FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT JUNE 14, 2007 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. 06- 15406 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 04 -025 15 -C V -C A M -1 K A T H E R I N E E . H A N K I N S , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s A I R T R A N A I R W A Y S , I N C ., 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 o rth e N o r th e r n D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( Ju n e 14, 2007) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H an d B A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A ft erappel l antK atheri ne H anki ns (“ H anki ns”) w as t erm i nat ed fr om herOn appe al, Hankins doe s not challeng e the district cour t’s grant of summar

y judgment 1 in favor of

AirTra n with respec t to her race disc rimination claim (Count I) or her hostile work environment c laim (Count I I). Therefore, weaddre ss solely the grant of summar

y judgment on the re taliation claim. See AT& T Broadband v. T ech Commc’ns Inc., 381 F .3d 1309, 1320 n.14 (11th Cir. 2004) (c itation omitted) (“ I ssues not raised on a ppeal a re c onsidered a

bandoned.” ) 2 pr oba t i ona r y t e r m of

e m pl oy m e ntw i th A i r T r a n A i r w a y s , I nc . ( “ A i r T r a n” ) , s he br oughta n a c t i on a ga i ns tA i r T r a n pur s ua ntt o T i t l e V I I of the C i vi l R i ght s A c tof 19 64 , 42 U . S . C . § 2 00 0e etse q . , (“ T i t l e V II ”) . H anki ns, w ho i s w hi t e, al l eged that s h e h a d b e e n d is c r im in a te d a g a in s t o n th e b a s is o f h e rr a c e . S h e a s s e r te d c o u n ts agai nstA i rT ra n for ra ce di sc ri m i nat i on ; ho st i l e w ork env i ronm ent ; and i m prop er r e t a l i a t i on. A i r T r a n m ove d f ors um m a r y j udgm e nton a l l of the c ount s a s s e r t e d by H anki ns, w hi ch the di stri ctcourtgrant ed. H anki ns no w appeal s, cont endi ng that the di stri ctcourterre d i n g ra nt i ng sum m ary j ud gm entfor A i rT ra n o n h er r e ta lia tio n c la im . U p o n r e v ie w o f th e r e c o r d , w e A F F I R M . 1 I . B AC KG RO UN D T he e vi de nc e , w hi c h w e vi e w i n a l i ghtm os tf a vor a bl e t o H a nki ns a s the party a gai nstw ho m sum m ary j ud gm entw as ent er ed, i s a s f ol l ow s. H anki ns w as em pl oyed as a f

l i gh tatt endantw i th A i rT ra n from 16 M ay 20 03 un t i l 29 S ept em ber 2003, the da t e on w hi c h s he w a s di s c ha r ge d. T hr oughoutthe t i m e tha tH a nki ns w a s e m p lo y e d w ith A ir T r a n , h e rs ta tu s w a s th a t o f a p r o b a tio n a r y e m p lo y e e . D u ri n g h er em p l o ym en t , H an k i n s, w h o i s a w h i t e fem al e, w as su p erv i sed b y M aya3

D u r h a m , a n A f

r ic a n - A m e r ic a n f

e m a le , w h o w a s th e “in - f lig h t s u p e r v is o r ” f

o ra ll pr oba t i ona r y f

l i ghta tt e nda nt s . A s s uc h, D ur ha m w a s r e s pons i bl e f orove r s e e i ng a pa nopl y of

pe r f or m a nc e i s s ue s r e l a t e d t o pr oba t i ona r y f l i ghta tt e nda nt s , i nc l udi ng th ei r p erso n al ap p earan ce; th ei r i n -fl i g h tp ro fessi o n al co n d u ct ; th ei r p u n ctu al i ty; the i rove r a l l pr e pa r e dne s s ; a nd the i rf a m i l i a r i ty w i th both F C C r e gul a t i ons a nd the in - f lig h t e q u ip m e n t. A p p a r e n tly , D u r h a m w a s s o m e tim e s a b r a s iv e in h e rin te r a c tio n s w ith prob at i on ary e m pl oyee s; A l l i son H ea d, w ho i s w hi t e a nd i s the base m anager that supervi se d D urham , st at ed thatshe had re ce i ved som e c om pl ai nt s thatD urham coul d b e “ very hars h” and “ abra si ve” w hen speaki ng t o h ersubo rdi nat es . R 3-56 at 1 4 , 2 2 . D u rh am h ersel f ag reed th atsh e so m et i m es i n t i m i d at ed h er trai n ees, because herj ob w as t o con vey “ very t ou gh ” i nform at i on t o p robat i on ary e m pl oy e e s a boutthe c om pa ny ’ s e xpe c t a t i ons of the m onc e the y be c a m e f l i ght a tt e nda nt s . R 3- 55 a t34- 35. H a nki ns ha s f ur the ra l l e ge d tha tD ur ha m a l s o ha d a c l e a rr a c i a l bi a s a ga i ns tw hi t e s , a nd ha s s t a t e d tha ti tw a s w e l l - know n a m ong the fl i gh tatt endant s - - pri m ar i l y throu gh w orkp l ac e gossi p -- thatD urham subj ec t ed w hi t e tr a i ne e s t o di f

f e r e nttr e a tm e nttha n A f

r i c a n- A m e r i c a n tr a i ne e s , a nd tha ts he s ubj uga t e d the f

or m e rt o “ c ons t a ntha r a s s m e nt . ” R 2- 34 a t61. T h r e e d is p u te s in v o lv in g H a n k in s a n d D u r h a m a r e p e r tin e n t to th is ap p e a l.A “c heck ride” is a f ormal evaluation of a flight attendant’s perfor manceduringa re al 2 flight. See R2-34 at 40. 4 T h e f ir s t, o n 3 1 M a y 2 0 0 3 , in v o lv e d H a n k in s ’ tr a v e l b a g , w h ic h w a s a lle g e d ly o v e r s tu f f e d a n d to o la r g e to f

it in a n o v e r h e a d c o m p a r tm e n t w h ile in - f lig h t. I ns t e a d, H a nki ns s tr appe d he rs ui t c a s e i nt o a n e m pty s e a ton the pl a ne , i n vi ol a t i on of both A i r T r a n’ s pol i c i e s a nd F C C r e gul a t i ons . S ha r i G unni n, the l e a d f l i ght a tte n d a n t o n th e f

lig h t, r e p r im a n d e d H a n k in s f o rth is b e h a v io r , a n d la te rf ille d o u t a r e por tde t a i l i ng the i nc i de nt . D ur ha m w a s notpr e s e ntf orthi s i nc i de nt . H a nki ns c l a i m s tha tG unni n w a s “ rude ” a nd “ unpl e a s a nt ” t o he r , s i m pl y be c a us e s he “ [ di d] notl i ke [ he r ] . ” R 1- 1 a t3; R 2- 34 a t100- 101. H a nki ns a l s o c l a i m s tha ta f t e rthe f l i ghtw a s ove r , s he a dvi s e d D ur ha m tha tG unni n w oul d l i ke l y w r i t e he rup, due sol el y t o h erpers on al di sl i ke of her, and t hatD urham re as sure d H anki ns that

