### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JUN E 10, 20 05 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T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- 1527 0

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 2- 23 20 7- CV-SH SERGIO POSADA, P la int if f- Appe llant, ve rs us JAM ES CELLO, INC., JAM ES PANICELLO, D ef en dants -Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt f or the So uth er n D istri ct of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (June 10, 200 5) Be fo re A N D E RS O N , BI RC H a nd B A RKE T T , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Se rg io P osa daappe al s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r gr an tin g su m m ar y j udgm en t in f av or of Jam es Ce llo , I nc . ( “ Ce llo ”) a nd J am es P an ic el lo ( “ Panic el lo” ) in h isThe orig inal time car ds had bee n misplaced by Cello until subsequent to the 1 summa ry jud g me nt h e ari ng , a

nd the y we re no t c on sid e re d b y

the dis tr ic t c ourt . T he or ig ina l ti me car ds are not present with the r ecor d on appea l. 2 lawsuit alleging vio lations o f the Fa ir L abor Standards A ct (“ FL SA ”), 29 U. S. C. § 201 , e t seq., and retaliatory discharge pursuant to Florid a Statute ( “ FS”) § 44 0. 205. P osa daa lle ge s onappe al that the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in gr an tin g su m m ary jud gm en t as to each of h is cla im s. Inthe dis tr ic t c ourt, Ce llo pr es en te d c opi es of the f ro nts of ti m e card s purportin g to sho w that P osada worked for the com pany from June 200 1 unti l May 2002 . Jam es Panicello testified consistentlywith the tim e car ds and stated th at Po sa dane ve r w orke d ov er tim e fo r Ce llo . H e te sti fi ed that i n M ay

200 2 th e com pany learned that Posada had provided a false social sec urity car d, and that Posada left Ce llo and di d not return to work after being confronted with the issu e. Panic el lo w as unaw ar e that P osa daw as inj ur ed on the j ob. Posada and his sup ervisor, E lias Tobchi, e ach testified that Posada w orked overtim e hours for w hich he either w as not com pensated or was not com

pensated at an overtim e rate. They also both testified that Posada’ s overtim e hours wer e re co rd ed on the ba ck s of

the ti m e card s, a nd tha t P osa daw orke d a t C el lo unti l 1 Aug us t o r Sep te m

be r of 20 02 , bu t was pa id“ un de r th e tabl e” af te r May 20 02 . They testified that Posada injure d his hand on the job in Septem ber 2002, and that3

he inf orm ed Ce llo of the inj ur y a nd a ske d f

or m ed ic al tr eatm en t. F ina lly , P osa da an d T obc hi t es tif

ie d th at Ce llo te rm inate d P osa da ’ s e m plo ym en t se ve ra l w ee ks a f t e r th e i n ju ry. I. F ai r L ab or S tandard s A ct

Cl ai m Posada argues that the district court err ed by finding th at he produced ins uf fi ci en t e vid en ce to supp ort hi s c la im f or ove rt im e co m

pe nsa tio n. H e ci te s th e fo llo w ing a s e vid en ce suf fi ci en t t o surv ive am oti on f or sum m ar y j udgm en t onthi s claim : (1) the copies of the tim e car ds didnot reflect the overtim e hours that Po sa daa nd T obc hi t es tif

ie d w er e re co rd ed

on the ba ck ; and ( 2) P osa daa nd T obc hi te sti fi ed that P osa daw orke d ov er tim e hour s f

or w hic h he w as som et im es pa id c as h ata rat e o f st rai gh t p ay , and forwhi ch he was s om et im es no t p ai d. W e re vie w“ de nov o adis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t, appl y ing the sam e le ga l st an dard s a s th e dis tr ic t c ourt. ” Ch ap m anv. A I T ransp. , 229 F . 3d 1012 , 102 3 ( 11th C ir . 200 0) ( enbanc ). Ac ourt sh al l gr an t sum m ar y j udgm en t w he n th e ev ide nc e be fo re it sho w s “ that the re is no g enuin e iss ue a s to a ny m at er ia l f ac t and tha t the m ovi ng p ar ty is en tit le d to aj udgm en t a s am atte r of law . ” F ed . R. Ci v. P. 56( c) . R ule 56 m an da te s th e en tr

y of sum m ar y j udgm en t, upon m otion , a gainst a party who fa ils to m ake a showing sufficient to establish an el em en t es se nt ia l t o h is cas e o n wh ic h h e b ears th e b ur de n o f pr oo f attri al .4

