FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT JANUARY 9 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 11226 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 3 - 8 0 7 5 2 - C V- DT KH K A T H R Y N E . B O Y C E C A M A R A , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s B R I N K E R I N T E RN A T I O N A L , d .b .a . C h ili's B a r& G r ill, D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Jan u ar y 9, 2006) B efo re B L A C K , B A R K E T T an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

K a thry n E . B oy c e C a m a r aappe a l s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s or de rgr a nt i ng s um m a ry j udgm e ntt o C hi l i ’ s B a r& G r i l l i n he re m pl oy m e ntdi s c r i m i na t i on a c t i on b r o u g h t p u r s u a n t to T itle V I I o f th e C iv il R ig h ts A c t o f 1 9 6 4 a n d th e F lo r id aC iv il R ig h ts A c t. C a m a r aa r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in ( 1 ) d e n y in g h e rm o tio n to c om pe l di s c ove ry of

e m pl oy m e nte va l ua t i ons of c e r t a i n m a l e m a na ge r s a nd ( 2) de t e rm i ni ng tha ts he f

a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h apr i m af a c i e c a s e of

ge nde rdi s c r i m i na t i on. I . Ba c k g r o und C am ar a w orked as am anager f or B ri nk erInt ernat i on al (“ B ri nk er ”) , fi rs tat the com pany’ s W es tB oca C hi l i ’ s R es t aura ntand, l at er , ati t s B oynt on B ea ch lo ca ti o n . T h ro u g h o u t C am ar a’s e m p lo ym en t i n W es t B o ca , th e r es tau ra n t’ s ge ne r a l m a na ge rr e c e i ve d m a ny c om pl a i nt s abouthe rf r om othe re m pl oy e e s a nd coun se l ed her s ever al t i m es re gardi ng em pl oyee re l at i on s. T he general m anager no t ed thatC am ar a c ou l d b e har sh and abrup tand thatshe c ou l d o verr ea ctun der stre ss . In hi s e val uat i on s of C am ar a, he ra t ed her emp l oyee re l at i on s s ki l l s a s b e lo w e x p e c ta tio n s . D u r in g h e rf

ir s t f e w w e e k s a t th e W e s t B o c ar e s tau r a n t, C a m a r aw o rk e d w ith B r ia n M a rk s , a n o th e rm a n a g e r . A f te rs h e c o m p la in e d th a t M a rk s h a d e n g a g e d in in ap p r o p r ia te s e x u a l b e h a v io rw ith f e m a le e m p lo y e e s , M a rk s w a s tr a n s f e rr e d to a n o th e rr e s tau r a n t.3

O n o n e o c c a s io n , C a m a r aa n d o th e rm a n a g e r s a tte n d e d ac o n f e r e n c e in T a m p a . O n e e v e n in g , ag r o u p o f m a n a g e r s w h o h a d b e e n d r in k in g e n g a g e d in ba nt e rof as e xua l na tur e w i th C a m a r aa nd he rr oom m a t e . M a rks l a t e rj oi ne d the grou p. W hen a general m anager t ol d the grou p t o g o t o b ed and the w om en began to le a v e , M a rk s p ic k e d u p th e r o o m m a te a n d c a rr ie d h e ro v e rh is s h o u ld e ru n til C a m a r at ol d hi m t o puthe rdow n. M a rks s ubs e que nt l y w a s t e rm i na t e d. C a m a r aw a s tr a n s f

e rr e d to th e B o y n to n B e a c h r e s tau r a n t in r e s p o n s e to c om pl a i nt s f

