to gi ve effe ctto th e reco m m en de r’s di sc riminat ory

an im us ”). As a Hu m anRes ou rces Sp eci al is t, Ba rto n re cei ve d t he pape rwo rkfro m W atki ns ’s supe rv is or s d oc um en ti ng hi s ab se nc es an d AWOL st atus an d reco m m en di ng hi s t erm in at io n. Ba rto n t he n fo rward edth is in fo rm at io n o n t o up pe r-l ev el m an ag em en t, Cr uz an d C he va li er, fo r act io n. On ce Ch ev al ie r de ci de d to term in at e Watki ns , sh e al so pre pa redth e d oc um en ts rel at in g t o Watk in s’s te rm in at io n. Watk in s p res en te d n o e vi de nc e th atBart on ’s rol e in th e te rm in at io n was anyth in g o th er tha n a dm in is tra ti ve . Thu s, Watk in s d idno t p res en t ev id en ce o f a cau sa l l in k b etweenhi s p ro te ct edex pr es si on an d h is term in at io n. W atki ns arg ue s t ha t h e p res en te d e vi de nc e th at : (1 ) an ot he r TSA sc reen er na m ed“ Ch arl en e” al so ha d ahi st ory of e xc es si ve ab se nc es be twee n M arch an d 17Ju ly 200 3, b utwas n otterm in at edun ti l Dec em be r 20 04 ; (2) hi s s up erv is or s d id

9 no t fo ll ow t he pro gr es si ve di sc ip li ne ou tl in edin TSA’ s at te nd an ce p ol ic y be fo re te rm in at in g h im ; an d (3 ) hi s s up erv is or s h adalr eady reco m m en de d h is term in at io n fo r be in g AWOL on Ju ly 29, 2 00 3, wh enin facthe ha d b een gi ve n l eav e fo r hi s ab se nc es up to th atpo in t. Thi s ev id en ce s eem s m or e ap pr op ria te ly eval ua te d a t th e p ret ex t s ta ge of t he McDo nn el l Do ug la s t es t, an is su e we d o n otreac h i f th e pl ai nt iff fai ls to m eethi s i ni ti al bu rd enof e st ab li sh in g apri m a fac ie cas e. See Olm st eadv. Taco Bel l Co rp ., 14 1 F .3d14 57 , 14 60 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th ataft er the pl ai nt iff

ha s es tabl is he d apri m a fac ie cas e o f ret al ia ti on , th e em pl oyer m us t arti cu la te a le gi ti m at e, no n- ret al ia to ry reas onforth e ad ve rs e act io n, wh ic h t he pl ai nt iff m us t the n s ho w was p ret ex t). Eve n a ss um in g t hi s ev id en ce i s re le va nt , itis in su ffi ci en t t o s ho w cau sa ti on . As t o Watk in s’s co m

pa rat orev id en ce, Watk in s d idno t p res en t ev id en ce tha t Ch arl en e was si m il arl y

si tu at edto W at ki ns . See An de rs on v. WBNG-42 , 25 3 F .3d 56 1, 5 64 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th atforco m pa rat orem

pl oyees t o b e Whil e in Key

West, W atkins worked w ith another scr eene r, Charle ne. Watkins stated 9 that Charlene was a lway s sick, but he did not know Charlene ’s last name. Watkins estimated that afte r Watkins and Charlene returne d to FL L , Charlenemissed at least half of her w ork day s betwee n Marc h and Jul y

2003. Howeve r, Charle ne wa s not terminated. Watkins did not know what medica l condition Charlene suff ere d from or whether

