FIL ED U.S . C OUR T O F A PPE ALS ELE VEN TH CIRCUI T Jun e 1 5, 200 5 THO MAS K. KA

HN CLE RK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1223 3 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 0- 01 29 7- CV-J -1 2- TEM MICH AE L G . H ARR IS, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant, ve rs us CORREC TIONS CORPORATION OF AMERI CA, De fendant-Appellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (June 15, 200 5) Be fo re A N D E RS O N , CA RN E S an d M A RC U S, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

Mi ch ae l G . H ar

ri s, an A fr ic an -A m er ic anm anpr oc ee din g pr o se , appe al s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of

j udgm en t a s am atte r of

lawto Co rr ec tio ns C or

por at ionof A m er ic a (“ CC A ”) in his sui t a lle gin g r ac ia l di sc ri m inatio n, r ac ia l hara ssm en t, and re ta liatio n, in vio la tio n of T itl e V II of

the Ci vil Ri ght s A ct

of 196 4 ( T itl e V II ), 42 U . S. C. §§ 2 000e , e t se q. A t tri al , the part ie s st ipu la te d th at the f oll ow ing f

ac ts w er e tr ue : ( 1) H ar

ri s w as e m

plo y ed by CC A f ro m January 6, 199 7 un til Apr il 17, 2000 ; ( 2) H ar

ri s’ s e m plo ym en t w ithCC A w as te rm inate d by W ar de n D av id E ad s on Apr il 17, 200 0; ( 3) H ar ri s w as on l eave f

ro m w ork f ro m S ep te m be r 19, 199 9, unt il Marc h 13 , 200 0, a ft er he c la im ed

to have suf

fe re d an in

j ur y dur ing the c our se of his em ploym ent on Septem

ber 16, 1999; (5) while on leave, Harris re ceived w orkm en ’ s c om

pe nsatio n in sur an ce be ne fi ts; ( 6) on D ec em be r 27, 199 9, H ar

ri s be gan w orkin g f

or the F lor ida

D ep ar tm en t of Co rr ec tio ns ( “ FD O C” ) as a co rrec ti on al off

ic er wh il e h e was on work ers ’ co m pe ns at io n l eav e fro m

CCA; (7 ) H ar ri s w as not

w orkin g un de r an y

m ed ic al r es tr ic tio ns whil e em plo y ed w ith FD O C; ( 8) a ft er

H ar ri s r et ur ne d to w ork f

or CC A , W ar de n E ad s a tte m pte d to dis cu ss w ithH ar

ri s hi s e m plo ym en t w ithF D O C; ( 9) H ar ri s r ef use d to a nsw er

any such quest ions, contendin g that it was a “ worker s’ com p issu e;” and (10) W arden E ad s no tif

ie d H ar ri s th at his e m plo ym en t w ithCC A w as be ing te rm inate d be ca use of his r ef usa l t o answ er

any que sti ons co nc er

nin g hi s w orke rs ’ c om

pe nsa tio nOn a pp e a l, H arr is d oe s n ot r e a sse rt his c la ims a s to the dis mis sa l of Pr iso n Re a lty

Tr us t 1 Inc. as a defe ndant and the jur

y ’s ver dict for CCA re g ardingthe merits of the discr imination and rac ial hara ssment claims. There fore , they are deeme d abandone d. See L ambrix v. S ingle tary , 72 F.3d 1500, 1506 n.11 ( 11th Cir. 1996). 3 inv es tig at ion . T he j ur

y f ound f or CC A on H ar

ri s’ s c la im s of

dis cr im inatio n and harassm ent, but found for Harris on the retaliation claim . The c ourt then granted CCA’s m ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of law. O n a ppe al , H ar

ri s f ir st arg ue s th at

CC A , in its pos t- ve rd ic t m oti on f or j udgm ent as a m atter of law, im properly raised newgrounds for r elief that w ere not a rg ue d init s or igi na l F ed . R. Ci v. P. 50( a) m oti on f or adir ec te d ve rd ic t. 1