“ everythi ng ’ s f

i ne” and thatshe s ho ul d n ot“ w orry abou ti t . ” R 2-34 at10 1. L at er , w hen G un ni n’ s i nci dentre po rtw as i n fac tfi l ed, D urham ca l l ed H anki ns i nt o h er offi ce . H anki ns expl ai ned t o D urham thatthe i nci denthad b ee n m i s- char ac t er i ze d and asked D urham t o rem ov e the i nci dentre po rtfr om H anki ns’ fi l e, bu tD urham r e f u s e d , s ta tin g th a t th e r e p o r t w a s r e q u ir e d to r e m a in in h e rf ile f o rtw e lv e m o n th s . T he s e c ond i nc i de ntoc c ur r e d on 18 J une 2003, dur i ng a “ c he c k r i de ” on a 2 D C -9 ai rpl ane on w hi ch D urham w as ob se rvi ng H anki ns and t w o o ther prob at i on ary f

l i gh tatt endant s. H anki ns w as l es s f am i l i arw i th the D C -9, and w as5

una w a r e tha tthe pow e ron a D - 9 a i rpl a ne c ut s of f w he n i tba c ks a w a y f

r om the t e r m i na l . D ur i ng H a nki ns ’ pr e s e nt a t i on ove rthe pl a ne ’ s i nt e r c om , the pow e rc ut of f , a nd, unbe know ns tt o H a nki ns , he rvoi c e w a s t e m por a r i l y i na udi bl e t o the pa s s e nge r s . D ur ha m l a t e ri nf or m e d H a nki ns a nd the othe rf l i ghta tt e nda nt s tha ts he w a s g o in g to f

a il th e m o n th e c h e c k r id e , f o rf a ilin g to r e - s ta r t th e s a f

e ty dem on stra t i on af

t erthe po w erhad cutoff. T he ot her f l i gh tatt endant s prot es t ed thi s tr e a tm e nt , a r gui ng tha tD ur ha m ha d t ol d the m w hi l e i n- f l i ghttha tthe y di d not need t o re- st artthe sa fe ty pre se nt at i on . In l i gh tof these prot es t at i on s, D urham s t a t e d tha ts he c hos e t o “ gi ve the m the be ne f i tof the doubt , ” t or e up the pe r f or m a nc e f

orm i ndi c a t i ng a f

a i l i ng gr a de , a nd ga ve e a c h a tt e nda nta pa s s i ng s c or e i ns t e a d. R 3- 55 a t42- 43. T h e f in a l in c id e n t b e tw e e n D u r h a m a n d H a n k in s c a m e in J u ly 2 0 0 3 , w h ile D urham w as on bo ar d a fl i gh tand w as ob se rvi ng H anki ns i n h erm andat ory pre f l i ghti ns pe c t i on of

e m e r ge nc y e qui pm e nt . D ur ha m ve rba l l y r e pr i m a nde d H a nki ns f ornotc he c ki ng s om e of the pi e c e s of

e m e r ge nc y e qui pm e nt , a nd l a t e rw r ot e up a d is c ip lin a r y n o tic e - - w h ic h s h e s u b m itte d to H e a d - - d e ta ilin g H a n k in s ’ f a ilu r e to tho roug hl y c heck the equi pm ent . In her r eport , D urham al so re com m ended t hat H anki ns be se ntback t o A i rT ra n’ s f l i gh tatt endanttra i ni ng prog ra m for f urther tra i ni ng . T hi s r ec om m endat i on , ho w ever , w as no theeded. H anki ns cont ends that6

D urham had “ no re as on ” f or w ri t i ng her up for thi s i nci dent , and m ai nt ai ns that D ur ha m s i m pl y di d notl i ke he r“ be c a us e [ s he w a s ] w hi t e . ” R 2- 34 a t68, 78. W h en H an k i n s w as cal l ed t o H ead ’ s o ffi ce o n 9 S ep t em b er 2 0 0 3 t o d i scu ss D ur ha m ’ s r e por t , H a nki ns c ont e nds tha ts he t ol d H e a d tha tD ur ha m ’ s tr e a tm e ntof h e rc o n s titu te d r a c e d is c r im in a tio n . S p e c if ic a lly , H a n k in s c la im s th a t s h e to ld H ea d i n t hatm ee t i ng thatD urham di d n otl i ke w hi t e e m pl oyee s, thatD urham const ant l y har as se d h erfe l l ow w hi t e tra i nees , and t hatsuch di sc ri m i nat i on had b e e n a n o n g o in g p r o b le m u n d e rD u r h a m ’s s u p e r v is io n . F ol l ow i ng the s e i nc i de nt s w i th D ur ha m , on 14 S e pt e m be r2003, H a nki ns h a d a ru n - in w ith A d a m K e r s te tte r , a f lig h t a tte n d a n t, w h ile th e y w e r e w a itin g in l i ne f orthe e m pl oy e e bus . A f t e rK e r s t e tt e rc uti n f

r ontof H a nki ns i n l i ne , H a nki ns y e lle d a t K e r s te tte ra n d to ld h im , in f r o n t o f th e o th e re m p lo y e e s , th a t s h e “w o u ld k ic k h is a s s if

h e e v e rtr ie d to c u t in f r o n t o f [ h e r ] a g a in in lin e .” R 2 - 3 4 a t 1 2 4 . A l tho ug h H anki ns w as j ok i ng w hen she m ade thi s s t at em ent , she c on ce des that K e r s t e tt e rdi d notr e s pond a s i f i tw e r e a j oke , a nd tha the appe a r e d e m ba r r a s s e d by the c onf r ont a t i on. I n f

a c t , K e r s t e tt e rf

i l e d a l e tt e rt o hi s s upe r i or s c om pl a i ni ng of thi s i nci dent , base d o n h i s bel i ef thatH anki ns’ “ m anner and com m ent[w er e] thr e a t e ni ng i n na tur e ” a nd w e r e “ c om pl e t e l y i nappr opr i a t e a nd unw a r r a nt e d” by the ci rc um st ance s. R 1-32 , E xh . 1 at2. A ft erD urham re ce i ved K er st ett er ’ s l ett er7

