[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________

No. 13-14897

_________________________

D.C. Docket No. 2:11-cv-00464-WHA-WC

KESIA J. PERRY,

VALENCIA AARON,

STACY D. TAYLOR,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

JEFF ROGERS,

Chief, in his individual capacity,

STAN GOOLSBY,

in his individual capacity,

KENNETH DAVIS,

Lt., in his individual capacity,

JEAN TURNER,

in her individual capacity,

ALABAMA ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL BOARD, 

Defendants-Appellees.

Case: 13-14897 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 1 of 45 
2

__________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Alabama

__________________________

(September 29, 2015)

Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, JORDAN and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Kesia Perry, Valencia Aaron, and Stacy Taylor brought various claims 

against their employer, the Alabama Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (“ABC 

Board”), including claims of race discrimination, race-based hostile work 

environment, and retaliation. After conducting a review of the record, the district 

court determined that the ABC Board was entitled to summary judgment on all 

claims advanced by Appellants. Perry, Aaron, and Taylor now appeal the district 

court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the ABC Board on their hostile 

work environment claims. Perry also appeals the district court’s grant of summary 

judgment in favor of the ABC Board on her retaliation claim. Appellants have 

abandoned all other claims previously advanced. 

Although Perry, Taylor, and Aaron presented instances during which 

supervisors allegedly made offensive racial remarks, we find that they have not 

presented a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the alleged harassment was 

objectively severe or pervasive enough to establish a racially hostile work 

environment. And, because no genuine issue of material fact exists, we affirm the 

Case: 13-14897 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 2 of 45 
3

district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the ABC Board on these 

claims. But we conclude that Perry presented sufficient evidence to preclude the 

entry of summary judgment with respect to her retaliation claim. We therefore 

vacate the summary judgment against her on this claim. 

I.

A. General Background 

The ABC Board is an agency of the State of Alabama that controls the sale 

of alcoholic beverages through distribution, licensing, and law enforcement. It 

operates retail stores that sell liquor, and it also licenses businesses that sell 

alcoholic beverages. The ABC Board employs more than 120 sworn lawenforcement officers and administrative personnel. As an agency of the State of 

Alabama, the ABC Board is subject to the rules and regulations of the State 

Personnel Department (“SPD”). Both the SPD and the ABC Board have 

established policies that prohibit discrimination against any employee based upon 

race. 

The Administrator, who is the final decision maker for all hiring, firing, 

disciplinary, and promotional decisions for ABC Board employees, runs the ABC 

Board. During the period relevant to the facts of this case, Emory Folmar, a 

Caucasian male, was the Administrator of the ABC Board. 

Case: 13-14897 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 3 of 45 
4

The ABC Board’s Law Enforcement Division’s command center for 

statewide operations is located in Montgomery, Alabama. The Law Enforcement 

Division also maintains eleven enforcement district offices across the State of 

Alabama. In addition, at times, the Law Enforcement Division operated a Drug 

Unit. A “Chief” heads the Law Enforcement Division of the ABC Board, and a 

“Captain” reports to the Chief. During the period relevant to this case, Charles 

Jeffrey Rogers, a Caucasian male, served as a Chief, and John Richardson, an 

African-American male, was a Captain. 

B. Kesia Perry

In August 2007, Perry began her employment with the ABC Board as an 

Administrative Support Assistant II (“ASA II”) and remained in this position until 

January 2012. As an ASA II, Perry was responsible for filing and retrieving 

documents, as well as answering the telephone. Perry, who is African-American, 

asserts that she was subjected to racially charged remarks by her co-workers, 

supervisors, and administrators. Perry also points to incidents of alleged disparate 

treatment, which she argues contributed to a racially hostile work environment. 

With respect to her retaliation claim, Perry contends that she was retaliated against 

for opposing discrimination, filing an internal complaint with the SPD, and filing 

an EEOC charge.

Case: 13-14897 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 4 of 45 
5

In July 2009 one of Perry’s supervisors, Mark Hatfield, addressed 

performance problems with Perry, including criticism that Perry took too many 

personal phone calls at work. During the counseling session, Perry became upset 

and complained that coworkers “had a racist attitude” towards her and other 

African-American employees, though Perry did not specify any particular events or 

indicate the individuals whom she believed to be racist. Work appraisals of Perry 

during that year indicate that Perry received high performance scores. 

In early 2010, Perry’s first-line supervisor, Diane Sullivan, retired, and Perry 

expressed interest in being cross-trained for Sullivan’s position. The ABC Board, 

however, filled the vacancy with Chief Rogers’s sister-in-law, Summer Childers, a 

Caucasian female. Upon hiring Childers, the ABC Board requested that the SPD 

match Childers’s salary from her previous job with a bank. In late April 2010, 

Perry and another employee, Linda Flores (Caucasian), accessed their coworkers’ 

salaries online and discovered that Childers’s pay was higher than Perry’s. As a 

result, Perry complained to Rogers, Hatfield, and Personnel Director Stan Goolsby

about the pay discrepancy. Goolsby explained to Perry that the difference in pay 

was based on the ABC Board’s salary-matching policy. Hatfield later counseled 

Perry for reviewing her coworkers’ salaries online. Hatfield also issued a written 

warning (the first step of the progressive discipline policy) to Flores for her 

participation in the event.

Case: 13-14897 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 5 of 45 
6

A few weeks later, in late June 2010, Rogers informed Perry that the ABC 

Board had decided to transfer her from its Central Office to District 10. The 

transfer was Hatfield’s idea, and he explained that he believed that the transfer 

would provide Perry with different work responsibilities, which would offer her a 

better opportunity for promotion. Perry objected initially but later indicated that 

she would accept the transfer and do her best. Although Rogers stated that Perry’s 

transfer was not punitive, a later email indicates that the reason for Perry’s transfer 

was due to a “disgruntled/disciplinary issue.” 

Sometime in 2010, Perry began dating another African-American ABC 

Board employee, Andy Lard. The ABC Board conducted an internal-affairs 

investigation of Lard, which resulted in his arrest and indictment for taking seized 

money from evidence. As part of the investigation, an ABC Board supervisor 

questioned Perry about her relationship with Lard—a process that Perry referred to 

as an “interrogation.” During the ABC Board’s investigation of Lard, Rogers sent 

an email to the entire Enforcement Division instructing employees not to speak to 

Lard. Perry was also asked to sign a document stating that she would not remove 

any documents from the ABC Board’s offices. Perry became overwhelmed with 

stress due to the incident and took FMLA leave beginning on August 9, 2010. 

On the same day that she went out on FMLA leave, Perry filed a Charge of 

Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”),

Case: 13-14897 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 6 of 45 
7

complaining of race discrimination by the ABC Board. In support of her charge, 

Perry cited Childers’s higher pay, Perry’s transfer to District 10, and Perry’s 

perceived harassment with respect to Lard. Approximately one week later, on 

August 18, 2010, Perry filed a complaint with SPD alleging that the ABC Board 

had discriminated against her based on her race when it transferred her to District 

10.

When Perry returned from FMLA leave in November 2010, the ABC Board 

transferred her from District 10 back to the Personnel Division in ABC’s Central 

Office. The ABC Board transferred Perry because her doctor indicated that she 

could not return to work in District 10 due to stress. 