r om othe re m pl oy e e s a tthe W e s tB oc ar e s t aur a nt . A tB oy nt on B e a c h, C a m a r ar e por t e d t o T om L i vot i , w ho w a s a w a r e of pa s tc onc e rns r e ga r di ng he rj ob pe r f orm a nc e . L i vot i r e c e i ve d s i m i l a rc om pl a i nt s aboutC a m a r a ’ s ha r s h tr e a tm e nt of othe re m pl oy e e s a nd he rabruptm a nne r . C a m a r ar e c e i ve d c ouns e l i ng a nd w a rn in g s . C a m a r ac o m p la in e d th a t L iv o ti w a s u n d u ly c r itic a l o f h e r , o c c a s io n a lly sw o re ath er, an d g av e h er l ess g u i d an ce th an o th er m an ag ers received . S h e al so com pl ai ned thatL i vo t i di d n otm ake her aki t chen m anager. In L i vo t i ’ s e val uat i on of C am ar a’ s j ob perf orm ance , he no t ed thatshe w as bel ow expect at i on s i n t ea m devel op m entand p rofe ss i on al i sm . H e a gai n w arned her t o i m prov e a nd deni ed her a r ai se du e t o em pl oyee re l at i on s c on ce rns. C am ar a b e lie v e d th a t L iv o ti d is ap p r o v e d o f w o m e n in th e w o rkp la c e b e c au s e h e a lle g e d ly on ce st at ed thata w om an’ s pl ac e i s i n the ho m e.4

A l m os ti m m e di a t e l y f

ol l ow i ng thi s r e vi e w , C a m a r abe c a m e i nvol ve d i n a l ou d al t er ca t i on w i th a w ai tre ss , H ea ther C anno n. A fe w days l at er , B ri nk er re ce i ved an e-m ai l al l egedl y f rom a c ust om ercom pl ai ni ng thatC am ar a had in s u lte d aw a itr e s s in f

r o n t o f h im a n d o th e rg u e s ts a n d th a t s h e h a d th e n a s k e d h im i f he knew anyone l oo ki ng for aj ob . C am ar a f i rs tdeni ed thatthe i nci denthad oc c urr e d a nd a c c us e d C a nnon of f abr i c a t i ng the c om pl a i ntt o e xa c tr e ve nge . S he l a t e ra dm i tt e d tha ts he ha d m a de the c om m e nt s t o ague s thopi ng t o l i ght e n the m o o d . T w o d a y s a f

te rB r in k e rh a d r e c e iv e d th e e - m a il, C a m a r aw a s te rm in a te d . S t e phe n S c ott , the a r e adi r e c t or , a nd M a rk G r a y , the ne w ge ne r a l m a na ge r , m a de the deci si on , tho ug h L i vo t i w as pres entfor the m ee t i ng w i th C am ar a. II . S tan d ard of R evi ew W e r e vi e w adi s tr i c tc our t ’ s gr a ntof s um m a ry j udgm e ntde novo, P a tr i c k v. F l oy d M e di c a l C tr . , 201 F . 3d 1313, 1315 ( 11th C i r . 2000) , c ons trui ng a l l f a c t s a nd dr a w i ng a l l r e a s onabl e i nf e r e nc e s i n the l i ghtm os tf a vor abl e t o the non- m ovi ng pa r ty . H C A H e a l th S e rvs . of G a . , I nc . v. E m pl oy e r s H e a l th I ns . C o. , 240 F . 3d 982, 9 9 1 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 1 ). S u m m ary j u d g m en ti s ap p ro p ri at e “ i f th e p l ead i n g s, de pos i t i ons , a ns w e r s t o i nt e rr oga t or i e s a nd a dm i s s i ons on f i l e , t oge the rw i th the a f f i da vi t s , i f

a ny , s how tha tthe r e i s no ge nui ne i s s ue a s t o a ny m a t e r i a l f a c ta nd th a tth e mo v i n g p a r ty i s e n t i t l e d t o j u d g me n ta s ama tt e ro f l a w . ” Fe d . R. Ci v . P.5