det ai l i ng the i nci dent , she pas se d i tal on g t o H ea d. H ea d l at erm etw i th K er st ett er , and h e di re ct l y r ec ou nt ed the det ai l s of the i nci dentt o h er . A ft erthe i nci dent , H ea d revi ew ed H anki ns’ fi l e a nd her overal l perf orm ance a s a pr oba t i ona r y e m pl oy e e . I nc l ude d i n H a nki ns ’ f i l e w e r e the tw o i nc i de nt re po rt s det ai l i ng the i m prop erbag checki ng i nci dentand H anki ns’ fa i l ure t o check th e i n -fl i g h tsafety eq u i p m en t . H ead h ad al so b een co n cern ed th atH an k i n s’ pers on al i ty w as “ un nece ss ar i l y a rgum ent at i ve or com bat i ve”; she l at erst at ed that th e K e r s te tte rin c id e n t h a d c o n f ir m e d th is in itia l im p r e s s io n . R 1 - 3 2 , E x h . 5 a t 3 . H e a d i ndi c a t e d tha tne w A i r T r a n e m pl oy e e s w e r e e xpe c t e d t o s how a pr oduc t i ve a n d p o s itiv e a ttitu d e , a n d to d e m o n s tr a te g o o d ju d g m e n t a n d d is c r e tio n in th e ir i nt er ac t i on w i th o thers , and t hatH anki ns’ cond uctt ow ar d K er st ett erhad fal l en s hor tof tha ts t a nda r d. T hus , H e a d c ont a c t e d S us a n M a nf r e di , V i c e - P r e s i de ntof I n- F l i ghtS e r vi c e s , a nd A m y M or r i s , D i r e c t orof E m pl oy e e R e l a t i ons a nd D iv e r s ity , r e c o m m e n d in g H a n k in s ’ te r m in a tio n . M a n f r e d i a u th o r iz e d H e a d to d i sch arg e H an k i n s. O n 29 S e pt e m be r2003, H e a d m e tw i th H a nki ns a nd not i f i e d he rtha ts he w as bei ng di sc harged because she had fa i l ed t o succe ss ful l y c om pl et e her pr oba t i ona r y pe r i od a s a f l i ghta tt e nda nt , a nd ha d vi ol a t e d R ul e s 1 a nd 14 of the A i rtran A i rw ays C rew M em b er H an d b o o k , w h i ch p ro h i b i t , resp ect i v el y,8

di s r e s pe c t f

ul , a bus i ve , orunpr of

e s s i ona l be ha vi or , a nd us i ng thr e a t e ni ng ora bus i ve l a ngua ge . H e a d ga ve H a nki ns a l e tt e rr e i t e r a t i ng the ba s i s f orthi s t e r m i na t i on de c i s i on. A y e a rla te r , H a n k in s f

ile d a c h a r g e w ith th e E q u a l O p p o r tu n ity E m pl oym entC om m i ss i on (“ E E O C ”) , al l egi ng thatA i rT ra n h ad di sc ri m i nat ed a ga i ns the ron the ba s i s of he rr a c e a nd ha d r e t a l i a t e d a ga i ns the rf orc om pl a i ni ng i nt e r na l l y of

s uc h di s c r i m i na t i on, i n vi ol a t i on of T i t l e V I I . A f

t e ra r e vi e w , the E E O C not i f

i e d H a nki ns tha ti tw a s una bl e t o f i nd a vi ol a t i on of

T i t l e V I I , ba s e d on the fa ctthat(1) there w as no conn ec t i on betw ee n the al l eged ret al i at i on and h er di s c ha r ge ; a nd ( 2) A i r T r a n ha d pr ovi de d a l e gi t i m a t e non- di s c r i m i na t or y r e a s on f or h e rte r m in a tio n , o n e th a t w a s n o t s h o w n to b e p r e te x tu a l. A f t e rthe E E O C i s s ue d a r i ghtt o s ue l e tt e r , H a nki ns br oughtthe pr e s e nt T i t l e V I I a c t i on a ga i ns tA i r T r a n i n the N or the r n D i s tr i c tof G e or gi a . S he c ont e nde d tha ts he ha d be e n s ubj e c tt o unf a i rtr e a tm e nta nd ha r a s s m e ntf r om D ur ha m on the ba s i s of

he rr a c e , a nd tha tw he n s he ha d c om pl a i ne d a bout D ur ha m ’ s r a c i a l di s c r i m i na t i on t o he rs upe r i or s a tA i r T r a n - - na m e l y H e a d - - s he ha d be e n t e r m i na t e d. H a nki ns ’ c om pl a i nta l l e ge d c ount s f ordi s c r i m i na t i on on the ba s i s of r a c e ( C ountI ) ; hos t i l e w or k e nvi r onm e nt( C ountI I ) ; a nd r e t a l i a t i on f or e n g a g in g in a p r o te c te d a c tiv ity u n d e rT itle V I I ( C o u n t I I I ) .As to the discrimination claim, the mag istrate judg e conc luded that Hankins had failed 3 t o es t ab l i s ha p ri m a f

ac i e c as e. As t o th e h o s t i l e w o rkenv i ro nm entcl ai m , th e m agi s trat e j u dge de termine d th at th ea lle g e d h ara ssm e nt w a s n ot s uf fi c iently se vereand

fre qu e nt to taint

Ha nkins ’ workplac e environment, nor had H ankins’ shown that Dur ham’s alleg ed mistreatment of her w as d o n e o nth e b as i s o f h er

ra ce . Fi n al l y , as t o th e r et al i at i o ncl ai m , th e m agi s trat e j u dge deter mined that this claim failed bec ause, f irst, the interveningincident with Ker stetter had severed the c ausal c onnection betwe en Ha nkins’ protec ted ac tivity

(complainingthat Durham wa s ra c ist) a

nd her eventu a l terminatio n f ro m A irTran, and , mo re ov e r, e ven if on ewereto assume a c ausal c onnection, AirTran had provided a leg itimate, non-discriminatory rea son for Hanki ns ’ fi ri ng, o ne thathadno t b een s ho wn b y Hanki ns to be p ret ex tu al. Acco rdi ngly th e R &R re c omm e nd e d th at summa ry judgment b egra

nte d f or AirTra n o n all o f H ankins ’ c ounts . 9 H an k i n s’ case w as referred t o a m ag i strat e j u d g e, an d , fo l l o w i n g d i sco v ery, A i rT ra n m ov ed for s um m ary j ud gm enton al l coun t s of the com pl ai nt . In a r eport and recom m endat i on (“ R & R ”) , the m agi stra t e j ud ge re com m ended t hatsum m ary ju d g m e n t b e g r a n te d in f a v o ro f A ir T r a n a ll th r e e c o u n ts o f H a n k in s ’ c o m p la in t. 3 T he di stri ctcourtadop t ed the re as on i ng of the R & R i n ful l and ent er ed sum m ary j ud gm entfor A i rT ra n. H anki ns no w appeal s, ar gu i ng thatthe di stri ct c o u r te r r e d i n g r a n t i n g s u mma r y j u d g me n tf o rA i r Tr a n o n h e rr e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m. I I . STA N D A R D O F R EVI EW