In the Central Office, Goolsby became Perry’s direct supervisor. Soon after 

Perry returned to work, newly appointed ABC Administrator Mac Gipson met with 

Perry and encouraged her to drop her EEOC charge. According to Perry, Gipson 

told her that it would be best if she did not pursue the lawsuit because it was like 

suing family members and friends. Gipson told Perry that she “just needed to think 

twice about it.” 

On June 14, 2011, Perry filed the underlying lawsuit alleging race 

discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation. Perry named Goolsby as 

an individual plaintiff in the action. About one month after Perry filed suit,

Goolsby assigned another ABC Board employee, Andy Knight, to supervise Perry, 

Case: 13-14897 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 7 of 45 
8

even though Knight had not supervised anyone for several years. Perry was 

Knight’s sole subordinate at the time. Goolsby instructed Knight to keep a close 

watch over Perry and to use progressive discipline, if necessary.1

 Knight later 

admitted that Goolsby told him that he expected that Perry, because of her 

personality, “would either hang herself or she would become so upset that she 

would quit.” In fact, Goolsby told Knight on a number of occasions, “maybe she’ll 

quit.” 

While under Knight’s supervision, Perry was responsible for working the 

switchboard and ensuring that it was properly staffed during breaks. According to 

Knight, however, problems between Perry and other switchboard operators led to 

instances where the switchboard was left unattended. Knight therefore counseled 

Perry about punctuality, cooperation with coworkers, and compliance with the 

ABC Board’s rules. In response, Perry complained that her coworker, Linda 

Caldwell, was difficult to work with and did not cover the switchboard when she 

was supposed to. Since Knight was not Caldwell’s supervisor, he spoke with 

Caldwell’s supervisor about the issues that Perry brought up. 

During the course of her supervision under Goolsby and Knight, Perry 

received two disciplinary actions—a written reprimand for tardiness and 

insubordination and a suspension for violating leave policies and procedures. The 

 

1 According to Goolsby, he assigned Knight to supervise Perry to provide a “buffer” 

between himself and Perry. 

Case: 13-14897 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 8 of 45 
9

ABC Board alleged that Perry failed to comply with policies, leaving for a period 

of several days from December 29, 2011, through January 5, 2012. According to 

Perry, however, she called Goolsby, explaining that she would not be able to get to 

work on time because she needed to assist her father, who had recently had a heart 

attack, in transferring to a new medical facility. Based on Knight’s 

recommendation, Perry received a three-day suspension (from January 13, 2012, 

through January 17, 2012). 

Before Perry left for her suspension, Knight asked Perry to create a staffing 

schedule for the switchboard for the days that she would be out. Perry forgot to 

draft the schedule. When Perry returned to work on January 18, 2012, Knight 

confronted Perry and chided her that she had acted insubordinately. After her 

encounter with Knight, Perry returned to her work station, but by mid-morning, she 

left the building. When Perry did not return to work after a few days, Goolsby sent 

her a letter indicating that her actions constituted job abandonment and voluntary 

resignation. The ABC Board terminated Perry on January 24, 2012. 

Knight stated that after Perry was fired, Goolsby walked by and said, “Man, 

you set her up,” and motioned with a thumbs up. Rogers also congratulated Knight 

and told him that he “had done what they had not been able to do.” 

Case: 13-14897 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 9 of 45 
10

C. Stacy Taylor

In March 2007, Taylor began his employment with the ABC Board as an 

Agent in the Law Enforcement Division.2

 Taylor held this position until he 

resigned on January 29, 2010. Like Perry, Taylor is African-American and asserts

that he was subjected to a racially hostile work environment. Taylor also points to 

alleged incidents of disparate treatment, which he contends contributed to a 

racially hostile work environment. 

Taylor’s first appointment with the ABC Board was to the District 3 office 

located in Birmingham, Alabama. At that time, Taylor was the only AfricanAmerican in the office. Taylor believed that he was excluded from work and 

social activities by other Caucasian agents. After Taylor discussed the situation 

with the other agents, however, they began to include him.

In September 2007, Taylor requested a transfer to District 13, the Drug Unit 

of the ABC Board in Montgomery. Rogers denied the request, stating that the 

ABC Board was not accepting transfers to the Drug Unit at the time. A few weeks 

later, Taylor sent a request to be transferred to District 10, also in Montgomery. 

Taylor’s request explained that he was involved in divorce proceedings and needed 

to be closer to his children. Taylor followed up with his transfer request in 

 

2 Agents have several duties, including (1) investigating illegal activities, such as alcohol 

and tobacco violations; (2) completing forms such as incident/offense reports and applications 

for search and arrest warrants; and (3) completing ABC license applications. Agents are also 

required to complete security details at the ABC Board’s warehouse, located in Montgomery. 

Case: 13-14897 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 10 of 45 
11

October and again in December. In early January 2008, Taylor received a transfer 

to District 10. A few months later, Taylor renewed his request to transfer into the 

Drug Unit, but the request was denied.

In December 2008, Lieutenant Dennis Hill assigned Taylor to work at the 

ABC Board’s warehouse for a week as discipline for Taylor’s low statistics at 

work.3

 The job is perceived to be undesirable because it is hot and dirty in the 

warehouse. Taylor complained that the warehouse assignment was due to his race,

and Hill forwarded the complaint to the ABC Board’s Central Office. While 

working at the warehouse, Taylor was not permitted to use a golf cart to ride 

around the warehouse, even though he observed Caucasian agents using the golf 

cart on numerous occasions.

On October 23, 2009, Lieutenant Jean Turner replaced Hill as Taylor’s 

supervisor in District 10.4

 Approximately one month later, an inspection of the 

cars in District 10 revealed that Taylor’s new Dodge Charger had a dent on the 

passenger side door. Taylor had not reported the dent in the state-owned vehicle. 

Turner issued Taylor a written warning for failing to maintain his car. On the same 

 

3 The ABC Board required its enforcement agents to complete security details at the 

warehouse during which the agent ensured that the warehouse workers did not steal any 

inventory. 

4 Turner had a reputation as being the person who would terminate employees that Chief 

Rogers wanted gone. 

Case: 13-14897 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 11 of 45 
12

date, and as a result of the same inspection, Turner disciplined Gary Humphrey, a 

male Caucasian agent, for the condition of his vehicle.

A few months later, Turner met with Taylor and told him that he was not 

performing his job correctly and that he would be transferred to Dothan, effective 

February 1, 2010. Turner reviewed Taylor’s cases with him, which revealed 

unfavorable statistics indicating that Taylor had not been completing cases. Turner 

explained to Taylor that a transfer to a smaller division might help Taylor with his 

productivity. Taylor objected to the transfer. The day after Taylor met with 

Turner, he completed an EEOC intake questionnaire alleging race discrimination. 

Two days later, the EEOC sent Goolsby a notice that Taylor had filed the

grievance. 

On January 25, 2010, Taylor submitted a letter of resignation but completed 

the work week. The letter explained the reason that he was resigning as financial 

hardship relating to his pending transfer to Dothan. After his employment ended, 

on February 18, 2010, Taylor filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. 

D. Valencia Aaron

In January 2006, Aaron began her employment with the ABC Board as an 

Agent in the Law Enforcement Division. Aaron worked at the ABC Board for 

approximately five-and-one-half years before she filed the underlying lawsuit. 