Ce lot ex Co rp . v. Catr ett, 477 U . S. 317 , 322 , 106 S . Ct . 254 8, 255 2, 91 L . E d. 2d 2 65 (1 986) . “ Inm ak ing thi s de te rm inatio n, the c ourt m ust vie wa ll ev ide nc e an d m ak e all rea sonable inferences in favor of the par ty oppo sing s umm ary

j udgm ent.” H av es v. Ci ty

of Mi am i, 52 F . 3d 9 18, 921 ( 11th C ir . 199 5) . I n e va luatin g a m oti on f or sum m ar y j udgm en t, the j udge ’ s r ole is not to w ei gh the e vid en ce or to as se ss cred ib il it y , bu t t o d et erm in e whe th er t he re i s a g en ui ne is su e fo r tr ia l. A nde rs on v . L ibe rty

L obby , I nc . , 477 U . S. 242 , 251 , 106 S. Ct . 250 5, 251 1, 91 L . E d. 2d 2 02 ( 1986 ). “ Su ff ic ie nt” e vid en ce is that w hic h is m or e than “ m er el y co lor ab le ” an d is “ sig nif

ic an tly pr oba tiv e. ” L ibe rty

L obby , 477 U . S. a t 25 0- 51, 106 S.Ct. at 2511. T he FSL A r equires that em ploy ers com

pensate covered em ploy ees for hours worked in excess of forty per w eek at one and one half tim es th ei r reg ul ar p ay

rat e. 29 U.S.C. § 2 07 (a)( 1) . Ingr an tin g th e m oti on f

or sum m ar y j udgm en t, the dis tr ic t c ourt r el ie d up on A nde rs on v . Mt . Cl em en s P ott er y Co . , 328 U . S. 680 , 687 , 66 S . Ct . 118 7, 119 2, 90 L. Ed. 1515 (1946). I n that case, the Suprem e Court held that the em ploy ee bear s the initial bu rden to show the am ount of hours worked, which is m ost easily m et by secu rin g t he pro du ct io n o f th e em pl oyer’s reco rd s. Mt . Cle m en s Po tt ery Co ., 328 U . S. a t 68 7- 88. I f the e m plo y er ha s no t ke pt a de qua te ti m e re co rd s, the em ploy ee m ust either offer

convincin g subs titutes or oth erw ise prove that he has5

in f ac t pe rf orm ed w ork f or w hic h he w as im

pr ope rl y c om pe nsa te d, suc h a s by pr oduc ing suf

fi ci en t e vid en ce of

the a m ount

a nd e xte nt o f that w ork a s am atte r of jus t an d re as on ab le in fere nc e. Id . Inthe c ont ex t of

sum m ar y j udgm en t, the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f ind ing that the re co rd s w er e ac curate , a s am atte r of law , is co ntr ad ic te d by

the r ec or d. P osa da an d T obc hi’ s te sti m ony

c onst itu te d e vid en ce suf fi ci en t t o r ai se af

ac tua l i ssu e as to w he the r Po sa daa ct

ua lly w orke d ov er

tim e hour s f

or w hic h he w as not

pr ope rl y co m pe nsa te d. T he r equir em en t of Ru le 56 t o pr oduc e ev ide nc e suf fi ci en t t o c re at e a ge nui ne iss ue of

m at er ia l f

ac t w as the re fo re m et . A cc or din gly , w e va cate a nd rem an d a s t o t he FLSA cla im . II . F lor ida