“ W e r e vi e w a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s gr a ntof s um m a r y j udgm e ntunde ra de novo s ta n d a r d o f

r e v ie w .” G ib s o n v . R e s o lu tio n T ru s t C o rp ., 5 1 F .3 d 1 0 1 6 , 1 0 2 0 ( 1 1 th C i r. 19 95 ) ( ci t at i on om i tt ed). In do i ng so, w e app l y the sa m e l egal st andards as th o s e th a t c o n tr o lle d th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. R e a l E s ta te F in . v . R e s o lu tio n T ru s t C o rp ., 950 F . 2d 1540, 1543 ( 11th C i r . 1992) ( pe rc ur i a m ) ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . A c c or di ng t o t ho se st andards, as se tforth i n F eder al R ul e of C i vi l P roce du re 56 (c ), sum m aryOn a pp e a l, H ankins a lso make s a third argument - - n ame ly

that A irTran c an b ehe ld 4 lia bleon a “ mixe d- motive ”the or

y of lia bil ity un der T itl eVII , which a

pp lie s in c a se s wherebo th leg itimate and illeg itimate rea sons motivated a termination dec ision. S ee D eser t Palace I nc. v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90, 93, 123 S. C t. 2148, 2150 (2003); 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) . This argument was not raised in the district court, and ne ither the mag istrate judg e nor thedistrict court were provided a

n opportunity

to addre ss this theory

of liability . “This Court has repeate dly held that an issue not raised in the district court and raised for the first time in an appe al will not be considere d by

this court.” Ac cess Now , Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1331 (1 1th Cir . 2 00 4) (c itatio n a

nd int e rn a l quotatio ns omi tte d) . B e c a us eno neof

thee xcepti on s to 10 j udgm e nti s appr opr i a t e w he n the 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 the m ovi ng pa r ty i s e nt i t l e d t o j udgm e nta s am a tt e rof l a w . “ A ge nui ne i s s ue of m a t e r i a l f

a c t‘ e xi s t s onl y i f

s uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e i s pr e s e nt e d f a vor i ng the nonm ovi ng pa r ty f

ora j ur y t o r e tur n a ve r di c tf ortha tpa r ty . ’ ” F a r l e y v. N a t i onw i de M ut . I ns . C o. , 197 F . 3d 1322, 1336 ( 11th C i r . 1999) ( c i t a t i ons om i tt ed). “ In m aki ng thi s a ss es sm ent , w e r evi ew al l fa ct s a nd i nfer ence s r e a s ona bl y dr a w n f

r om the f a c t s i n the l i ghtm os tf

a vor a bl e t o the nonm ovi ng p a r ty .” I d . ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . I I I . DI S CUS S I ON H a nki ns ’ a r gum e nton appe a l i s tw o- f ol d. F i r s t , s he c ont e nds tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te r r e d i n a gr e e i ng w i th the m a gi s tr a t e j udge ’ s de t e r m i na t i on tha ts he f a i l e d t o e s t a bl i s h a pr i m a f a c i e c a s e of

r e t a l i a t i on. S e c ond, s he c ont e nds tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te r r e d i n a c c e pt i ng the m a gi s tr a t e j udge ’ s c onc l us i on tha tH a nki ns fa i l ed t o d em on stra t e thatA i rT ra n’ s s t at ed re as on for herfi ri ng her w as pret extual a n d th u s u n w o r th y o f

c r e d e n c e . W e a d d r e s s e a c h in tu r n .

4that well-e stablished rule is applica ble in Hankins’ c ase, w e dec line to consider her “mixedmotive” theory

for the f irst time on appeal. Seeid. at 1332-1335.

11 A . W he the rH a nki ns E s t a bl i s he d a P r i m aF a c i e C a s e of R e t a l i a t i on H anki ns fi rs tar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourterre d i n con cl ud i ng thatshe had f a i l e d t o e s t a bl i s h a pr i m a f a c i e c a s e of

r e t a l i a t i on unde rT i t l e V I I . S he c ont e nds th at sh e e stab li sh ed th e th re e e lem en ts o f a re tali atio n claim , an d th at th e c o u rt’s de t e r m i na t i on tha the rpr i m a f a c i e r e t a l i a t i on c a s e f

a i l e d on the ba s i s of

c a us a t i on w as i n err or.

“ R et al i at i on i s ase para t e off ense un der T i t l e V II . ” M ee ks v. C om pu t er A s s o c s ., 1 5 F .3 d 1 0 1 3 , 1 0 2 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) ( c itin g 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 e - 3 ( a ) ) . T i t l e V II’ s an t i -ret al i at i o n p ro v i si o n p ro h i b i t s an em p l o yer fro m ret al i at i n g ag ai n st a n e m pl oy e e “ be c a us e [ s he ] ha s oppos e d a ny pr a c t i c e m a de a n unl a w f ul e m p lo y m e n t p r a c tic e ” b y T itle V I I , in c lu d in g d is c r im in a tio n o n th e b a s is o f r a c e . 42 U . S . C . § 2000e - 3( a ) . T he goa l of thi s pr ovi s i on i s “ pr e ve nt [ ] a n e m pl oy e rf r om i nt er fe ri ng (throu gh re t al i at i on ) w i th an em pl oyee ’ s e ff ort s t o sec ure or a dv ance enforce m entof the A ct ’ s bas i c guarant ee s, ” i ncl ud i ng fr ee do m fr om ra ce d i s c r i mi n a t i o n . Bu r l i n g t o n N . & Sa n t a Fe R. R. Co . v . W h i t e , ___ U . S. ___ , 1 2 6 S. C t . 2405, 2412 ( 2006) . “ A n e m pl oy e e ne e d notpr ove the unde r l y i ng c l a i m of d i s c r i mi n a t i o n f

o rth e r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m t o s u c c e e d . ” Su l l i v a n v . N a t ’ l R. R. P a s s e n g e rC o rp ., 1 7 0 F .3 d 1 0 5 6 , 1 0 5 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ) .12