Like Perry and Taylor, Aaron is African-American and asserts that she was 

Case: 13-14897 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 12 of 45 
13

subjected to a racially hostile work environment. In addition, Aaron points to 

incidents of disparate treatment, which she claims also contributed to a racially 

hostile work environment.

The ABC Board hired Aaron as an Agent in District 3, where her 

employment began with a six-month probationary period. Aaron attended a 

training academy that the Division conducted for new agents. On April 7, 2006, 

Aaron received an evaluation in which Michael Jones, who then commanded 

District 3, recommended that Aaron’s probationary status be extended because she 

lacked the necessary certification for handling a firearm as an enforcement officer. 

According to the ABC Board, it also extended the probationary period of several 

Caucasian Agents in similar situations. On October 20, 2006, Aaron completed 

her probationary period and became a permanent agent for the ABC Board. 

A month after becoming a permanent agent, Aaron requested a transfer from 

Jefferson County to the Drug Unit in Montgomery, so she could be closer to her 

husband and child. The ABC Board approved the request in March 2007, with 

Aaron’s transfer to the Drug Unit becoming effective on April 1, 2007. During her 

tenure at the Drug Unit, Aaron performed undercover work. At some point, Aaron 

asked her supervisors if she could serve as a trainer. In response, one of the 

supervisors, James Collins, an African-American male, told Aaron that no 

application process existed for the training task force and explained that trainers 

Case: 13-14897 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 13 of 45 
14

were simply selected. The other supervisor, Captain Vance Patton, a Caucasian 

male, did not respond to Aaron’s inquiry. 

In June 2008, while still working in the Drug Unit, Aaron became pregnant 

and was unable to perform her undercover duties. Aaron was initially assigned to 

light-duty work, and her supervisor kept a close watch over her productivity. On 

October 1, 2008, the ABC Board reassigned Aaron from the Drug Unit to District 

10, also in the same building in Montgomery. The ABC Board explained to Aaron 

that it was transferring her because her undercover position was paid for by a 

federal grant which required her to do undercover work. Since Aaron could not 

perform undercover work during her pregnancy, Aaron’s salary was no longer 

covered by the grant. Because the ABC Board filled her position in the Drug Unit 

during her pregnancy, Aaron did not return to her position after her maternity leave 

ended. 

In October 2009, Lieutenant Jean Turner became Aaron’s supervisor in 

District 10 after Dennis Hill was removed from the position. Upon her arrival in 

District 10, Turner told Aaron that she was not there to “get” Aaron. During the 

same timeframe, Agent Richard Holston, who had also been transferred to District 

10, told Aaron that Rogers and another supervisor had instructed him to keep 

watch over Aaron. 

Case: 13-14897 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 14 of 45 
15

On August 9, 2010, while on FMLA leave for knee surgery, Aaron went 

with Perry to an EEOC office to fill out an intake questionnaire and a charge of 

discrimination. The paperwork indicated that Aaron believed that she had been 

denied a promotion based on her race and sex. The following day, Aaron filed a 

grievance with the SPD alleging race discrimination. After filing her charge and 

while still on FMLA leave, Aaron noticed what she perceived to be several 

instances of ABC surveillance in her neighborhood. She also claimed that she saw 

an ABC Board agent following her while she was shopping. 

During Aaron’s FMLA leave, her supervisor, Lieutenant Davis, completed a 

performance review of Aaron. Although the appraisal contained lower scores than 

prior evaluations, Davis stated that Aaron was on the high end of “meets 

standards.” 

Upon her return from FMLA leave for knee surgery, Aaron was twice 

assigned to work a detail at a store in Auburn, Alabama, during a football game. 

Aaron was unhappy with the assignment for multiple reasons, including the fact 

that the detail required Aaron to put strain on her knee. Aaron also claimed that 

she had previously completed a similar assignment before her FMLA leave and 

contended that another agent, who was Caucasian, had not been assigned to the 

detail. 

Case: 13-14897 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 15 of 45 
16

During the same timeframe, Aaron noticed that Lieutenant Davis began 

returning her paperwork with multiple corrections and “red marks.” Davis also 

scrutinized the paperwork of another African-American agent, Stephen McKitt. In 

contrast, according to Aaron, Davis did not correct or return paperwork to two 

Caucasian agents, Jeremy Peterson and Craig Shook, despite multiple errors on 

their papers. Davis also instituted new policies that Aaron believed were directed 

towards her. For instance, one of the policies included a requirement that all 

personnel complete their breakfast by 8:00 a.m. A few days prior to the rule 

change, Davis saw Aaron and McKitt having breakfast together in the break room. 

Davis told Aaron and McKitt that they would no longer be able to have breakfast 

together.

On January 7, 2011, Aaron attended a meeting during which Davis asked 

everyone to express their opinions on how District 10 was being run. Aaron 

opined that Davis’s actions were retaliatory. The following day, Davis sent an 

email to Rogers indicating that he believed that Aaron was disruptive and that her 

conduct in the office made other employees uncomfortable. Aaron was 

subsequently written up for her actions. Aaron submitted a rebuttal to the 

counseling in which she characterized the counseling as further retaliation against 

her. 

Case: 13-14897 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 16 of 45 
17

A few days later, Davis authored an e-mail to all District 10 enforcement 

personnel announcing a new physical training policy. Previously, agents were 

allowed to use time at the beginning or end of their shifts to work out. According 

to Aaron, she and McKitt were the only agents who used the morning and 

afternoon time slots for working out. Following the policy change, they could not. 

On June 14, 2011, Perry filed her initial Complaint in the underlying matter 

and, on June 20, 2011, she amended her Complaint to add Aaron as a plaintiff. 

Aaron was still employed by the ABC Board when she filed her complaint. 

II.

We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment drawing 

all inferences and reviewing all evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Hamilton v. Southland Christian Sch., Inc., 680 F.3d 1316, 1318 

(11th Cir. 2012); Crawford v. Carroll, 529 F.3d 961, 964 (11th Cir. 2008). A 

district court should grant summary judgment only if the movant establishes the 

absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Id. 

III.

A. Perry’s Retaliation Claim

Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision states, in relevant part, that it is 

unlawful for an employer to retaliate against an employee “because [s]he has 

Case: 13-14897 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 17 of 45 
18

opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter, or 

because [s]he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner 

in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this subchapter.” 42 U.S.C. § 

2000e-3; Gowski v. Peake, 682 F.3d 1299, 1311 (11th Cir. 2012) (per curiam). To 

establish a claim for retaliation under Title VII, an employee must prove that (1) 

she engaged in statutorily protected activity; (2) she suffered a materially adverse 

action; and (3) some causal relation exists between the two events. Goldsmith v. 

Bagby Elevator Co., 513 F.3d 1261, 1277 (11th Cir. 2008) (citing Burlington N. & 

Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 126 S. Ct. 2405 (2006)). 

If a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of retaliation, the burden shifts to 

the defendant to proffer a legitimate non-retaliatory reason for the materially 

adverse action. Crawford, 529 F.3d at 976. If the defendant proffers a legitimate 

non-retaliatory reason for its actions, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to 

demonstrate that the proffered reason is merely pretext and that the real reason was 

retaliatory. Id; see also Pennington v. City of Huntsville, 261 F.3d 1262, 1266 

(11th Cir. 2001) (setting forth the burden-shifting framework for a retaliation case). 

