FI LED U.S. COURT OF AP PEA LS E L E V E N T H CIR C U IT J UN E 1 1 2 007 T HOMAS K . KAHN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 06- 1397 4

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 4- 01 54 2- CV-ORL-2 8- DAB DAW N GEORGETT E MYERS, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us CENTRAL FLORIDA INVESTMENTS, INC., DAVID SIEGEL, W ESTGATE RESORTS, INC., W ESTGATE RESORTS LTD, CFI SALES AND MARKETING, LTD, Defen da nt s- App el le es , W ESTGATE LAKES, INC., etal., Defen da nt s.

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

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J un e 11, 200 7)Honora ble Donald E. Walter, United States District J udg e for the Western District of * L ouisiana, sitting by

desig nation. The other

three counts that had a lrea dy been dismissed ra ised claims of re taliation 1 under the Florida

Private Whistl eblower

Act, induce ment to prostituti on, and neg lige nt retention and super vision. In li g ht o f o ur

de te rm inatio n th at Mye rs ’ F CRAand Ti tle VI Ise xua l ha

ra ssm e nt c la ims 2 survive summary

judgme nt, her state- law batter y and fa lse imprisonment claims should be reinstated. 2 Before CA RNE S and W IL SO N, Circuit Judges, and WAL TE R, District Judge. * PE R CU RIA M: D awn G eo rg ette My er s su ed Ce ntr al F lor ida

I nve stm en ts, I nc . and i ts vari ous subs idi ar

y c om panie s ( co lle ct ive ly

CF I) , c la im ing that sh e w as se xua lly hara sse d by

CF I’ s pr es ide nt and C E O , D av id S ie ge l, and u lti m at el y f ir ed f or re j ec tin g hi s a dvanc es . C FI de ve lop s, m an ag es and s el ls r es ort t im es hare s in Or lando, Florida, and during her em ploym ent with the com

pany , My ers served a s ex ec uti ve dir ec tor

of ane wspa

a t on e of CF I’ s r es orts. The district court dism issed three of My ers’ claim s and then granted 1 sum m ar y j udgm en t t o C FI on h er

r em ai nin g c la im s of

se xua l hara ssm en t and re ta liatio n, w hic h a sse rt ed avio la tio n of

T itl e V II of

the Ci vil Ri ght s A ct

of 196 4, 42 U. S. C. §§ 20 00e et seq., and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (FCRA ), Fla. St at . §§ 5 09. 092, 760 . 01–. 11. T he c ourt a lso r em an de d he r state lawc la im s of ba tte ry and f al se im pr iso nm en t t o st at e co urt. My ers now a ppeals the dist rict 23

co urt’ s gr an t of

sum m ar y j udgm en t a s w el l a s it s de nia l of he r thi rd m oti on t o co m pe l d is co ve ry . T he F CR Ac la im s st an d or

f al l w iththe T itl e V II c la im s, so o ur ana ly sis fo cu se s onthe f

ed er al a lle ga tio ns. H ar

pe r v. Bl oc kbus te r E ntm ’ t C or p. , 139 F . 3d 1385 , 1387 (11th Cir. 1998). O ur reviewof the district court’ s grant of summ ary j udgm en t i s de nov o, and w e ar e to “ vie wa ll the e vid en ce , and m ak e al l reasonable fac tual inferences, in the ligh t m ost favorable to the non m ovin g party .” Kni gh t v . Bap ti stHos p. o f Mi am i, In c., 33 0 F .3d13 13 , 13 16 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). A ddi tio na lly , w e re vie wthe dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de ci sio n to gr an t or de ny My er s’ m oti on t o c om

pe l di sc ove ry

f or abuse of dis cr et ion . R . M. R. v. Mu sc oge e Co unty Sch. Dist. , 165 F. 3d 81 2, 816 (11th Cir. 1999). I. Fi rs t, w e w ill c onsi de r My er s’ se xua l hara ssm en t c la im . W e have m ad e cl ear that “ [t ] o pr ove se xua l hara ssm en t un de r T itl e V II , apla int if f m ust sho w( 1) that sh e be lon gs t o apr ote ct ed gr oup; ( 2) that sh e ha s be ensub j ec te d to unw el co m e se xua l hara ssm en t; (3 ) that the hara ssm en t w as ba se d onhe r se x; ( 4) that the hara ssm en t w as suf fi ci en tly se ve re or pe rv as ive to al te r the te rm s and co ndi tio ns o f em

plo y m en t and c re at e a dis cr im inator ily abusi ve w orkin g environm ent; and (5) that a basis for holding the em ploy er liable e xists .” H ulsey4