“ A m oti on f

or j udgm en t a s am atte r of

law‘ sha ll spe ci fy

the j udgm en t soug ht and the lawand the f ac ts o n w hic h th e m ovi ng p ar ty is en tit le d to the j udgm ent.’ ” Middlebrooks v. H illcrest Foods, Inc. , 256 F. 3d 12 41, 1245 (11t h Cir. 2001 ) (quoting Fed.R. Civ.P. 50(a)(2)) . “ This m otion can be r enewe d after trial unde r Ru le 50( b) , but

aparty c an not a sse rt gr ound s inthe r en ew ed

m oti on tha t i t did not r ai se in the e ar lie r m oti on. ” I d. H ar ri s’ s arg um en t tha t C CAr ai se d a ddi tio na l gr ound s init s R ule 50( b) m ot io n, n ot rai se d i n i ts in it ia l Ru le 50 (a) m ot io n, h as no fou nd at io n i n t he reco rd . Inm ak ing it s R

ule 50( a) m oti on at tri al , CC A c ont en de d th at H ar ri s ha d f ai le d to state apr im a fa ci e ca se of e ith er r ac e dis cr im inatio n, r ac ia l hara ssm en t, or re ta liatio n. I n it s R

ule 50( b) m oti on, CC A a ga in c ont en de d th at H ar ri s f ai le d to4

s t a t e ap r i maf

a c i e c a s e o f

r e t a l i a t i o n . C C A , th e n , p r o p e r l y a s s e rt e dth e s a me ground s in its renewed m otion as it raised in the ear lier m otion . See Mi ddl eb ro oks, 256 F . 3d at 12 45. Harris next argues that the district court erre d in reversing the jury verdict an d gr an tin g j udgm en t a s am atte r of lawin favor

of CC A on H ar

ri s’ s c la im

of re ta liatio n. H ar

ri s c ont en ds tha t he pr es en te d e vid en ce that sh ow ed that he ha d a good f ai th, r ea sona

ble ba sis f

or f ili ng h is E E O C c harg e, inc lud ing ( 1) his te sti m ony that he w as “ qui te sur e” that othe r em plo y ee s r ec ei ve d w orke rs ’ com pensation benefits without discrim ination , ( 2) his testim ony that he wa s wr itten up for leaving th e w orkplace w ithou t prior approval while a white shift supe rv iso r w as not

w ri tte n up f

or a lle ge dly doi ng the sam e, a nd ( 3) his te sti m ony that a w hit e shi ft

sup er vis or ’ s gr ie vanc e w as a nsw er ed in a tim el y

f as hio n w hil e his gr ie vanc e w as not .

“ This [C] ourt reviews de novo a district court’ s grant of a re newed j udgm en t a s am atte r of

lawund er

F ed er al Ru le of

Ci vil P ro ce dur e 50, appl y ing the sam e standard

a s th e dis tr ic t c ourt. ” Cl ev el an d v. H om e Sh oppi ng N etw ork, Inc. , 369 F. 3d 11 89, 1192 (11t h Cir. 2004 ). “ Under R ule 50, a court should render j udgm en t a s am atte r of

laww he n th er e is n o le ga lly suf fi ci en t e vid en tiary

ba sis fo r a re as ona

ble j ur y to fi nd f or that party

on tha t i ssu e. ” I d. T his Co urt “ shou ld5

re vie wa ll of

the e vid en ce in the r ec or d and m ust dr awa ll re as ona

ble inf er en ce s in favor of the non m ovi ng p ar

ty . ” I d. a t 11 92- 93. Title V II prohibits retaliation in th e em ploym ent arena: It sha ll be an un law fu l e m

plo ym en t pr ac tic e fo r ane m plo y er to dis cr im inate ag ai nst any of his e m plo y ee s . . . be ca

use he ha s op pose d any

pr ac tic e m ad e an unlawful em

ploym ent practice by

this su bchapter, or because he has m ade a c harge, testified, a ssisted, or participated in any m anner in an investig ation, proceeding, or hearing und er this subchapter. 42 U . S. C. § 20 00e -3 (a ). “ T o r ec ove r fo r re ta liatio n, the pla int if f ‘ ne ed not pr ove the underly ing claim