Charlene provided doc tor’s notes to her supe rvisors. Kelly

L ecour se, a TSA Huma

n Resource s Specialist, aver red that the only fema le TSA employee a

t FLLnamed Charlene wa s terminated f or excessive a

bsentee ism in Dec ember

2004. 18si m il arl y

si tu at edth ey

m us t h av e en ga ge d i n o r be accu se d o f th e sa m e o r si m il ar m is co nduc t). Whil e b ot h C ha rle ne an d Watk in s h ada hi st ory of e xc es si ve ab se nc es , W atki ns was t erm in at edforbe in g AWOL fro m Aug us t 1 0 t hr ou gh Aug us t 2 9. Watk in s d idno t p res en t an y ev id en ce tha t Ch arl en e was ev er AWO L. Thu s, the ev id en ce tha t TSA s up erv is or s t ol erat edCh arl en e’s ex ces si ve ab se nc es lo ng er tha n t he y

to le rat edW atki ns ’s exc es si ve ab se nc es do es no t s up po rt afin di ng of cau sa ti on . Lik ewis e, W atki ns di d n otsh ow t ha t h is supe rv is or s v io la te d TSA’s at te nd an ce p ol ic y

by term in at in g h im

forbe in g AWOL rathe r th anus in g pr og res si ve di sc ip li ne . This arg um en t i gn or es th e fac t tha t, o n Au gu st17 , Cas se ll in st ru ct edW atki ns th athe co ul d n otcal l i n s ic k t o the Oper at io ns Cen te r an d ne ed edto pro vi de do cum en ta ti on be fo re t ak in g a ny furt he r le av e. Yet, Watk in s ne ve r returne d t o wo rkor p ro vi de d ado ct or ’s no te in di cat in g h e co ul d n otreturn to work . Alth ou gh W atki ns co nf irmed th atCas se ll ha d c al le d h is do ct or ’s off ic e, he di d n otco nf

irm th athi s d oc to r pr ov id edCas se ll th e requi reddo cu m en ta ti on . It is un di sp ut edth atCas se ll ne ve r rec ei ve d a ny oth er d oc to r’s no te s. Eve n u nd er Watk in s’s v ers io n o f th e fac ts , he was AW OL as o f Aug us t 1 7. By Aug us t 2 9, wh enCh ev al ie r te rm in at edhi m , W at ki ns ha d b een AW OL alm os t two week s. Whil e th e Att en danc e Co nt ro l Po li cy ge ne ral ly pro vi de s fo r 19pr og res si ve di sc ip li ne , an e m pl oyee who is AW OL th ree o r m or e ti m es m us t b e rep orte d up t he ch ai n o f co m m an d wi th a reco m

m en da ti onforform al di sc ip li na ry act io n, wh ic h m ay

in cl ud e te rm in at io n. Th us , W at ki ns ’s term in at io n wi th ou t fi rs t res orti ng to pro gr es si ve di sc ip li ne di d n otvi ol at e th e at te nd an ce p ol ic y . Fi na ll y , W atki ns po in ts to th e Ju ly 29, 2 00 3 Di sc ip li na ry Pro cedur e Reque st Fo rm reco m m en di ng th atW atki ns be term in at edforbe in g AWOL whe n Ch ev al ie r’s Aug us t 2 9, 2 00 3 t erm in at io n m em or an du m st at es th atW atki ns was gi ve n s ic k l eav e o r an nu al lea ve in li euof s ic k l eav e fo r al l o f hi s ab se nc es up to Aug us t 7 , 20 03 . Howev er, Ch ev al ie r ex pl ai ne d tha t, ev enif Watk in s was no t te ch ni cal ly A W OL onJu ly 29, 2 00 3, Watk in s’s s up erv is or s h adde te ct edon go in g at te nd an ce p ro bl em s b y

th atda te an d h e u lt im at el y term in at edW at ki ns forbe in g AW OL on ly after Au gu st8, 2 00 3. Bec au se W atki ns di d n otpre se ntev id en ce fr om whi ch a reas on ab le jury co ul d fi nda cau sa l re la ti on sh ip be twee n h is pro te ct edex pr es si on an d h is te rm in at io n, the di st ric t co urt p ro pe rly gran te d t he de fen da nt s s umm ary jud gm en t on W atki ns ’s ret al ia ti on cla im . AFFIRMED.

20