56 (c ). III . D i s c u s s i on A . M ot i on t o C om pel D i sc ov ery C a m a r af ir s t a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d b y d e n y in g h e rm o tio n to co m p el d i sco v ery o f th e p erso n n el fi l es o f th ree o th er m an ag ers, G reg B aro cas, B ob G re ene a nd C hri s V i l l ar d. A l tho ug h she depo se d B ar ocas and G re en, nei ther coul d att es tt o the cont ent s of thei r f i l es . S he ar gu es thatthese m anagers had b ee n c r itic iz e d f

o rp o o re m p lo y e e r e la tio n s s k ills a n d y e t h a d n o t b e e n te rm in a te d . A cco rd i n g l y, sh e co n t en d s th atth e d i sco v ery so u g h tw as rel ev an tt o est ab l i sh p ro p er co m p arat o rs. T h i s C o u rtrev i ew s a d i stri ctco u rt ’ s d en i al o f a d i sco v ery req u estfo r ab u se o f d is c r e tio n . H in s o n v . C lin c h C o u n ty , G a . B d . o f E d ., 2 3 1 F .3 d 8 2 1 , 8 2 6 ( 1 1 th C i r. 20 00 ). “ A di stri ctcourtabuses i t s di sc re t i on i f i tappl i es an i ncorrec tl egal st andard, fol l ow s i m prop erprocedures i n m aki ng the det erm i nat i on , or m akes f i ndi ngs of

f a c ttha ta r e c l e a r l y e rr one ous . ” C hi . T r i bune C o. v. B ri dg es t on e/F i re st on e, Inc. , 26 3 F . 3d 13 04 , 13 09 (11th C i r. 20 01 ). “ W here a si gn i fi ca ntam ou ntof di sc ov ery has been ob t ai ned, and i tappears thatfurther di sc ov ery w ou l d n otbe hel pful i n res ol vi ng the i ss ues, a r equestfor f urther di sc ov ery i s properl y deni ed. ” A vi rgan v. H ul l , 93 2 F . 2d 15 72 , 15 80 (11th C i r.6

1 9 9 1 ) .H e r e , C a m a r ah a d a lr e a d y d e p o s e d B a r o c a s a n d G r e e n a n d h a d d e c lin e d to depo se V i l l ar d. N everthel es s, she w as un abl e t o el i ci tany e vi dence s up po rt i ng her theory thatB ar ocas , G re en and V i l l ar d w er e c om para t ors i n thatthey had been s i m i l a r l y r e pr i m a nde d butnott e rm i na t e d. B a r oc a s s t a t e d i n hi s de pos i t i on tha the coul d n otre m em ber a ny com pl ai ntfi l ed agai nsthi m , and h e deni ed thathe had r e c e i ve d a ny di s c i pl i ne orc ouns e l i ng. L i ke w i s e , G r e e ne s t a t e d tha the ha d not r e c e i ve d a ny c om pl a i nt s orc ouns e l i ng. W hi l e G r e e ne a c know l e dge d ha vi ng recei v ed n eg at i v e ev al u at i o n s, h e st at ed th ath e h ad b een ab l e t o i m p ro v e o n th o se a r e a s id e n tif

ie d in h is e v a lu a tio n s . A c c o r d in g ly , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g C a m a r a ’s d is c o v e ry r e q u e s t. M o r e o v e r , e v e n if

th e r e q u e s te d f

ile s w o u ld h a v e b e e n h e lp f u l to C a m a r ain es t abl i shi ng her pri m a f ac i e c as e, they w ou l d n othave rebutt ed the l egi t i m at e, no nd i sc ri m i nat ory r ea son for her t erm i nat i on proffe re d b y B ri nk er . B . P ri m a F aci e C ase C am ar a nextar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourterre d i n d et erm i ni ng thatshe w as no ttre at ed di ff

er ent l y than M arks base d o n g ender m er el y bec ause M arks w as u l t i m at el y d i sch arg ed . C am ara arg u es th atal th o u g h M ark s’ s b eh av i o r w as w o rse tha n he r s , he w a s nott e rm i na t e d a s qui c kl y a s s he w a s . S he a l s o a s s e r t s tha t( 1)7