Re ta liatio n C la im Po sa daa rg ue s onappe al that the te m por al pr oxi m ity

be tw ee n hi s r eque st f

or w orke r’ s c om

pe nsa tio n be ne fi ts and the a lle ge d te rm inatio n of his e m plo ym en t established a prim a fa cie ca se. He argues that the district court im properly applied FS § 44 0. 205, and tha t T obc hi’ s and h is t es tim ony a de qua te ly

sup porte d hi s c la im to ov erco m e a g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t. Florida Statute § 440.205 prov ides that: “No em ploy er shall discharge, threaten to discharge, intim idate, or coerce any em ploy ee by rea son of such em ploy ee' s valid claim

for com pensation or attem

pt to claim

com pensation under6

the W orke rs ' Co m

pe nsa tio n L aw . ” F . S. A . § 44 0. 25. T he e xpr es s te rm s of the statut e pr ovi de that c la im ing or a tte m pti ng t o c la im

w orke r’ s c om

pe nsa tio n benefits constitu tes a protected ac tivity . F. S. A. § 440 .25; see Clover v. Total Sy st em Serv ic es , Inc ., 17 6 F .3d13 46 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). In an reta liatory

discharge context, a plaintiff m ay use a showing of “ close” te m por al pr oxi m ity

be tw ee n th e pr ote ct ed

e xpr es sio n and the a dve rs e em plo ym en t action to establis h causation. H igdo n v. Jackson, 393 F.3d 1211, 1220 (11th Cir. 2004 )( re vie w ing te m

por al pr oxi m ity

in the c ont ex t of

ar et al ia tio n c la im

br ough t pu rs ua nt to th e Am eri can s wi th Dis ab il it ie s Actof 1 99 0, § 50 3( a), 4 2 U.S.C.A. § 1220 3( a) ). W e ha ve he ld tha t a pe ri od o f as m

uc h a s on e m onth be tw ee n th e pr ote ct ed e xpr es sio n and the a dve rs e ac tio n is not too pr otr ac te d to e sta

bli sh a pr im a fa ci e cl ai m

of r et al ia tio n. H igd on, 393 F . 3d. a t 12 20. Posada presented testim ony that, while em

ploy ed by Cello, he requested w orke r’ s c om

pe nsa tio n be ne fi ts f

or a n on -the -j ob i nj ur

y that oc curr ed

on o r ab out Septem ber 16, 2002. H e also presented testim ony that his em

ploym ent was t er m i n at ed i n l at e S ep t emb ero r e ar l y Oc t o b er2 0 0 2 af t erh e r eq u es t ed wo rk er ’s co m pe nsa tio n be ne fi ts. T his te sti m ony w as aba sis upo n w hic h aj ur y m igh t f ind that C el lo w as a w ar e of

his inj ur y , a nd tha t i t di sc harg ed

him ba se d, in w hol e or

in part , upo n hi s r eque st f

or w orke r’ s c om

pe nsa tio n be ne fi ts. T he r ec or d r ef le ct sCe llo ’s re qu e st f or sanc tio ns is d e nie d. Pos a da ’s re qu e st f or or a l argume nt i s 2 denied. 7 other contradictory

fac ts: that Cello later denied em ploy ing Posada after Ma

y 2002 ; that it paid hi m

cash upon n otification of his in j ury but oth erw ise declined to p ro vid e him

w iththe nam e of

it s w orke r’ s c om

pe nsa tio n ph y sic ian; and tha t on e of it s e m plo y ee s ( T obc hi) sug ge ste d th at P osa dam isr ep re se nt the na tur e of his inj ur y to m ed ic al auth or iti es , ost en sib ly f or r ea sons r el at ed

to Po sa da ’ s in ac curate social security

num ber. Upon re vie wof

the r ec or d, w e fi nd d isp ute a s to the c ir cu m stanc es of Posada’ s term ination such that summ ary j udgm ent on thi s claim

wa s ina ppr opr ia te . A cc or din gly , w e va cate a nd r em an d th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of s u mmary j u d g me n ta s t o th e r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m. VA CA TED AN D REMA ND ED . 2