T o e s ta b lis h a p r im a f

a c ie c a s e f

o rr e ta lia tio n , th e p la in tif f m u s t s h o w th a t: (1 ) sh e en g ag ed i n a st atu t o ri l y p ro t ect ed ex p ressi o n ; (2 ) sh e su ffered an ad v erse em pl oym entac t i on ; and (3) there i s s om e c ausa l l i nk betw ee n the prot ec t ed ex p ressi o n an d th e ad v erse acti o n . S u l l i v an , 1 7 0 F . 3 d at1 0 5 9 . A ft er th ese el em ent s a re show n b y the pl ai nt i ff , the bu rden shi ft s t o the em pl oyert o p roff era l eg i t i m at e, n o n -d i scri m i n at o ry reaso n fo r th e ad v erse em p l o ym en tact i o n . M eek s, 15 F . 3d a t1021. I n the e ve ntthe e m pl oy e rof f e r s a non- di s c r i m i na t or y r e a s on f or th e a d v e r s e a c tio n in q u e s tio n , th e p la in tif f m u s t th e n “d e m o n s tr a te th a t [ s h e ] w ill be abl e t o est abl i sh attri al thatthe em pl oyer ’ s proff er ed no n-di sc ri m i nat ory re as on s a re a pre t extual ruse desi gn ed t o m as k ret al i at i on . ” F ar l ey , 19 7 F . 3d at 1 3 3 6 ( c ita tio n a n d in te r n a l q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) . A ppl y i ng tha tf

r a m e w or k t o the f

a c t s of thi s c a s e , w e f

i nd tha tH a nki ns p r e s e n te d s u f

f ic ie n t e v id e n c e to s u p p o r t th e f ir s t tw o e le m e n ts o f

h e rp r im a f

a c ie r e ta lia tio n c la im . A s to th e f ir s t e le m e n t, H a n k in s e n g a g e d in a p r o te c te d a c tiv ity by st at i ng t o h ersuperi or, A l l i son H ea d, H anki ns’ bel i ef thatD urham w as d is c r im in a tin g a g a in s t h e ro n th e b a s is o f r a c e . A lth o u g h H e a d d is p u te s th is vers i on of event s - - c on t endi ng thatH anki ns never t ol d h erany s uch t hi ng -- H anki ns has t es t i fi ed un equi vo ca l l y thatshe i nform ed H ea d thatD urham di sc ri m i nat ed agai nstw hi t es . W e a l so agre e thatthe se cond el em entof her13

pr i m a f a c i e c a s e i s s a t i s f

i e d, a nd tha tH a nki ns s uf f e r e d a n “ a dve r s e e m pl oy m e nt a c tio n ” f o rp u rp o s e s o f

T itle V I I , in th a t s h e w a s te r m in a te d f r o m h e rp o s itio n w ith A i rT ra n. S ee , e. g. , G up t a v. F l ori da B d. of R egent s, 21 2 F . 3d 57 1, 58 7 (11 th C i r. 20 00 ) ( i dent i fy i ng di sc harge as an advers e e m pl oym entdeci si on for T i t l e V II p u rp o s e s ) . W e a gree , ho w ever , w i th b oth the m agi stra t e j ud ge and t he di stri ctcourtthat H a nki ns f

a i l e d t o s a t i s f

y the thi r d e l e m e nt , tha ti s , e s t a bl i s hi ng the c a us a l l i nk be tw e e n the pr ot e c t e d a c t i vi ty ( H a nki ns ’ c om pl a i ntof D ur ha m ’ s r a c i a l bi a s ) a nd the e ve ntua l de c i s i on t o t e r m i na t e he re m pl oy m e nt . B e c a us e w e f i nd tha tH a nki ns fa i l ed t o est abl i sh the causat i on pron g o f herre t al i at i on cl ai m , w e a gree that su m m ary j u d g m en tw as ap p ro p ri at e o n th i s co u n t . S ee Jo h n so n v . B d . o f R eg en t s, 2 6 3 F .3 d 1 2 3 4 , 1 2 4 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ( s ta tin g th a t “th e p la in la n g u a g e o f R u le 5 6 ( c ) m a n d a te s th e e n try o f s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t . . . a g a in s t a p a r ty w h o f a ils to m ake ashow i ng suff

i ci entt o est abl i sh the exi st ence of an el em entes se nt i al t o that party’ s c as e, and o n w hi ch thatparty w i l l bearthe bu rden of proo f a ttri al ”) (c i t at i on and q uo t at i on s om i tt ed). W e h av e st at ed th ata p l ai n t i ff al l eg i n g a cl ai m fo r ret al i at i o n m ay est ab l i sh th e c a u s a tio n p r o n g o f

th e p r im a f

a c ie c a s e b y “p r o v [ in g ] th a t th e p r o te c te d a c tiv ity a nd the ne ga t i ve e m pl oy m e nta c t i on a r e notc om pl e t e l y unr e l a t e d. ” M e e ks , 1514

F . 3d a t1021 ( c i t a t i on a nd quot a t i on om i tt e d) ; F a r l e y , 197 F . 3d a t1337. C a us a t i on m ay be show n, am on g o ther w ay s, by dem on stra t i ng thatthere i s a“ cl ose t em po ra l pr oxi m i ty ” be tw e e n the e m pl oy e r ’ s a w a r e ne s s of the pr ot e c t e d a c t i vi ty a nd the advers e e m pl oym entac t i on . F ar l ey , 19 7 F . 3d at13 37 . O n app ea l , H anki ns hi ng es he ra r gum e ntc onc e r ni ng c a us a t i on on thi s “ c l os e t e m por a l pr oxi m i ty ” not i on, a r gui ng tha tbe c a us e s he r e por t e d t o H e a d tha tD urha m w a s r a c i a l l y bi a s e d on 9 S ept em ber 200 3, and she w as t erm i nat ed on 29 S ept em ber 200 3 -- a20 -day gap -- the “ cl ose t em po ra l prox i m i ty” betw ee n the tw o event s e xi st s, and, thu s, the causal chai n i s e st abl i shed. S he no t es thati n o ther c as es , w e have been w i l l i ng t o i nfer c a u s a tio n w h e r e th e te m p o r a l p r o x im ity w a s m u c h lo n g e rth a n 2 0 d a y s . S e e , e .g ., id . (fin d in g ca u sa ti o n w h er e th e d ef en d an t-em p lo ye r lea rn ed o f th e e m p lo ye e’s f ilin g a n E E O C c o m p la in t a n d th e n f ir e d th e e m p lo y e e s e v e n w e e k s la te r ) . A s the m agi stra t e j ud ge no t ed, ho w ever , cl ose t em po ra l prox i m i ty betw ee n tw o e ve nt s , s t a ndi ng a l one , i s nota pa na c e a , a bs e nta ny othe re vi de nc e tha tthe e m pl oy m e ntde c i s i on w a s c a us a l l y r e l a t e d t o the pr ot e c t e d a c t i vi ty . I n W ha t l e y v. M e tr o p o lita n A tla n ta R ap id T r a n s it A u th o r ity , f o re x a m p le , o u rp r e d e c e s s o rc ir c u it concl ud ed thateven tho ug h t he pl ai nt i ff engaged i n p rot ec t ed express i on that occurre d i n cl ose t em po ra l prox i m i ty t o the adverse em pl oym entac t i on , there w as no causal conn ec t i on because the evi dence dem on stra t ed thatthe di sm i ss al w as15