of discrim ination which led to [his] protest,’ so long as [he] ha d ar ea sona

ble goo d f

ai th b el ie f that the dis cr im inatio n e xis te d. ” G upt a v. Fl or ida Bo ar d of Re ge nts , 212 F . 3d 5 71, 586 ( 11th C ir . 200 0) ( int er na l c itatio ns om itted). I t is insu fficient f or a plaintiff to allege that his belief in this regard w as hone st and b onaf

ide ; the r ec or d m

ust a lso ind ic at e that the be lie f, tho ugh pe rh ap s m ist ak en , w as “ obj ec tiv el y r ea sona ble . ” H ar pe r v. Bl oc kbus te r E nte rt ai nm en t Corp., 139 F.3d 1385 , 1388 (11th Cir. 1998). T o pr ev ai l onac la im

of r et al ia tio n un de r T itl e V II , apla int if f m ust e sta bli sh three ele m ents by

a preponderance of

the evidence: (1) that the plaintiff engaged in an a ct ivi ty

pr ote ct ed

und er T itl e V II , ( 2) that he suf

fe re d an a dve rs e em plo ym en t a ct ion , and ( 3) that the re w as ac au sa l c onne ct ionbe tw ee n th e pr ot ect edact iv it y

an d t he ad ve rs e em

pl oym en t ac ti on . Gup ta , 21 2 F .3dat 5 87 .6

“ To establish a causal connection, a plaintiff m ust sh ow that ‘ the decision-m akers w er e aw ar e of

the pr ote ct ed

c ondu ct ’ a nd ‘ that the pr ote ct ed a ct ivi ty a nd the adverse em

ploym ent action wer e not wholly unrelated.’ ” Id. at 590 (internal citations om itted). Once a plaintiff has established a prim a fa cie ca se, the e m ploy er then has an oppo rtunity

to articulate a legitim ate, non-retaliatory rea son for the challenged em plo ym en t a ct ion . P en nin gto n v. Ci ty of H unt svi lle , 261 F . 3d 1 262, 126 6 ( 11th Ci r. 200 1) . I f ac co m

pli she d, the pla int if

f the n be ar s th e ult im at e bur de n of pr ovi ng b y

apr ep onde ranc e of

the e vid en ce that the r ea son pr ovi de d by the em plo y er is a pr et ex t f

or pr ohi bit ed , r et al ia tor

y c ondu ct . I d. H er e, the r ec or d do es not c ont ai n e vid en ce suf

fi ci en t f or ar ea sona

ble j ur y to fi nd tha t H ar

ri s’ s be lie f, that C CAha d un law fu lly dis cr im inate d a ga ins t hi m dur ing his e m

plo ym en t, w as obj ec tiv el y r ea sona ble . H ar ri s c onc ed ed

in his te sti m ony that he ha d no dir ec t e vid en ce of r ac ia l di sc ri m inatio n a ga ins t hi m on the part of CC A . H is e vid en ce w ithr es pe ct to thi s is sue w as li m ite d to his te sti m ony c onc er nin g a ct ion s take n by

CC A in the c our se of

his e m plo ym en t, inc lud ing pla ci ng h im

on w orke rs ’ c om

pe nsa tio n, unt im el y

r es pond ing to his gr ie vanc es , and t er

m inatin g hi s e m

plo ym en t. H ar

ri s c ont en ds tha t the se a ct ion s, by the m se lve s, are e vid en ce of r ac ia l di sc ri m inatio n. H ow ev er , the se a ct ion s do7

not evin ce r acial discrim ination unless th ere is evidence of discrim ination , e .g. that sim ilarl y sit ua te d w hit e em

plo y ee s w er e tr eate d di ff er en tly . H ar

ri s di d pr ovi de ge ne ra l t es tim ony

that he be lie ve d th at

CC A r es pond ed

m or e qui ck ly

to a gr ie vanc e fi le d by

Ro be rt Murp hy , aw hit e em

plo y ee , than C CAha d r es pond ed to his ow n gr ie vanc es , and tha t C CAf ai le d to dis ci pli ne S co tt E ve re tt, a nothe r w hit e em plo y ee , f or a lle ge dly c om m itt ing a n a ct

f or w hic h H ar

ri s ha d be endis ci pli ne d, i.e. , le aving CCA w ithou t perm issio n. H owever , bec ause there w as no evidence as to the na tur e of