The plaintiff cannot establish pretext by merely pointing to facts that demonstrate 

retaliatory animus. Rather, she must respond specifically to each of the 

defendant’s explanations and rebut them. Crawford v. City of Fairburn, Ga., 482 

F.3d 1305, 1308 (11th Cir. 2007). 

Case: 13-14897 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 18 of 45 
19

To establish a claim of Title VII retaliation claim, a plaintiff must also 

demonstrate that the desire to retaliate was the “but-for” cause of the challenged 

employment action. Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, __ U.S. __, 133 S. Ct. 

2517, 2528 (June 24, 2013). “This requires proof that the unlawful retaliation 

would not have occurred in the absence of the alleged wrongful action or actions of 

the employer.” Id. at 2533. 

Here, the ABC Board conceded that Perry engaged in protected activity on 

May 3, 2010, when she complained to Goolsby about pay disparity; on August 9, 

2010, when she filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC; on August 18, 

2010, when she filed a complaint of discrimination with the SPD; and on June 14, 

2011, when she filed the underlying complaint in this case. In analyzing Perry’s 

retaliation claims, the district court assumed, without holding, that Perry exhausted

her administrative remedies. But the district court determined that the instances of 

retaliation either did not constitute materially adverse actions or were not causally 

related to Perry’s protected activity. The district court further found that, even if 

the alleged acts of discrimination were sufficient to make out a prima facie case of 

retaliation, Perry did not establish that the retaliation would not have occurred “but 

for” her involvement with protected activity. We disagree with the district court 

on both counts.

Case: 13-14897 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 19 of 45 
20

An action is materially adverse if it “might have dissuaded a reasonable 

worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.” Burlington, 548 

U.S. at 68, S. Ct. at 2415 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

A plaintiff can establish causation by demonstrating that the protected 

activity and the materially adverse action were not “completely unrelated.” 

Higdon v. Jackson, 393 F.3d 1211, 1220 (11th Cir. 2004). Close temporal 

proximity between the protected activity and the materially adverse action can 

satisfy the causation element, “[b]ut mere temporal proximity, without more, must 

be very close.” Thomas v. Cooper Lighting, Inc., 506 F.3d 1361, 1364 (11th Cir. 

2007) (per curiam) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, when a 

plaintiff relies on temporal proximity alone, a substantial delay between the 

protected expression and the materially adverse action will result in the failure of 

the retaliation claim. Id. We have previously found that a “three to four month 

gap is insufficiently proximate to establish causation.” Id. 

Perry asserts that the ABC Board retaliated against her in violation of Title 

VII because she opposed discrimination, filed an internal complaint with the SPD, 

and filed an EEOC Charge. The specific acts of alleged retaliation to which Perry 

points are her transfer to District 10, alleged subtle reprisals against her, written 

reprimands, and a three-day suspension after she was transferred to District 10. 

While most of the acts do not constitute retaliation, we conclude that Knight’s 

Case: 13-14897 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 20 of 45 
21

close supervision of her was an act of retaliation. We review each alleged adverse 

action in turn.

First, Perry has not shown that her transfer to District 10 was a materially 

adverse action. A transfer to a new position can be deemed to be adverse if it 

involves a reduction in pay, prestige, or responsibility. Hinson v. Clinch Cty., Ga. 

Bd. of Educ., 231 F.3d 821, 829 (11th Cir. 2000). Here, however, Perry was 

transferred to a position with similar job duties, and no evidence suggests that 

Perry suffered a reduction in pay. Accordingly, Perry has not shown that she 

suffered any tangible harm as a result of her transfer to District 10. 

We recognize that a transfer that results in a diminished opportunity for 

increases in salary constitutes a materially adverse action. See Bass v. Bd. of Cty. 

Comm’rs of Orange, Cty., Fla., 256 F.3d 1095, 1118-19 (11th Cir. 2001), 

overruled in part on other grounds by Crawford v. Carroll, 529 F.3d 961 (11th Cir. 

2008). But here, Perry’s supervisors testified that Perry was placed in a better 

position to be promoted after her transfer to District 10. Indeed, Hatfield, stated 

that the transfer to District 10 would provide Perry with a greater opportunity to 

become an ASA III. The record also shows that the transfer placed Perry closer to 

home and her children’s school. Perry simply has not produced any evidence 

suggesting that the transfer affected her in a materially adverse way. 

Case: 13-14897 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 21 of 45 
22

Second, although it is not clear precisely upon which disciplinary acts Perry 

relies as evidence of retaliation, it appears that she points to the fact that she 

received counseling after complaining about Childers’s pay. This counseling 

cannot support a claim for retaliation, however, because it does not constitute a

materially adverse action. Aside from the fact that Perry was unhappy about 

receiving the counseling, she has not demonstrated that it negatively impacted her 

in a material way. As a result, the counseling was not the type of action that might 

have “dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of 

discrimination.” See Burlington, 548 U.S. at 68, 126 S. Ct. at 2415. The record

further demonstrates that the counseling did not constitute formal discipline under 

the ABC Board’s policies. In contrast, the other individual involved in reviewing 

Childers’s pay online, Linda Flores, who is Caucasian, received a written warning, 

which serves as the first step in the ABC’s Board’s progressive discipline policy. 

Perry also appears to point to the fact that she received a written reprimand 

by Goolsby for tardiness and insubordination in April 2011 as evidence of 

retaliation. Again, Perry has failed to set forth any evidence showing how this 

written reprimand negatively affected her in a material way. See Davis v. Town of 

Lake Park, Fla., 245 F.3d 1232, 1240 (11th Cir. 2001) (although a written 

reprimand could constitute a materially adverse action, it must be accompanied by 

some tangible harm). Even assuming that the reprimand was a materially adverse 

Case: 13-14897 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 22 of 45 
23

action, no causal connection exists between it and any protected activity. Perry 

engaged in protected activity in May 2010, August 2010, and June 2011. The 

reprimand, however, did not occur until April 2011, at least seven months after the 

last protected activity. This timeframe is too remote to support an inference of 

causation. See Thomas, 506 F.3d at 1364 (“A three to four month disparity 

between the statutorily protected expression and the adverse employment action is 

not enough”). 

Third, Perry points to her suspension in January 2012 as evidence of 

retaliation. Because the issue was not raised before the district court,5 we do not 

address the suspension on appeal.6

 But, even if Perry had raised the issue of her 

suspension previously, no causal connection exists between the suspension and any 

protected activity. Perry filed her lawsuit in June 2011, and her suspension 

occurred in January 2012. Thus, Perry’s suspension occurred approximately seven 

months after Perry’s last protected activity. In view of this timespan, Perry cannot 

establish causation based upon temporal proximity. See id. Nor does she point to 

any other evidence to establish causation. 

 

5 The district court noted that Perry did not “appear to argue that her three-day suspension 

was an act of retaliation.” 

6 We generally do not consider on appeal issues which the party failed to raise before the 

district court. See Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines, Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1331 (11th Cir. 

2004). 