ac tual l y c ause d b y “ a c ul m i nat i on of prob l em s grow i ng ou tof appel l ant ’ s m anner of ha ndl i ng hi s j ob, hi s l a c k of c oope r a t i on w i thi n hi s of f i c e , hi s m i s m a na ge m e nt o f h is s ta f f , h is r e f u s a l to c o m p ly w ith th e te r m s o f h is jo b d e s c r ip tio n , a n d h is re fusa l t o fol l ow i nstruct i on s f rom hi s s up ervi sor. ” 632 F . 2d 13 25 , 13 29 (5th C i r. 1980) . S i m i l a r l y , i n F l e m i ng v. B oe i ng C om pa ny , w e he l d tha te ve n though the pl ai nt i ff fi l ed com pl ai nt s of s exual hara ss m entshort l y bef ore the em pl oyerre

j ec t ed h er ap p l i cat i o n fo r em p l o ym en t , th e p l ai n t i ff fai l ed t o est ab l i sh cau sat i o n , b ecau se the re cord m ade c l ea r thatthe em pl oyee had n otbeen hi re d b ec ause she had fa i l ed to m e e t th e e m p lo y e r ’s q u a lif ic a tio n s - - n a m e ly , s h e h a d f a ile d to p a s s a ty p in g te s t, w hi ch w as a pre -r equi si t e t o em pl oym ent . 12 0 F . 3d 24 2, 24 8 (11 th C i r. 19 97 ). H e r e , i ti s undi s put e d ( i nde e d, H a nki ns he r s e l f a c know l e dge s ) , tha ton 14 S ep t em b er -- fi v e d ays af t erH anki ns al l egedl y r eport ed D urham ’ s s uspect ed ra ci al bi as t o H ea d -- H anki ns ye l l ed ata c o-w orker f or cut t i ng her off

i n l i ne and st at ed thatshe w ou l d “ ki ck hi s a ss i f he e ver tri ed t o cuti n frontof [her ] agai n i n l i ne. ” R 2- 34 a t124. T hi s i nt e r ve ni ng a c tof m i s c onduc t , w hi c h w a s pl a i nl y i n vi ol a t i on of R ul es 1 and 14 of A i rtra n A i rw ay s C re w M em ber H andb oo k, se vere d the causal c onne c t i on ( i f

a ny ) be tw e e n H a nki ns ’ i ni t i a l c om pl a i ntof di s c r i m i na t i on a nd A ir T r a n ’s d e c is io n to te r m in a te h e re m p lo y m e n t. T hu s w e a gree w i th b ot h t he m agi stra t e j ud ge and t he di stri ctcourtthatHankins alter natively attempts to establish causation by rely ing on a “cat’s paw”theory 5 of liability . Under

this theory , if the plaintiff shows that a colleague with a racial animus lacked the power to terminate a

n employee, but that the c olleague madea biase d recom mendation to her superior that the employee bedischarg ed and that rec ommendation was followe d, it may be inferred that it was the c olleague’s racial animus was the ca use in fac t of the termination. The superior who car

ries out the adverse employ ment action ac ts merely

as the “ cat’ s paw”for the person with the discriminatory animus. See, e.g ., Stimpson v. City of Tuscaloosa, 186 F.3d 1 3 2 8 , 1 3 3 1 - 3 2 ( 1 1 thC i r . 1 9 9 9 ) (p e r c uri am ) . T o e s t a

b l i s hc a u s at i o nun d e r

s u c ha th e o r y, however, the plaintiff must establish “that the disc riminatory animus behind the re c omm e nd atio n, and

no t th eunderlyinge mpl oye emis c on du c t id e nti fi e d in the[co lle a gue ’s ] rec ommendation, was a

n actual causeof the other party ’s dec ision to t erminatethe employee.” I d. at 1331. That is, in such ca ses “c ausation may be esta blished if the plaintiff shows that the decisonmaker followed thebiased re commendation without independently investigating the complaint ag ainst the employee.”I d. at 1332. Here, the evidencemade c lear that Head made the de cision after an independent a sse ssm e nt o f H ankins ’ c on du c t –which in c lude d a review o f t

hec omp laint

by thevic tim , Kers te tter, a

me e tin gwi th Ke rs te tter to discus s th einc ident, and a review o f H ankins ’ o verall perf or manc ea s a

prob atio na

ry e mpl oye e . D ur

ham st ate d th at sh epla

ye d n o rolein rec ommending H ankins’ ter mination. Even assumingthat Durham prepa red a “report” a

nd that therepo rt wa s b ia se d, be c a

us eHa nkins ha s n ot e sta

bli sh e d “ that th ede c iso nma ker [that is , He a d] f oll ow e d [D ur

ham’ s repo rt ] wit

ho ut ind epend e ntly

inv e sti g atin gthec omp laint a g ains t [Hankins] ,” she c annot establish a c ausal c onnection pursua nt to a “cat’s paw”theory of retaliation. I d. at 1332. 16 causat i on ca nn otbe i nferre d i n H anki ns’ ca se si m pl y f rom the 20 -day t em po ra l p r o x im ity b e tw e e n h e rc la im e d p r o te c te d e x p r e s s io n a n d h e rte r m in a tio n . A s in W ha t l e y a nd F l e m i ng, H a nki ns ’ f a i l ur e t o m e e tthe pe r f

or m a nc e s t a nda r ds s e tby th e e m p lo y e rb r o k e th e c a u s a l c o n n e c tio n ( if a n y ) b e tw e e n th e p r o te c te d a c tiv ity an d h er ev en tu al t erm i n at i o n . D esp i t e a cl o se p ro x i m i ty i n t i m e b etw een th ese e ve nt s , the e vi de nc e e s t abl i s he s tha tH a nki ns ’ f l a gr a nta c tof

m i s c onduc tbr oke the cau sal ch ai n . A cco rd i n g l y, th e d i stri ctco u rtp ro p erl y co n cl u d ed th atH an k i n s’ pri m a f ac i e c as e of r et al i at i on fa i l ed on causat i on grou nd s, and p roperl y gra nt ed su m m ary j u d g m en tfo r A i rT ran o n th atb asi s. 517