Murp hy ’ s gr ie vanc e or

that E ve re tt did

not have pe rm iss ionto leave, Harris fa iled to sho w that e ither Murphy or E verett w ere sim ilarly situated to Har ris. Harris’ s unsu pported assertions of differ ential treatm ent based on race, w ith out e vid en ce sho w ing that the c om parator s w er e sim ilarl y

sit ua te d, do n ot su pp or t a f

in di ng by the jury th athi s p ur su it of Ti tl e VII rem ed ie s was reas on ab le . Mor eo ve r, the re is no l eg al ly suf fi ci en t e vid en tiary

ba sis f or ar ea sona

ble j ur y to fi nd tha t H ar

ri s e sta bli she d apr im a fa ci e ca se f or r et al ia tio n. H ar

ri s te st ifi edth atth e d eci si on -m ak ers at C CA were “ well aware” of h is EEOC co m pla int s. H ow ev er , H ar

ri s f ai le d to pr of

fe r an y e vid en ce in supp ort of

thi s cl ai m . R athe r, Jay e Sm ith , the a ssi stant w ar de n, te sti fi ed that sh e did

not kno w that H ar ri s ha d f ile d an E E O C c om

pla int unt il one w ee k be fo re tr ia l. B ec au se H ar ri s di d no t e sta

bli sh b y a pr ep onde ranc e of

the e vid en ce that the8

de ci sio n- m ak er s r eg ar din g hi s w orke rs ’ c om pe nsa tio n m atte rs or

the w ar de n, w ho te rm inate d H ar

ri s, w er e aw ar e of

his E E O C c om

pla int s, H ar

ri s f ai le d to e sta

bli sh a ca usa l c onne ct ionbe tw ee n any a lle ge d pr ote ct ed

a ct ivi ty a nd any a dve rs e em plo ym en t a ct ion . S ee G upt a, 212 F . 3d at 59 0. Fi na lly , e ve n a ssu m ing arg ue ndo that H ar ri s’ s be lie f w as obj ec tiv el y re as ona ble and the e vid en ce e sta bli she d apr im a fa ci e ca se of r et al ia tio n, the re is no l eg al ly suf fi ci en t e vid en tiary

ba sis f or ar ea sona

ble j ur y to fi nd tha t the r ea son proffer ed by

CCAfor ter

m inating Harris w as a prete xt for reta liation. CCA ar tic ulate d ale git im at e, non -d isc ri m inator y r ea son fo r its te rm inatio n of H ar ri s, that he r ef

use d to answ er

any que sti ons co nc er

nin g C CAw or

ke rs ’ c om pe nsa tio n in ve st ig at io n o f hi m . A pla int if f m ay pr ove pr et ex t “ ‘ ei the r dir ec tly by pe rs ua din g th e co urt tha t a dis cr im inator

y r ea son m or e lik el y

m oti va te d th e em

plo y er or ind ir ec tly

by showing th at the em

ploy er’ s proffer ed explanation is unworthy of cre dence.’ ” May fi el d v. P atte rs on P um p C o. , 101 F . 3d 1 371, 137 6 ( 11th C ir . 199 6) ( quot ing T ex as D ep t. O f Co m

m uni ty A ff ai rs v. Burd ine , 450 U . S. 248 , 256 , 101 S . Ct . 108 9, 1095 , 67 L . E d. 2d 2 07 ( 1981 )) . H ar ri s f ai le d to of

fe r an y e vid en ce to re but

thi s reason; rather, he conceded that he ref used to di scuss his em

ploym ent at another co rr ec tio na l i nst itu tio n duri ng the ti m e he w as r ec ei vin g w orke rs ’ c om pe nsa tio nHa rr is a lso argue s th at th e c ourt e rr e d whe n it

a g re e d w iththe de fe nd ants tha t hi s 2 g rieva nces w ith CC A did not constitute protected a ctivity . Even a cce pting that the grieva nces wer e prote cted a ctivity , beca use we conclude that Har ris failed to provide a leg ally sufficie nt basis to find that CCA’s reasons f or terminatingHar

ris was a prete x t for re taliation, we af firm the g rant of judg ment as a matter of law in favor of