Case: 13-14897 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 23 of 45 
24

Finally, Perry contends that her placement under Knight’s supervision and 

his subsequent close monitoring and disciplinary decisions constituted an act of 

retaliation for filing her lawsuit. Perry filed her lawsuit on June 14, 2011, and 

Goolsby assigned Knight as her supervisor the following month—in July 2011—

even though Knight had not supervised anyone for several years. Perry was 

Knight’s sole subordinate at the time, and Goolsby instructed Knight to keep a 

close watch over Perry and to use progressive discipline, if necessary. Knight 

admits that Goolsby told him that as a result of this close supervision and because 

of her personality, Perry “would either hang herself or she would become so upset 

that she would quit.” 

During his tenure as Perry’s supervisor, Knight counseled Perry about 

punctuality, cooperation with coworkers, and compliance with the ABC Board’s 

rules. Perry also received two disciplinary actions—a written reprimand for 

tardiness and insubordination and a suspension for violating leave policies and 

procedures. Both of these acts constitute materially adverse actions. And, because 

Goolsby placed Perry under Knight’s supervision the month after she filed her 

lawsuit, a reasonable jury could find that the causation element is met. See 

Higdon, 393 F.3d at 1220. While we recognize that the ABC Board claims that it 

decided to have Knight supervise Perry to place a “buffer” between Goolsby—a 

person who was named as an individual defendant in the case—and Perry, it is also 

Case: 13-14897 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 24 of 45 
25

plausible that the ABC Board did so to have Knight further scrutinize Perry’s 

actions. 

Further, although a jury might find that the ABC Board had legitimate 

reasons for disciplining Perry, it might also find that Perry adequately rebutted 

these reasons by offering the testimony of Knight. Significantly, Knight stated that 

after Perry walked off the job, Goolsby approached him exclaiming, “Man, you set 

her up,” while making a thumbs-up gesture. Rogers also congratulated Knight and 

told him that he “had done what they had not been able to do.” 

 Taking the facts in the light most favorable to Perry, we find that a genuine 

issue of material fact exists as to whether the ABC retaliated against Perry after she 

filed her lawsuit. Based on the close temporal proximity between the filing of 

Perry’s complaint and the subsequent disciplinary activity, a reasonable jury could 

conclude that Perry would not have been closely watched and then disciplined by 

Knight in the absence of her protected activity. Accordingly, we reverse and 

remand with respect to Perry’s retaliation claim. 

B. Appellants’ Claims of a Racially Hostile Work Environment

To succeed on a claim of hostile work environment, a plaintiff must show 

that “the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and 

insult, that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's 

employment and create an abusive working environment.” Adams v. Austal, 

Case: 13-14897 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 25 of 45 
26

U.S.A., L.L.C., 754 F.3d 1240, 1248 (11th Cir. 2014) (quoting Harris v. Forklift 

Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21, 114 S. Ct. 367, 370 (1993)); Miller v. Kenworth of 

Dothan, Inc., 277 F.3d 1269, 1275 (11th Cir. 2002). An employee wishing to 

establish a race-based hostile work environment claim must prove that (1) she 

belongs to a protected group; (2) she has been subjected to unwelcome harassment; 

(3) the harassment was based on her race; (4) the harassment was sufficiently 

severe or pervasive to alter the terms or conditions of employment and create a 

discriminatorily abusive working environment; and (5) the employer is responsible 

for such environment under either a theory of vicarious or direct liability. Adams, 

754 F.3d at 1248-49 (citation omitted); Jones v. UPS Ground Freight, 683 F.3d 

1283 (11th Cir. 2012). 

Here, the district court determined that Appellants failed to meet the fourth 

element of their prima facie cases because they presented no evidence that the 

conduct complained of was severe or pervasive enough to constitute a hostile work 

environment.7

 The inquiry regarding the fourth element—whether the harassment 

was sufficiently severe or pervasive—contains both a subjective and objective 

component. Reeves v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 594 F.3d 798, 809 (11th 

Cir. 2010) (en banc). “The employee must subjectively perceive the harassment as 

 

7 Because it resolved the motion for summary judgment on the fourth element, the district 

court did not address whether the fifth element was met, even though the ABC Board raised it in 

support of its motion for summary judgment.

Case: 13-14897 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 26 of 45 
27

sufficiently severe and pervasive to alter the terms or conditions of employment, . . 

. [and] the objective severity of the harassment should be judged from the 

perspective of a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position, considering all the 

circumstances.” Adams, 754 F.3d at 1249 (citations omitted) (internal quotation

marks omitted). To be actionable, the behavior must result in both “an 

environment ‘that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive’ and an 

environment that the victim ‘subjectively perceive[s] . . . to be abusive.” Miller, 

277 F.3d at 1276 (quoting Harris, 510 U.S. at 21-22). 

With regard to the objective severity of the alleged harassment, the inquiry is 

fact intensive, with the court considering four factors: (1) the frequency of the 

conduct; (2) the severity of the conduct; (3) whether the conduct is physically 

threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and (4) whether the 

conduct unreasonably interferes with the employee's job performance. Adams, 754 

F.3d at 1250-51 (citing Mendoza v. Borden, Inc., 195 F.3d 1238, 1245 (11th Cir. 

1999) (en banc)); McCann v. Tillman, 526 F.3d 1370, 1378 (11th Cir. 2008). “The 

objective severity of harassment should be judged from the perspective of a 

reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position, considering ‘all the circumstances.’” 

Reeves, 594 F.3d at 809 (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

A plaintiff can prove a hostile work environment by showing severe or 

pervasive discrimination “directed against her protected group, even if she herself 

Case: 13-14897 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 27 of 45 
28

is not individually singled out in the offensive conduct.” Id. at 807. Accordingly, 

a plaintiff may have a viable hostile work environment claim even if racial slurs 

were not directed at her. Edwards v. Wallace Cmty. Coll., 49 F.3d 1517, 1522 

(11th Cir. 1995). But a plaintiff must have knowledge of the remarks in order for 

her claim to have merit. Adams, 754 F.3d at 1250. As we have explained, “The 

totality of a plaintiff’s workplace circumstances does not include other employees’ 

experiences of which the plaintiff is unaware. Courts conduct the objective 

assessment from the perspective of a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position, 

knowing what the plaintiff knew.” Id. (citation omitted); see also Edwards, 49 

F.3d at 1522 (noting that some of the incidents relied upon by the plaintiff were not 

made known to her until after her termination and, thus, they could not have 

contributed to her subjective view of a hostile work environment). 

In this case, viewing the facts in a light most favorable to Appellants, 

though, we cannot say that reasonable jurors could conclude that Perry, Taylor, or 

Aaron suffered severe or pervasive harassment sufficient to alter the terms and 

conditions of their employment. Consequently, we find that the district court did 

not err when it granted summary judgment in favor of the ABC Board with respect 

to their hostile-work-environment claims. 

Case: 13-14897 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 28 of 45 
29

(1) Perry

Perry bases her hostile work environment claim on what she perceived to be 

a “racial attitude” at the ABC Board. In support of her claim, Perry cited to two

specific instances, of which she has personal knowledge, during her four-and-onehalf years employed with the ABC Board. 

First, Perry stated that she saw a Confederate flag on the personal vehicle of 

an ABC Board employee. But Perry presented no evidence as to when or how 

frequently she saw the flag. 