v. Pr ide Rests., LL C, 367 F.3d 123 8, 1244 (11th Cir. 2004 ). T he district court fo un d t ha t M y ers est ab li sh edth e fi rs t t hr ee fa ct or s b utfai le d t o p ro ve th e fo ur th . Ac cordingly , the c ourt did n ot address the fifth factor. So our re view now centers on the fourth factor—My ers’ ability to show the alleged harassm ent was sufficiently

severe or pervasive. In attem

pting to establish this claim , ther e ar e tw o th eo ri es of

hara ssm en t tha t a

pla int if f can a sse rt , and M y er s a sse rt s bo th. S he co nte nds that sh e suf

fe re d se xua l hara ssm en t un de r both th e tangi ble e m plo ym en t ac tio n th eo ry

and the hos til e en vir onm en t the or y . W e co nsi de r ea chin tur n. T o su sta in a

se xua l ha

ra ssm en t c la im

und er the tangi ble e m

plo ym en t a ct ion the or y , My er s m

ust sho wthat he r re fu sa l of

S ie ge l’ s a dvanc es r es ult ed in a

“ sig nif ic an t c hange in em

plo ym en t st at

us, suc h a s hi ri ng, f

ir ing , f ai lin g to pr om ote , r ea ssi gnm en t w ithsig nif ic an tly dif fe re nt r es pons ibi lit ie s, or ade ci sio n ca usi ng a sig nif ic an t c hange in be ne fi ts. ” Burl ing tonI ndus . , I nc . v. E lle rth, 524 U. S. 742, 761, 118 S. Ct. 2257 , 2268 (1998). T here is no questio n that her te rm inatio n c onst itute d a“ tangi ble e m plo ym en t a ct ion , ” but

in or de r to s ust ai n th e claim she m ust sh ow that she w as term inated because she ref used Siegel’ s sexual de m an ds . Hul se y , 36 7 F .3dat 1 24 5. Af ter re viewing the evidence in the light m ost favorable to My ers, we agree with the district court’ s determ ination that My ers fa iled to sufficiently link her5

te rm inatio n to he r re la tio nshi p w ithS ie ge l. U nde r he r ve rs ionof the f ac ts, she kept Siegel at bay

for a full five y ears, rec eiving m ultip le prom otion s and pay raises during that tim e. A lthou gh she claim s that Siegel’ s attitude toward her changed when she becam e engaged to another m an, she off ers no evidence that Siegel w as even aw are of the engagem ent. F urtherm ore, My ers ce rtainly knew that the CFI e xecutives were unhapp y with the spa’ s perform ance and w ere hold ing her responsib le. My ers fa iled to offer e vidence rebutting CFI ’ s evidence that sh e w as te rm inate d be ca use of the spa ’ s la ck

of pr of ita bil ity . S ee F re de ri ck

v. Sp ri nt/U nit ed

Mg m t. Co . , 246 F . 3d 1 305, 131 2–13 ( 11th C ir . 200 1) ( af fi rm ing grant of sum

m ary j udgm ent on tangi ble em ploym ent sexual harassm ent theory be ca use the re w as “ unr eb utt ed e vid en ce sho w ing that [ the pla int if f] w as de nie d th e pr om oti on . . . on g ro unds ind ep en de nt o f the a lle ge d hara ssm en t” ). B ec au se My er s c oul d no t e sta

bli sh a c onne ct ionbe tw ee n he r te rm inatio n and h er r ej ec tio n of S ie ge l, he r se xua l hara ssm en t c la im c annot sur viv e sum m ar y j udge m en t onthe t an g i b l e e mp l o ym e n ta c t i o nth e o ry. Nev ert he le ss , alt ho ug h we r ejectth e ta ng ib le em pl oym en t ac ti on th eo ry , we fi nd tha t M y er s di d pr es en t su ff ic ie nt e vid en ce to cr eate age nui ne iss ue of m at eri al factas t o wh et he r sh e ex pe rie nc eda ho st il e work e nv iro nm en t atCFI. T he dis tr ic t c ourt f

ound that M y er s w as una

ble to showthat the hara ssm en t sh e6

suf fe re d w as both ob

j ec tiv el y and s ubj ec tiv el y

se ve re or pe rv as ive . S ee H ar

ri s v. Fo rk lif t S y s. , I nc . , 510 U . S. 17, 21– 22, 114 S . Ct . 367 , 370 ( 1993 ) (n oti ng tha t a pla int if f m ust de m onst rate both th at