CCA. 9 benefits. H arris, to prove pretext, ar gues that the inv estigation into th e alleged fraud w as unnecessary

and intended to harass him , and that hi s actions were never established as fraudulent. T hese argum ents, however , are insufficient conclusory allegations th at m ay

not, w ithou t m ore, show pretext. See May field, 101 F. 3d at 1376 . Beca

use Har ris failed to offe r any

evidence to rebut CCA ’ s legitim ate, non- dis cr im inator

y r ea son fo r te rm inatin g hi m , the re is no l eg al ly suf fi ci en t evidentiary

basis for a r easonable j ury to find that the reason proffere d by CCA w as apr et ex t f

or r et al ia tio n. S ee P en nin gto n, 261 F . 3d at 12 66.

2 La s t , Ha rr i s ar g u es th at th e d i s t ri ct co u rt erre di n n o tal l o wi n g CC A’s al le ge d de str

uc tio n of ata pe r ec or din g of

ac onve rs at ionbe tw ee n H ar ri s and the w ar de n of

the f ac ili ty w he re he w orke d to giv e ri se to aninf er en ce that the co nve rs at iondid

not c onc er n w orke rs ’ c om

pe nsa tio n f

ra ud. H ar ri s a ppe ar s to ar gue that, by

pr ovi ng tha t the inv es tig at iondid not c onc er n w orke rs ’ c o mp e n s a t i o n f

r au d , h e w o u l dp r o v e th a tC C A ’s a rt i c u l a t e dr e a s o nf o r f i r i n g h i m, that he r ef

use d to answ er

any que sti ons co nc er

nin g C CA ’ s w orke rs ’ c om pe nsa tio n inv es tig at ionof

him , is al so f

ra udul en t.10

E rr or in the e xc lus ionof

e vid en ce is not

gr ound f or r ev er sa l “ unl es s it af fe ct s th e subs tanti al r igh ts o f the part ie s. ” H unt v. Marc he tti , 824 F . 2d 9 16, 920 (1 1thCi r. 198 7) . “ T he party a sse rt ing the e rr or

on a ppe al ha s th e bur de n of de m onstratin g th at

sub stanti al r igh ts w er e af fe ct ed . ” I d. Harris fa iled to assert or dem onstrate that his su bstantial righ ts wer e af fe ct ed by any e rr or by the dis tr ic t c ourt w ithr es pe ct to the a lle ge d de str

uc tio n of a t ap e r ec o rd i n g . Ha rr i s co n ce d es th at th e c o n v er s at i o n co n ce rn ed Ha rr i s ’s em plo ym en t a t F D O C. H ar

ri s a lso sti pul at ed

that he ha d w orke d a t F D O C w ith out m ed ic al r es tr ic tio n w hil e on l eave f ro m CC A a nd r ec ei vin g w orke rs ’ co m pe nsa tio n be ne fi ts. I t i s a ppare nt, the n, that w hil e the w or ds “ w orke rs ’ co m pe nsa tio n f

ra ud” m ay not have be enuse d duri ng the c onve rs at ion , the se que sti ons did

c onc er n C CA ’ s w orke rs ’ c om

pe nsa tio n in ve sti ga tio n, i. e. , his em plo ym en t a t F D O C whil e re ce ivi ng w orke rs ’ c om pe nsa tio n be ne fi ts. B ec au se H ar ri s e sse nti al ly

c onc ed es that the c onve rs at iondid c onc er n po te nti al w orke rs ’ com pensation fra

ud, any err or by the district court with respect to the alleged destruction o f the tape r ecording couldnot have affec ted Har ris’ s subs tantial rig ht s. See Hun t, 8 24 F.2d at 9 20 . A cc or din gly , w e af

fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of j udgm en t a s am atte r of la w in fav orof C CA.Har ris’s re quest for pe rmission to file supplemental brief is denie d. 3 11 AFFIRMED. 3