B . W h e th e rH a n k in s D e m o n s tr a te d T h a t A ir T r a n ’s R e a s o n w a s P r e te x tu a l M oreover, even i f w e w er e t o ass um e thatH anki ns succ es sf ul l y e st abl i shed th e cau sat i o n p ro n g o f h er ret al i at i o n cl ai m so as t o d em o n strat e a p ri m a faci e case of r e t a l i a t i on, w e f

i nd tha tA i r T r a n pr ovi de d a va l i d, l e gi t i m a t e , a nd nondi s c r i m i na t or y r e a s on f

orH a nki ns t e r m i na t i on - - na m e l y , he rc l e a rvi ol a t i on of the rul es of cond uctby her unu sual l y c on fr on t at i on al exchange w i th a co-w orker, c o u p le d w ith th e e a r lie rin c id e n ts d e ta ile d in h e rf ile . H a v in g s u c c e s s f

u lly

“ r e but [ e d] the pr e s um pt i on of r e t a l i a t i on by pr oduc i ng [ a ] l e gi t i m a t e r e a s on[ ] f or the a dve r s e e m pl oy m e nta c t i on, ” S ul l i va n, 170 F . 3d a t1059 ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) , the bu rden shi ft s t o H anki ns t o “ dem on stra t e that[s he] w i l l be abl e t o est abl i sh attri al th atth e em p l o yer’ s p ro ffered n o n -d i scri m i n at o ry reaso n s are a p ret ex tu al ru se de s i gne d t o m a s k r e t a l i a t i on. ” F a r l e y , 197 F . 3d a t1336. W e c onc l ude , a s the di s tr i c tc our tdi d, tha tH a nki ns ha s f a i l e d t o m e e tthi s thr e s hol d. A f t e rl e gi t i m a t e , non- di s c r i m i na t or y r e a s ons f ora n e m pl oy m e ntde c i s i on h av e b een g i v en , o u r case l aw m ak es cl ear th ata p l ai n t i ff al l eg i n g ret al i at i o n m u st show “ thatthe re as on s proff er ed [by the em pl oyer ] . . . w er e f al se and t hatthe re al re as on w as re t al i at i on . ” S ul l i van, 10 6 F . 3d at10 61 . T hi s m ay be do ne “ ei ther di re ct l y by per suadi ng the courtthata di sc ri m i nat ory r ea son m ore l i kel y m ot i vat ed th e e m p lo y e ro rin d ir e c tly b y s h o w in g th a t th e e m p lo y e r ’s p r o f f e r e d e x p la n a tio n is18

un w orthy of cr edence. ” C art erv. C i ty of M i am i , 87 0 F . 2d 57 8, 58 4 (11 th C i r. 1 9 8 9 ) ( c ita tio n s a n d q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ) . H e r e , H a n k in s h a s f

a ile d to d e m o n s tr a te e ith e rth a t A ir T r a n ’s d e c is io n to t erm i nat e herem pl oym entw as m ore l i kel y than n otm ot i vat ed by a r ac i stm ot i ve, ortha ti t s s t a t e d e xpl a na t i ons f ortha tde c i s i on a r e s om e how “ unw or thy of cr edence. ” S ee i d. W i th res pectt o the form er , the pers on w i th the al l eged rac i al b ia s , D u r h a m , s ta te d th a t s h e h a d n o in v o lv e m e n t in th e d e c is io n to te r m in a te H a n k in s ; H e a d , w h o is a w h ite f e m a le , in d ic a te d th a t s h e m a d e th e d e c is io n to t erm i nat e H anki ns af

t ershe l ea rned of H anki ns’ verbal threa tagai nstK er st ett er and revi ew ed thi s i nci denti n l i gh tof H anki ns’ ov er al l j ob perf orm ance as re fl ec t ed i n h erpers on nel fi l e. H ea d rei t er at ed her vi ew that“ w hen a prob at i on ary e m pl oyee [ s u c h a s H a n k in s ] f

a ils to c o m p ly w ith o u rru le s a n d p o lic ie s , a n d f a ils to d em o n strat e g o o d j u d g m en tan d d i scret i o n i n h er i n t eract i o n s w i th o th ers, [ A i r T r a n] i s noti nc l i ne d t o c ont i nue e m pl oy m e nt . ” S e e R 1- 32, E xh. 5 a t3. P ut s im p ly , H a n k in s h a s f

a ile d to s h o w th a t it w a s m o r e lik e ly th a t H e a d ’s d e c is io n to t erm i n at e h er p ro b at i o n ary t erm o f em p l o ym en tw as actu al l y m o t i v at ed b y a di s c r i m i na t or y m ot i ve . S e e C a r t e r , 870 F . 2d a t584. In addi t i on , H anki ns has f ai l ed t o d em on stra t e thatA i rT ra n’ s proff er ed r e a s o n s f o rh e rte r m in a tio n w e r e p r e te x tu a l o rs o m e h o w u n w o r th y o f c r e d e n c e .19

H a n k in s ’ a r g u m e n t th a t th e in c id e n t w ith K e r s te tte rw a s m e r e ly a jo k e is una va i l i ng, be c a us e w e ha ve s t a t e d tha tthe pr e t e xti nqui r y i s c onc e r ne d w i th the em p l o yer’ s pe r c e

pt i on o f th e e m p l o y e e ’ s p e r f

o r m a n c e , n o tth e e m p l o y e e ’ s o wn be l i e f s . S e e , e . g. , C oope rv. S outhe r n C o. , 390 F . 3d 695, 740 ( 11th C i r . 2004) (“ T h e rel ev an ti ssu e h ere i s n o tw h eth er [th e em p l o yee] actu al l y fal si fi ed th e en try, b u trath er w h eth er [th e em p l o yer] h o n est l y bel i ev ed [ the e m pl oy e e ] f

a l s i f i e d the entry . ”) . H er e, w e a re sa t i sf i ed thatA i rT ra n h on es t l y bel i eved i t s e m pl oyee , K e r s t e tt e r , w he n he s t a t e d tha the f ound H a nki ns ’ c onduc tt o be thr e a t e ni ng a nd of f e ns i ve , i r r e s pe c t i ve of