ar ea sona

ble pe rs on w oul d have f

ound the en vir onm en t t o be hos til e an d th at she he rs el f subj ec tiv el y

vie w ed the e nvi ro nm en t as abusi ve ). W e dis ag re e. I f w e re ad the e vid en ce , a s w e m

ust , in the li ght

m ost favor ab le to My er s, it

is cl ear fr om

the r ec or d th at

she ha s a lle ge d e ve nts suf fi ci en t to sho w both a subjec tive perception and an objective basis for a hosti le w ork en vi ro nm en t atCFI. A s to the sub

j ec tiv e pr ong, My er s ha s se t f orth e vid en ce f

ro m w hic h a re as ona ble f ac tf ind er c oul d de te rm ine that sh e pe rs ona lly f el t hara sse d w hil e w orkin g a t C FI . C hie f am ong the e vid en ce of fe re d w as he r ow n de posi tio n te sti m ony to that e ff

ec t. S he c la im ed

that S ie ge l’ s c ondu ct

“ m ortif ie d” and

“ em barrassed” her

on m ultip le occasions, and the district court’ s order notes that sh e was “ un co m fo rtabl e” wi th Sie ge l’s co nd uc t an d a sk edhi m to st op . Specifica lly , My ers testified that she asked Siegel to dispel rum ors that they were a c ou pl e, bu t h e ref

us ed , rev el in g i n t he go ss ip aro un d t he co m pa ny. He gave her roses at w ork on several occasions, and she wa s “ m ortified” that she had to lea ve th e o ffi ce wi th th em forev eryone to see . At a com pany banquet, when Si eg el intro duc ed

he r to the audi en ce , he tol d e ve ry one that a lth oughshe w as not7

his da te , he w ish ed

she w er e an d ha d a ske d he r but be entur ne d do w n. A ga in, My er s c la im ed

she w as m ortif

ie d and hum ili at ed

in fr ont of he r co lle ag ue s by

thi s co nd uc t. My er s a lso te sti fi ed that S ie ge l go ad ed

he r int o se re na din g hi m

on s ta ge at a CF I costum e benefit and then sim ulated an erec tion u nder the napkin sh e had pla ce d onhis la

p. A lth oughno o ne e lse te sti fi ed to se ei ng the im

pr ope r hand ge sture , tw o C FI e m

plo y ee s su

bm itt ed a ff idavit s te sti fy ing that M y er s tr ie d to m ai nt ai n h er co m

po su re o n s ta ge an d t he n l eftth e ro om cry in g. Furtherm ore, My ers claim s that Siegel prom ised her m oney and gifts if she would date him , at one poin t givin g her an unexplained $1 0,000 check. S he also alleges that Siegel publ ic al ly

of fe re d he r an d he r boy fr ie nd $ 1 m ill ionon s ev er al oc ca sio ns f or one ni gh t wi th he r. A cc or din gly , the re is suf

fi ci en t r ec or d e vid en ce , f or the pur pose s of overcom ing th e sum

m ary j udgm ent hurdle, to perm it a j ury to find that My ers subj ec tiv el y

pe rc ei ve d an a

busi ve w orkin g e nvi ro nm en t duri ng the f ive y ears in questio n. E ven thou gh there is evidence to the contrary —she continu ed to seek out S ie ge l and p ut h er se lf

in co m pr om isi ng p osi tio ns b y

tr av el ing w ith him —My ers still has created a genuine questi on of m aterial f act about her subj ec tiv e pe rc ep tio n. L ike w ise , ar ea sona

ble pe rs on c oul d have obj ec tiv el y pe rc ei ve d an a

busi ve8

work environm ent based on Siegel’ s conduct to ward My ers. T he Suprem e Court ha s di re ct ed

us “ to d et er

m ine w he the r ane nvi ro nm en t i s su ff ic ie ntl y hos til e or ab usi ve by

loo kin g a t a ll the c ir cum stanc es , inc lud ing [ 1] the f re que nc y of the dis cr im inator

y c ondu ct ; [ 2] it s se ve ri ty ; [ 3] w he the r it is p hy sic al ly thr eate nin g or hum ili at ing , or

am er e of

fe nsi ve utt er an ce ; and [ 4] w he the r it unr ea sona bly interfer es with an em

ploy ee’ s work perf

orm ance. ” Faragher v. City of Boca Rat on , 52 4 U.S. 7 75 , 78 7– 88 , 11 8 S . Ct. 2 27 5, 2 28 3 (1 99 8) (qu ot at io ns om it te d) . W e ar e to c onsi de r the f