Second, Perry recounted a conversation involving a reference to the Ku Klux 

Klan. Specifically, during a conversation that she had with ABC Board employees 

Bob Martin8 and Stan Goolsby, Perry voiced her opinion that Goolsby, the 

Personnel Director, allowed employees to refer to African-American employees as 

“niggers” and “nigger bitches.” Perry admitted that she had not heard such 

comments, however. During the conversation, Martin allegedly responded, “I am 

not going to say that people here don’t go to the dry cleaners and get their white 

robes out of the cleaners [but . . .] [t]hose are bad people, but you know, what can 

we do?” Martin then told Perry that if she heard anyone using the “n” word or 

other racial slurs, she should let him know. This remark alludes to the Ku Klux 

Klan and suggests the existence of an unacceptably casual attitude by the ABC 

 

8 Martin was the attorney for the ABC Board. 

Case: 13-14897 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 29 of 45 
30

Board to its employees’ racial intolerance (“what can we do?”). But, ironically, 

the overall gist of the remark appears to have been intended to reassure Perry that 

the ABC Board would take action against employees who engaged in racially 

intolerant behavior in the workplace. And, in any case, it was an isolated incident, 

and Perry has pointed to no evidence of similar conversations.

Significantly, during her deposition, Perry admitted that she never personally 

heard any ABC Board employee use the “n-word” or any other racial slurs or 

epithets. Rather, she stated that she was aware of rumors that Folmar and Rogers 

used racial slurs when referring to African-American employees. Perry also 

conceded that she never saw any racist symbols or graffiti at her workplace. Nor 

did Perry ever encounter any racially insensitive jokes while employed by the ABC 

Board. 

In the absence of personal knowledge of race-based conduct, Perry seeks to 

rely on the testimony of other ABC Board employees who spoke of instances 

where Rogers allegedly used racially derogatory language. But we cannot consider 

evidence of the alleged racial harassment of other employees of which Perry was 

not aware in determining the viability of Perry’s hostile work environment claim. 

See Adams, 754 F.3d at 1250 (district court should not consider evidence of other 

employees’ experiences of racial harassment of which the plaintiff is not aware); 

see also Edwards, 49 F.3d at 1522. Apart from potential hearsay problems with 

Case: 13-14897 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 30 of 45 
31

respect to some of the alleged racially charged statements, insufficient information 

exists as to when the statements were made, how Perry acquired knowledge of 

them, and when Perry learned of them. Perry refers only vaguely to statements 

allegedly overheard by co-workers. And other evidence in the record suggests that 

Perry acquired the information through only discovery in this matter, not through 

her work environment. Id. Of course, Perry’s workplace experience does not 

include other employees’ experiences of which Perry was unaware. See Adams, 

754 F.3d at 1250. Moreover, contrary to her position on appeal, during her 

deposition, Perry testified that she did not encounter any events during her 

employment at the ABC Board that created a racially hostile work environment.

In addition to the two instances of racially charged conduct of which she was 

aware, Perry identifies what she considers to be discrete acts of disparate treatment 

to support her claim that she was exposed to a racially hostile work environment. 

Cf. Reeves, 594 F.3d at 807 (disparate treatment can take the form of a hostile 

work environment).9

 Because Perry has not demonstrated that any of these 

instances were racially motivated, however, she cannot rely on them in support of 

her hostile-work-environment claim. See Jones, 683 F.3d at 1297 (only conduct 

that is based on a protected category, such as race, may be considered in a hostilework-environment analysis). We address each discrete act in turn.

 

9 We assume without deciding that discrete acts of disparate treatment can be used in 

analyzing a hostile work environment claim. 

Case: 13-14897 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 31 of 45 
32

First, Perry has not come forth with any evidence to suggest that her transfer 

to District 10 was racially motivated, except for her own perception that race 

played a role in the transfer. The record reveals that it was not uncommon for the 

ABC Board to transfer agents. For instance, Caucasian agents Ted Yost, Cindy 

Yost, and Darrell Wallace were all transferred as part of a corrective plan. 

Next, with respect to Perry’s claim that she received excessive discipline 

after her transfer to District 10, the record does not support a finding that the 

discipline was due to Perry’s race. While Perry points to the fact that she was 

counseled after reviewing Childers’s salary online, the Caucasian employee 

involved in the incident, Linda Flores, received more severe discipline—a written 

warning (the first step of the ABC Board’s progressive discipline policy). 

Similarly, although Perry was told that she could no longer take breaks with Flores 

after the incident, this repercussion affected both Perry and Flores equally. 

Regarding Perry’s complaint that she was “watched” at work after her 

transfer to District 10, Perry did not come forward with any evidence that would 

support a finding that this action was taken as a result of racial animus. Indeed, we 

rejected a similar claim made by Perry’s co-worker, Steve McKitt last year. See 

McKitt v. Alabama Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, 571 F. App’x 867 (11th 

Cir. 2014). 

Case: 13-14897 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 32 of 45 
33

Finally, with respect to Perry’s assertion that a “white employee [got] her 

[job duties[,]” she refers to the fact that Childers was selected by the ABC Board 

when Sullivan retired. Even if Perry could demonstrate any disparate treatment 

with respect to the decision, this single event, even when viewed in conjunction 

with the two racially motivated events experienced by Perry, would not be enough 

to prevent the entry of summary judgment in favor of the ABC Board on Perry’s 

hostile-work-environment claim. 

In the roughly four-and-one-half years that Perry was employed with the 

ABC Board before filing her complaint of discrimination, she experienced two 

instances of racial hostility. While unacceptable, this conduct was not frequent 

enough to be considered pervasive. Additionally, the conduct was not physically 

threatening to Perry and did not unreasonably interfere with her job performance.10 

Under these circumstances, an objective person in Perry’s position would 

not perceive the totality of the circumstances as producing a racially hostile work 

environment. Because Perry has not shown that a genuine issue of material fact 

exists with respect to her hostile-work-environment claim, we affirm the district 

court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the ABC Board. See Adams, 754 

F.3d at 1255-56. 

 

10 Perry admitted during her deposition that her knowledge of other ABC Board 

employees’ alleged use of racial slurs did not interfere with her ability to do her job.

Case: 13-14897 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 33 of 45 
34

(2) Taylor

As with Perry, in addition to discrete acts of alleged racial discrimination, 

Taylor points to the use of racial slurs in the workplace to support his hostile-work 

environment-claim. The record reflects, however, that the statements upon which 

Taylor seeks to rely were made outside of his presence, and Taylor did not acquire 

knowledge of the alleged slurs until after his employment with the ABC Board 

ended. 

During his deposition, Taylor stated that he had never seen any racially 

charged symbols or graffiti while employed at the ABC Board. Taylor also 

admitted that he had never heard another employee use a racial slur or make a 

racially insensitive joke while at the ABC Board. Nor did Taylor observe any 

racial symbols or graffiti at the ABC Board. Similarly, Taylor did not witnesses 

any Confederate flags displayed in the workplace. Taylor points out only that he 

heard a rumor that Folmar used racial slurs.

Although Taylor attempts to rely on the same use of racial slurs that Perry 

tried to invoke, Taylor admits that his knowledge of these events came after he 

resigned from the ABC Board. Indeed, Taylor conceded that his knowledge of the 

alleged use of racial slurs by Folmar and Rogers came from Aaron and Perry, who 

had apparently heard rumors in this regard.