w he the rH a nki ns s ubj e c t i ve l y i nt e nde d he rbe ha vi ort o be a j ok e. N or ar e w e per suaded thatA i rT ra n’ s proff er ed expl anat i on s w er e pre t extual b a s e d o n H a n k in s ’ c o n te n tio n th a t o th e rA ir T r a n e m p lo y e e s w h o e n g a g e d in s i m i l a ra c t s of

m i s c onduc tw e r e nott e r m i na t e d. H a nki ns a r gue s tha ta n A f r i c a nA m er i ca n col l ea gu e of her s, C al vi n N ar ed, engaged i n a “ fi gh t ” w i th a co-w orker and w as no tfi re d, w here as she w as fi re d for usi ng hars h l angu age t o h ercol l ea gu e, K e r s t e tt e r . N a r e d, how e ve r , i s nota va l i d c om pa r a t ort o H a nki ns ’ c a s e . W e ha ve m a de c l e a rtha t , w he n a pl a i nt i f f s e e ks t o poi ntouta w or kpl a c e c om pa r a t orw ho w a s tr e a t e d l e s s s e ve r e l y tha n the pl a i nt i f f , the “ qua nt i ty a nd the qua l i ty of the co m p ar ato r’s m isco n d u ct [m u st b e] n e a r ly ide n tic a l t o pr e ve ntc our t s f r om s e c ond-20

gu es si ng em pl oyer s’ re as on abl e dec i si on s a nd confusi ng appl es w i th o ra ng es . ” M ani cc i a v. B row n, 17 1 F . 3d 13 64 , 13 68 (11t h C i r. 19 99 ) ( em ph as i s a dd ed). H er e, H a nki ns ’ di s c ha r ge c a m e notonl y a f t e rthe a l t e r c a t i on i nc i de ntw i th K e r s t e tt e r , but a ls o a f te rtw o o th e rin c id e n ts o f m is c o n d u c t o v e ra s h o r t p e r io d o f f o u rm o n th s . T hese addi t i on al i nci dent s - - herstrapp i ng a s ui t ca se i nt o a pass enger s ea ti nst ea d of the ov erhead bi n, and h erfa i l ure t o p roperl y c heck sa fe ty e qu i pm ent-- w er e b o th d e ta ile d in h e rf

ile a n d w e r e c o n s id e r e d b y H e a d in m a k in g th e u ltim a te de c i s i on t o t e r m i na t e he r . I n l i ghtof tha te vi de nc e , the a l l e ge d m i s c onduc tof N a r e d ( a s in g le f

ig h t w ith a c o - w o r k e r , th e f a c ts o f w h ic h a r e n o t k n o w n ) is di st i ng ui shabl e f

rom her m i sc on du ct , bo th i n t erm s of qual i ty a nd qu ant i ty. S ee , e. g. , i d. at13 69 (f

i nd i ng thatpl ai nt i ff

has f ai l ed t o sho w a s i m i l ar l y s i tuat ed e m p lo y e e w h e r e e a c h o f th e p u ta tiv e c o m p a r a to r s “w a s in v o lv e d in a s in g le i nci dentof m i sc on du ct , w here as [the pl ai nt i ff ] com m i tt ed atl ea stfour po l i cy v io la tio n s ” ) . I n s um m a r y , A i r T r a n ha s pr of f e r e d l e gi t i m a t e , non- di s c r i m i na t or y r e a s ons for H anki ns’ t erm i nat i on , by po i nt i ng ou tthatshe c om m i tt ed errors of profes si on al j udgm e ntdur i ng he rpr oba t i ona r y pe r i od of e m pl oy m e nta nd vi ol a t e d the rul e s of e m pl oy e e c onduc tby ve rba l l y a bus i ng he rc o- w or ke r , K e r s t e tt e r . B e c a us e w e f i nd thatthe proffer ed re as on s f or the t erm i nat i on ar e tho se that“ m i gh tm ot i vat e a21

r e a s ona bl e e m pl oy e r , ” the bur de n i s on H a nki ns t o m e e tthos e r e a s ons he a d on a nd r e butthe m . S e e C hapm a n v. A I T r a ns por t , 299 F . 3d 1012, 1030 ( 11th C i r . 2000) (e n b anc) . T hi s H anki ns has f ai l ed t o d o. H anki ns has f ai l ed t o p oi ntou t“ such w e a k n e s s e s , im p la u s ib ilitie s , in c o n s is te n c ie s , in c o h e r e n c ie s , o rc o n tr a d ic tio n s in [A i rT ra n] ’ s proff

er ed l egi t i m at e r ea sons for i t s a ct i on thata r ea sonabl e f ac t fi nd er c oul d f i nd the m unw or thy of

c r e de nc e . ” C om bs v. P l a nt a t i on P a tt e r ns , 106 F . 3d 15 19 , 15 38 (11t h C i r. 19 97 ) ( ci t at i on and q uo t at i on om i tt ed). T hu s, sum m ary j udgm e ntw a s appr opr i a t e on he rr e t a l i a t i on c l a i m . S e e C oope r , 390 F . 3d a t725 ( “ I f the pl a i nt i f

f doe s notpr of

f e rs uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e t o c r e a t e a ge nui ne i s s ue of m at er i al fa ctre gardi ng w hether e ac h o f the defendant -e m pl oyer ’ s a rt i cul at ed r e a s ons i s pr e t e xtua l , the e m pl oy e ri s e nt i t l e d t o s um m a r y j udgm e nton the pl a i nt i f f’ s c l a i m s . ” ) ( c i t a t i on a nd quot a t i ons om i tt e d) . W e di s c e r n no e r r ori n the ju d g m e n t o f

th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. I V . CONCL US I ON H a n k in s ap p e a le d th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e c is io n to g r a n t s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t in f a v o ro f A ir T r a n o n h e rc la im o f im p r o p e rr e ta lia tio n in v io la tio n o f T itle V I I . U po n car ef

ul re vi ew of the re cord and t he part i es ’ bri ef s, w e a gree w i th the di stri ct c our ttha tH a nki ns f

a i l e d t o e s t a bl i s h the c a us a t i on e l e m e ntof a pr i m a f

a c i e c a s e of r e t a l i a t i on, a nd, i n a ddi t i on, tha ts he f a i l e d t o s how tha tA i r T r a n’ s l e gi t i m a t e , non-22

di s c r i m i na t or y r e a s ons f orhe rt e r m i na t i on w e r e i n a ny w a y pr e t e xtua l orunw or thy o f c r e d e n c e . C o n s e q u e n tly , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t a c te d p r o p e r ly in gr a nt i ng s um m a r y j udgm e ntf orA i r T r a n on H a nki ns ’ r e t a l i a t i on c l a i m . T he j u d g m en to f th e d i stri ctco u rti s A FFI R M ED .