she w as no tgi ven as m uch g ui dance as m al e m anagers ; (2) L i vo t i ye l l ed ather, w a s abruptw i th he ra nd s t a t e d on one oc c a s i on tha taw om a n’ s pl a c e i s i n the h o m e ; ( 3 ) s h e w a s n o t a s s ig n e d to th e k itc h e n ; a n d ( 4 ) s h e w a s d e n ie d ar a is e . C a m a r aa r gue s tha te a c h of the above c ons t i tut e s a n a dve r s e e m pl oy m e nta c t i on b e c au s e e a c h m a d e h e rjo b u n d e s ir ab le . T itle V I I m a k e s it ille g a l f o ra n e m p lo y e r“‘to f

a il o rr e f u s e to h ir e o rto d is c h a r g e a n y in d iv id u a l, o ro th e rw is e d is c r im in a te a g a in s t a n y in d iv id u a l w ith r e s p e c t to h is c o m p e n s a tio n , te rm s , c o n d itio n s , o rp r iv ile g e s o f e m p lo y m e n t, be c aus e of

s uc h i ndi vi dua l ’ s r a c e , c ol or , r e l i gi on, s e x, orna t i ona l or i gi n. ’ ” B a s s v. B d. of C ou nty C om m ’ rs , O ra ng e C ou nty, F l a. , 25 6 F . 3d 10 95 , 11 03 (11th C i r. 2001) ( quot i ng 42 U . S . C . § 2000e - 2( a ) ) . W he r e apl a i nt i f f s e e ks t o e s t abl i s h a p ri m a faci e case o f d i scri m i n at i o n b ased o n ci rcu m st an t i al ev i d en ce, sh e m u st show : “ (1) s he i s am em ber of aprot ec t ed cl as s; (2) s he w as subj ec t ed t o an advers e e m pl oym entac t i on ; (3) herem pl oyertre at ed si m i l ar l y s i tuat ed em pl oyee s w ho ar e notm em bers of her prot ec t ed cl as s m ore f avorabl y, and (4) she w as q u a lif ie d f o rth e jo b o rb e n e f

it a t is s u e .” R ic e - L a m a rv . C ity o f F t. L au d e r d a le , F la ., 2 3 2 F .3 d 8 3 6 , 8 4 2 - 4 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . “[ I ]n c a s e s in v o lv in g a lle g e d . . . b ia s in the appl i c a t i on of

di s c i pl i ne f

orvi ol a t i on of

w ork rul e s , the pl a i nt i f f . . . m us ts how ei ther ( a) thathe di d n otvi ol at e the w ork rul e, or (b) thathe engaged i n m i sc on du ct8

si m i l art o thatof a per son o ut si de the prot ec t ed cl as s, and thatthe di sc i pl i nary m e a s ur e s e nf

or c e d a ga i ns thi m w e r e m or e s e ve r e tha n thos e e nf or c e d a ga i ns tthe othe rpe r s ons w ho e nga ge d i n s i m i l a rm i s c onduc t . ” J one s v. G e rw e ns , 874 F . 2d 15 34 , 15 40 (11th C i r. 19 98 ).

“ D e m ons tr a t i ng apr i m af a c i e c a s e i s notone r ous ; i tr e qui r e s onl y tha tthe pl ai nt i ff es t abl i sh fa ct s a dequ at e t o p erm i tan i nfer ence of di sc ri m i nat i on . ” H ol i fi el d v . R eno, 11 5 F . 3d 15 55 , 15 62 (11th C i r. 19 97 ). O nce the pl ai nt i ff e s t abl i s he s apr i m af

a c i e c a s e of

di s c r i m i na t i on, the de f

e nda ntha s the bur de n of a r tic u la tin g ale g itim a te , n o n d is c r im in a to ry r e a s o n f o rth e e m p lo y m e n t d e c is io n . T e x. D e pt . of

C m ty . A f

f a i r s v. B ur di ne , 450 U . S . 248, 254, 101 S . C t . 1089, 1094, 67 L . E d. 2d 207 ( 1981) . H e r e , c ontr a ry t o the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de t e rm i na t i on, C am ara est ab l i sh ed th atsh e w as th e su b j ecto f tw o ad v erse em p l o ym en tact i o n s – the de ni a l of

ar a i s e a nd he rt e rm i na t i on. S e e G upt av. F l a . B d. of R e ge nt s , 212 F .3 d 5 7 1 , 5 8 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ( “A n a d v e r s e e m p lo y m e n t a c tio n is a n u ltim a te em pl oym entdeci si on , such as di sc harge or fa i l ure t o h i re , or other c on du ctthat