Case: 13-14897 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 34 of 45 
35

Because Taylor was not aware of the use of racial slurs while he was 

employed by the ABC Board, they could not have contributed to any subjective 

belief that he was exposed to a hostile work environment. Although a plaintiff 

may have a claim for hostile work environment even if racial slurs were not 

directed towards him, he cannot support his claim with events that were unknown 

to him during his employment. Adams, 754 F.3d at 1250 (district court should not 

consider evidence of other employees’ experiences of racial harassment of which 

the plaintiff is not aware); Edwards, 49 F.3d at 1522 (noting that some of the 

incidents relied upon by the plaintiff were not made known to her until after her 

termination and, thus, they could not have contributed to her subjective view of a 

hostile work environment). 

Because Taylor cannot point to any racial slurs of which he was aware 

during his employment with the ABC Board, we do not consider the other discrete 

acts upon which Taylor relies for his hostile-work-environment claim. Discrete 

acts alone cannot form the basis of a hostile-work-environment claim. See Gowski, 

682 F.3d at 1312-13.

(3) Aaron 

Although Aaron comes closer to defeating summary judgment with respect 

to her hostile-work-environment claim, we nonetheless must conclude that she also 

did not set forth sufficient facts to create a genuine issue of material fact as to this 

Case: 13-14897 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 35 of 45 
36

claim. In contrast to Perry and Taylor, Aaron demonstrated that she had 

knowledge of the repeated use of racial slurs by her superiors. Aaron also based

her claim on various discrete acts that she asserts contributed to a racially hostile 

work environment. Although Aaron is unable to demonstrate how most of these 

discrete acts were racially motivated, we find that a reasonable jury could 

determine that two of the discrete acts to which Aaron points evidence racial 

animus. Ultimately, however, we conclude that the totality of Aaron’s experiences

is insufficient to support a hostile-work-environment claim. We consider both the 

discrete acts upon which Aaron relies and Aaron’s knowledge of the use racial 

slurs in the workplace.11 

First, with respect to the extension of her probationary period, Aaron has not 

provided any evidence, except her own subjective belief, that this action was 

racially motivated. The record demonstrates that Caucasian agents also had their 

probationary periods extended while employed by the ABC Board. For instance, 

Lieutenant Turner, a Caucasian female, testified that her probationary period was 

extended by the ABC Board. Turner also pointed to other Caucasian agents whose 

probationary periods were extended, including Rogers’s son, who had his 

probationary period extended due to his attendance at the same training academy 

 

11 Again, we assume without deciding that discrete acts of disparate treatment may be 

used in analyzing a hostile work environment claim. 

Case: 13-14897 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 36 of 45 
37

that Aaron went to. Under these circumstances, Aaron has not shown that the 

extension of her probationary period demonstrates any discriminatory intent.

Next, the circumstances surrounding Aaron’s transfer from the Drug Unit to 

District 10 do not support an inference of racial animus. During her tenure with 

the Drug Unit, Aaron became pregnant and was no longer able to perform her 

undercover duties. After being placed on light duty, Aaron was transferred to 

District 10 because her position in the Drug Unit was paid by a grant that required 

her to perform undercover work. Aaron admitted that she was not able to perform 

undercover work due to her pregnancy. Although Aaron was transferred to District 

10, she was not forced to relocate because District 10 is in the same building as the 

Drug Unit. Aside from her suggestion that the transfer was racially motivated, 

Aaron has come forward with no evidence that the decision was made due to 

racially discriminatory motives. In addition, in her affidavit filed in opposition to 

summary judgment, Aaron indicated that she believed that the transfer was “sex 

discrimination,” not race discrimination.

Aaron also suggests that the ABC Board’s failure to select her as a trainer is 

evidence of disparate treatment based on her race. Aaron asked a sergeant and a 

captain at the ABC Board if she could serve as a trainer for other agents. During 

the conversation, Aaron informed them that she was a crew leader in the military. 

In response to her inquiry, Captain Patton (African-American) explained that no 

Case: 13-14897 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 37 of 45 
38

formal procedure existed that allowed agents to apply to be trainers. According to 

Patton, trainers were merely chosen. Although this conversation may suggest that 

discrimination could play a role in selection of trainers, Aaron did not point to any 

specific instance in which alleged discrimination took place. Based on these 

circumstances, Aaron cannot establish that the failure to be selected as a trainer 

was based on her race. 

With respect to her 2009-2010 performance appraisal, Aaron asserts that she 

received lower scores from her then-supervisor, Lieutenant Davis, while she was 

out on FMLA leave. Although Aaron believed that she was deserving of higher 

scores, her performance appraisal score of 25 was on the high end of “meets 

standards.” Davis scored Aaron only 1.7 points below “exceeds standards.” 

Presumably, if Davis desired to discriminate against Aaron based on her race, he 

could have rated her work performance as “does not meet standards” or “partially 

meets standards,” options that were both available on the performance appraisal 

form. Aaron’s belief that she was entitled to a higher score, without more, does 

not evidence any racial animus. 

Aaron also suggests that the implementation of new workplace rules in 

District 10 by Davis evidences race discrimination. Aaron points to a change in 

the policies relating to when agents were permitted to take breakfast and work out. 

We reject Aaron’s suggestion that the implementation of these policies was 

Case: 13-14897 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 38 of 45 
39

somehow discriminatory, as the policies applied equally to all District 10 agents, 

regardless of race. 

On the other hand, and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to 

her, we conclude that Aaron has pointed to two discrete acts that reasonable jurors 

could find suggest racial animus on the part of the ABC Board. First, Aaron’s 

selection to work store security detail assignments during a college-football game 

day when she returned from FMLA leave for knee surgery, may support an 

inference of discrimination. Aaron had already volunteered for similar details 

before she went out on FMLA leave but was required to work weekends to make 

up for the work that she had missed while out on leave. Another Caucasian agent, 

Brian Hand, had not worked a football-game detail the entire season. Based on 

this evidence, a jury could find that the decision to assign Aaron to this security 

assignment was evidence of disparate treatment based on race. 

Second, the increased scrutiny of Aaron’s work performance by her 

supervisor may evidence the ABC Board’s discriminatory intent. During her 

employment, Aaron noticed that Davis began returning her paperwork with 

multiple red marks and that he also closely scrutinized another African-American 

agent’s reports. Aaron identified two Caucasian agents, Jeremy Peterson and Craig 

Shook, to whom Davis did not return paperwork with similar red marks, despite 

serious errors on their documents. Davis’s treatment of Aaron and co-worker 

Case: 13-14897 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 39 of 45 
40

McKitt, in contrast to the Caucasian agents, may support an inference of 

discriminatory intent. 

Ultimately, we find that Aaron has set forth two discrete acts that could 

support her allegation of disparate treatment based on race. In addition to these 

discrete acts, Aaron claims that she experienced and knew of the use of racial slurs 

and other offensive and racially insensitive conduct. Despite Aaron’s claims of 

harassment, she admits that she never saw any racist symbols or graffiti while 

employed by the ABC Board. Aaron also testified that, unlike Perry, she never 

saw any Confederate flags at work. Similarly, Aaron admitted that she never heard 

any employee make a racially insensitive joke, and she could not recall hearing any 

references to the KKK. Finally, Aaron conceded that she never heard any 

employees use the “n-word.” 