our f ac tor s un de r a “ tot al ity

of the c ir cum stanc es ” ap pr oa ch , caref

ul no t t o fi xa te on a pl ai nt iff’s in ab il it y to sh ow a s in gl e fac to r. Miller v. Ke nworth of D othan, Inc. , 277 F. 3d 12 69, 1276 (11t h Cir. 2002 ). Re gard ing the f

ir st f ac tor , My er s’ te sti m ony

ind ic at es that the hara ssi ng co nduc t w as f

re que nt. T he c ourt’ s or de r state s th at My er s a lle ge s on ly

te n to tw en ty tou ch ing s, but

the c ourt ba se s th at

c onc lus ionon the portio n of My er s’ de posi tio n whe re she c la im s th at S ie ge l t ouc he d he r le gs t ento tw en ty ti m es w hil e the y w er e din ing a t a

spe ci fi c re sta

ur an t. Sh e te sti fi ed

to m any m or e than te n to tw en ty tou ch ing s ov er

the f ive -y ear pe ri od. I n a ddi tio n to the te n to tw en ty touchin gs of her leg that occurre d at a particular restaurant, My ers testified that Si eg el tou ch ed

he r al m ost

e ve ry ti m e she c am e int o ar oom , a ct ing li ke she w as his gi rlf rie nd , pu tt in g h is arm

aro un d h er, an d s lapp in g h er o n t he bu tt . Sh e al so9

alleges that he would put hi s hand on her legs and rub her legs w hile she was sittin g next to h im . He would put hi s arm s around her and let his hand s fall to her butt. The c ondu ct happened so often th at she cannot rem em ber the details of eac h in st an ce. My er s te sti fi ed that S ie ge l ki sse d he r at

le as t thr ee ti m es , r anhis hands up h er le gs whil e she w as pe rf

orm ing spa

tr eatm en ts o n hi m

on s ev er al oc ca sio ns, an d p in ne d h er up a ga in stth e wal l o f th e sp a lo bb y at l eas t t wice . Re gard ing the se co nd f

ac tor , My er s a lle ge s c ondu ct that w as suf

fi ci en tly se ve re , w he n take n inli ght of it s f re que nc y , f

or ar ea sona

ble pe rs on t o f

ind a hosti le w ork environm ent. I f her te stim ony is acce pted, she w as hugged , groped an d e ve n k is se d, o fte n i n p ub li c, on m ul ti pl e o ccas io ns whi le work in g fo r CFI. As to the thi rd

f ac tor , My er s di d no t have to fe el phy sic al ly thr eate ne d by

S ie ge l; hum iliation is an equal consideration. Far agher, 524 U.S . at 787– 88, 118 S. C t. at 2283 (noting th at the conduct can be phy sically threatening or hum iliating ). T here i s n o qu e s t i o n , th a tar e a s o n ab l e p e r s o ns ub j e c t e dt o th i s k i n do f

u n w e l c o me co nd uc t atworkwou ldfeel hu m il ia te d. Finally , a s to the fourth factor, “ [t] he Suprem e Court has cautioned that hara ssm en t ne ed

not be sho w n to be so e xtr em e that i t pr oduc es tangi ble e ff ec ts o n jo b p e r f o rman c e i no r d e r

t o b e a c t i o n ab l e . Th u s , h a v i n g e s t ab l i s h e dth e f r e qu e n c y, se ve ri ty , and hum ili at ing na tur e of the c ondu ct , [ the pla int if f’ s] f ai lur e to e sta

bli sh10

co nvi nc ing ly

how[ the e m

plo y er ’ s] c ondu ct

int er fe re d w ithhis dut ie s is not f at al to his ho stile environm ent claim , given the totality of the circ um stances.” Miller, 277 F. 3d at 12 77. E ve n so , aj ur y r ea sona bly c oul d in fe r that S ie ge l’ s op enpur sui t of My er s m ad e it m or e dif

fi cu lt fo r he r to p er fo rm

he r j ob and c om

m an d th e res pe ctof h er s ub or di na te s at th e sp a. See Harris , 51 0 U.S. at25 (Gin sb ur g, J ., co nc ur ri ng) ( “ It suf fi ce s to pr ove that a