‘ a l t e r s the e m pl oy e e ’ s c om pe ns a t i on, t e rm s , c ondi t i ons , orpr i vi l e ge s of e m p lo y m e n t, d e p r iv e s h im o rh e ro f e m p lo y m e n t o p p o r tu n itie s , o ra d v e r s e ly af fe ct s hi s or herst atus as an em pl oyee . ’ ”) . S he fa i l ed t o est abl i sh, ho w ever , that sim il ar ly situ ated m ale m an ag er s w er e tre ated less se v er ely. D es p it e C am ar a’sThis Court may aff irm the district court on grounds that differ from those that form the 1 ba sisof thedis tric t c ourt ’sde c isi on . Cuddebac k v . F la . B d. of Ed uc ., 38 1 F .3 d 1 23 0, 12 35 (1 1th Cir. 2004). 9 c l a i m s , M a rks i s nota n appr opr i a t e c om pa r a t or . W he r e a s M a rks ha d m a de i nappr opr i a t e c om m e nt s t o f e m a l e e m pl oy e e s , a rr i ve d a tw ork i ne br i a t e d, a nd f r a t e rn i z e d w i th s u b o r d i n a t e s , c e r t a i n l y e g r e g i o u s c o n d u c t , Ca ma r a ’ s p r o b l e ms w ere i n a d i fferen tcat eg o ry, th e area o f em p l o yee rel at i o n s. S h e h ad b een h arsh w i th st af f, re ce i ved n um er ou s c om pl ai nt s f rom st af f m em bers , and cri t i ci ze d st af f in f r o n t o f g u e s ts . A c c o r d in g ly , M a rk s a n d C a m a r aw e r e n o t s im ila r ly s itu a te d in a ll r e le v a n t r e s p e c ts , a n d th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o rr e c tly h e ld th a t C a m a r af a ile d to es t abl i sh her pri m a f

ac i e c as e. In any e vent , even i f C am ar a had es t abl i shed her pri m a f ac i e c as e of gender di sc ri m i nat i on , w e w ou l d n everthel es s a ff i rm the di stri ctcourtbecause C am ar a f a ile d to r e b u t th e le g itim a te , n o n d is c r im in a to ry r e a s o n s o f f e r e d b y B r in k e rf

o rits deci si on s t o d eny hera r ai se and u l t i m at el y t erm i nat e herem pl oym ent . B ri nk er 1 proffe re d as i t s l egi t i m at e, no nd i sc ri m i nat ory r ea sons the fol l ow i ng : thatC am ar a had d i ff i cul ty w i th i nt erpers on al re l at i on s; thatshe had been w arned and coun se l ed re gardi ng these prob l em s y etshow ed no i m prov em ent ; and thather c on du cthad es ca l at ed t o the l evel w here a r es t aura ntgu es tcom pl ai ned abo uther. C am ar a of f e r e d no e vi de nc e tha tB r i nke r ’ s pr of f e r e d r e a s ons w e r e pr e t e xtua l . A l though10

s he c ont e nds tha tthe gue s tc om pl a i ntw a s f abr i c a t e d by a nothe re m pl oy e e , s he in tro d u ce d n o ev id en ce th at B rin k erk n ew itw as a h o ax . M o re o v er , C am ar a’s T e rm i na t i on F orm i ndi c a t e d tha tthe c om pl a i ntm e r e l y c onf i rm e d the pe r s i s t e nc e of her l on g-st andi ng di ff

i cul t i es w i th em pl oyee re l at i on s. A cc ordi ng l y, C am ar a f ai l ed to r e b u t B r in k e r ’s p r o f

f e r e d le g itim a te , n o n d is c r im in a to ry r e a s o n s f o rits em p l o ym en td eci si o n s. F or the foregoi ng re as on s, w e a f f i r m.