Nevertheless, Aaron was allegedly aware of the use of racially charged 

language. But, before turning to the racially charged language upon which Aaron 

relies to support her claim, we pause to note that we make no finding as to whether 

the remarks presented by her were actually uttered. Instead, we merely assume, as 

we must, that the facts as presented by Aaron on appeal are true. 

First, Aaron testified that she directly heard Administrator Folmar refer to a 

warehouse employee, J.C. Caldwell, as “monkey.” More specifically, Aaron stated 

that she heard Folmar say, “He’s over there working like a little monkey.” Other 

Case: 13-14897 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 40 of 45 
41

than this serious instance of unacceptable behavior by no less than the 

Administrator of the entire department, Aaron could not recall hearing any other 

racially offensive language directly. 

Aaron did state, though, that she knew of co-workers who heard racially 

insensitive language in the workplace. Some of these employees shared their 

experiences with Aaron during her employment, furthering her opinion that the 

ABC Board permitted supervisors to openly display their racist attitudes. For 

instance, after Aaron filed her charge of discrimination, Lieutenant Hill told Aaron 

that Rogers had referred to her in a derogatory manner and had exclaimed that 

“niggers were always wanting something for nothing.” The fact that Rogers made 

such a declaration is substantiated by other employees and by the fact that Rogers 

later sent e-mails stating that “some people want something for nothing.” We 

regard this remark as serious and extremely offensive, and it is even more so since 

it was allegedly uttered by the Chief. 

Additionally, Sergeant Richard Holston informed Aaron that, during the 

investigation of a man who allegedly stole alcohol from the ABC warehouse, 

Folmar told him that he “wanted the nigger hung from a light pole.” This is 

another incredibly offensive and unacceptable remark allegedly made by the man 

charged with leading the ABC Board. Aaron was also aware of an incident relayed 

to her by co-worker Steve McKitt in which Rogers allegedly used the word 

Case: 13-14897 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 41 of 45 
42

“nigger” when quoting a line from the movie Full Metal Jacket. The quotation 

from the movie was, “There is no racial bigotry here. I do not look down on 

niggers, kikes, wops or greasers. Here you are all equally worthless.” Like Perry 

and Taylor, Aaron also states that she was aware that Rogers and Folmar were 

rumored to use racial slurs. 

Aside from these incidents—none of which are acceptable if true, Aaron

also points to additional comments relayed to her by co-workers. But it is not 

possible to infer from the record that Aaron knew about these comments prior to 

filing suit.

Finally, Aaron seeks to rely on the instances of racism experienced by Perry. 

In support of her own hostile-work-environment claim, Aaron points to the fact 

that Perry testified that she heard a reference to the Ku Klux Klan and saw a 

Confederate flag at work. But once again, the record does not allow us to infer that 

Aaron was aware, prior to filing her complaint, of the instances upon which Perry 

relied to support her hostile-work-environment claim. Because Aaron has not 

sufficiently established that she knew of these events before filing her lawsuit, we 

cannot consider this evidence with respect to Aaron’s claim. It bears repeating that 

if Aaron was not aware of this racially charged conduct at the time she filed her 

Complaint, it could not have contributed to any subjective belief at the time of her 

Case: 13-14897 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 42 of 45 
43

employment that she was exposed to a hostile work environment. See Adams, 754 

F.3d at 1250 and Edwards, 49 F.3d at 1522. 

We expressly condemn the reprehensible and serious nature of the remarks 

recounted by Aaron. But as despicable as the alleged conduct is—and it certainly 

is despicable—taking the evidence in its entirety, we cannot conclude that the 

incidents experienced by Aaron could lead a reasonable jury to conclude that she

suffered the type of severe and pervasive sustained harassment over her five-andone-half years of employment that rises to the level of a hostile work environment. 

See e.g., Gupta v. Fla. Bd. of Regents, 212 F.3d 571, 585-86 (11th Cir. 2000) 

overruled on other grounds by Burlington, 548 U.S. at 53, 126 S. Ct. at 2405; 

Mendoza, 195 F.3d at 1247. During her employment, Aaron knew about a total of 

six specific instances of racially harassing conduct. That included two discrete acts 

that could be considered disparate treatment—the assignment to a store security 

detail and receiving papers with multiple red marks on them. And she was aware 

of four racially charged remarks but heard only one of these remarks directly. 

Without question, this type of disgusting language and sentiment has no 

place in any work environment. But other than the one comment that Folmar 

allegedly made, Aaron did not hear any racially charged remarks firsthand. And

Aaron was aware of only three other instances where racially charged language 

supposedly was used. Although no magic number exists to enable a plaintiff to 

Case: 13-14897 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 43 of 45 
44

establish the harassment necessary to make out a hostile-work-environment claim, 

it is the “repeated incidents of [] harassment that continue despite the employee’s 

objections [that] are indicative of a hostile work environment.” Miller, 277 F.3d at 

1276 (internal quotations and citations omitted). While we condemn the extremely 

offensive nature of these types of incidents, the record does not evidence the type 

of concentrated harassment necessary to sustain a hostile-work-environment claim 

under our precedent. See e.g., Adams, 754 F.3d at 1255-56. 

It does not escape us that nearly all of the instances of racial intolerance and 

bigotry were allegedly displayed by supervisors—Administrator Folmar and Chief 

Rogers. And, as we noted in Adams, the use of a racial slur by supervisors imparts 

with it a greater sense of severity. See Adams, 754 F.3d at 1254 (noting that 

although the plaintiff heard a racial slur, “he did not offer evidence that a 

supervisor used the word or that anyone directed it toward him”). Where a 

plaintiff’s own supervisor engages in racial bigotry, including the use of racial 

slurs, the harassment is that much worse. Indeed, these individuals make decisions 

that directly affect the terms and conditions of a plaintiff’s employment—hiring, 

firing, promotion, and reprimands. Unlike when a plaintiff suffers harassment by a 

co-worker, she cannot merely “walk away” from a supervisor to escape the 

harassing conduct. 

Case: 13-14897 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 44 of 45 
45

But here, the relatively infrequent incidents, taken together over the course 

of the five-and-a-half-year period of Aaron’s employment with the ABC Board 

would not lead fair-minded jurors to conclude that Aaron suffered severe and 

pervasive harassment sufficient to alter the terms or conditions of her employment, 

as that standard is construed in this Circuit. See e.g., Gupta, 212 F.3d at 585-86; 

Mendoza, 195 F.3d at 1247. No evidence exists that Aaron felt physically 

threatened by the harassment. Likewise, the evidence does not suggest that the 

alleged harassment prevented Aaron from performing her job. Ultimately, we 

conclude that Aaron has not presented a genuine issue of material fact as to 

whether the alleged harassment that she faced was objectively severe or pervasive 

enough to establish the fourth element of a prima facie case of a racially hostile 

work environment. 

V.

Because we conclude that no genuine issue of material fact exists as to 

Appellants’ claims of a racially hostile work environment, we affirm the district 

court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the ABC Board on these claims. 

But we find that Perry presented sufficient evidence to preclude the entry of 

summary judgment with respect to her retaliation claim. We therefore vacate the 

summary judgment against her on this claim.

AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART.

Case: 13-14897 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 45 of 45