r ea sona ble pe rs on s ubj ec te d to the dis cr im inator

y c ondu ct w oul d f ind . . . that the hara ssm en t so a lte re d w orkin g co ndi tio ns a s to m ak e it m or e dif fi cu lt to d o th e j ob. ” (quot at ionand a lte ratio n om itted)). Ther efore, My ers has sufficiently dem onstrated bot h a subjec tive and an objec tive perception of host ility sufficient to overcom e sum m ary j udgm ent on her hosti le w ork environm ent theory . For sum m ary j udgm ent purpos es she has es ta bli she d th e fo urth p ro ng o f the te st— the hara ssm en t w as se ve re or pe rv as ive en oughto al te r the c ondi tio ns o f he r em plo ym en t. A ddi tio na lly , a lth oughthe dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t r ea chthe f if th p ro ng o f the te st—

the e xis te nc e of

aba sis f or hol din g th e em

plo y er li ab le —M y er s ha s a de quate ly sho w n, f or sum m ar y j udgm en t pur pose s, that C FI w as aw ar e of he r al le ga tio ns o f hara ssm en t and f ai le d to take ac tio n. S ee Mi lle r, 277 F . 3d at 12 78–7 9 ( not ing that “ [i ] n or de r to e sta bli sh a ba sis f or hol din g [ ane m

plo y er ] li ab le f

or ahos til e w ork e nvi ro nm en t, [ theAs to M y e rs ’ p os t- te rm inatio n r e ta liatio n c la im, we fi nd tha t he r c la im f

a ils be c a us e 3 she ca nnot show that Siege l’s decision to file an unr elated la wsuit ag ainst her wa s an ac tion that “would have been materially adver se to a re asonable employ ee or job applicant,” suc h that “that th e e mp lo y e r ’ s a c ti o n s [w e r e ] h ar mf u l t o th e p o int t

h at t h e y c o u ld w e ll [h av e ] d is s u a d e [d ] a rea sonable wor

ker f rom makingor supportinga cha rg e of discr imination,” Burling ton N. & Santa Fe Ry . Co. v. W hite, 548 — U.S. —, 126 S. C t. 2405, 2409 (2006). 11 pla int if f] m ust sho wthat [ the e m

plo y er ] ha d no tic e of

the a lle ge d hara ssm en t and fa ile d to take im

m ed ia te and a

ppr opr ia te c or

re ct ive a ct ion ”) . My er s, the re fo re , is en tit le d to aj ur

y de te rm inatio n onhe r fe de ra l and F CR Ase xua l hara ssm en t cl ai m s, an d t he di st ric t co ur t’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t was im

pr op er. II. A s to My er s’ r et al ia tio n c la im , the dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y c onc lud ed

that sh e failed to offer

evidence suppo rting a causal connection between any protected ac tiv ity and h er te rm inatio n. S tavr opou lou s v. F ir es ton e, 361 F . 3d 6 10, 616 ( 11th Cir. 2004 ). He r “ form al” com plaints to m anagem ent did no t occur until after 3 mee t i n g s r e g ar d i n g th e s p a ’s l a c ko f p r o f i t ab i l i ty. A nd, a s th e dis tr ic t c ourt no te d, even if My ers did establish a prim a fa cie re taliation case, C FI has m et its burden of of fe ri ng a le git im at e, non dis cr im inator y r ea son fo r he r te rm inatio n un de r the applicable McD onnell-Douglas bu rden-shifting fram ew ork. Mc Donnell Douglas Corp. v. Gr een, 411 U.S . 792, 802–03, 93 S. C t. 1817, 1824 (197 3). T he re is no que sti on tha t the spa ’ s pr of ita bil ity w as apr im ar

y c onc er n of CF I m an ag em en t and that they question ed My ers’ ability to run the operation. E ven if the district court12

er re d inr el y ing on the oth er pr of fe re d r ea sons f

or My er s’ te rm inatio n ( al le ga tio ns of em ploy ee m iscondu ct and com plaints filed agains t My ers), any such error w as harm less because the spa’ s loss o f m oney wa s a sufficient nondis crim inatory re as on f or he r te rm inatio n. Jus t a s he r tangi ble e m plo ym en t a ct ionthe or

y of s e x u a l h ar a s s me n tf

a i l s , M ye r s c an n o ts u s t a i nav i ab l e r e t a l i a t i o nc l a i m.

III . Fi na lly , w e fi nd tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse it s di sc re tio n inde ny ing Myers’ thi rdm ot io n t o c om pe l. Ou r rev ie w her e is hi gh ly defer en ti al , and“ we w ill not se co nd- gue ss the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s a ct ion s un le ss the y r ef le ct a‘ cl ear er

ro r of j udgm en t. ’ ” H oll om anv. Ma il- W el l C or p. , 443 F . 3d 8 32, 837 ( 11th C ir . 200 6) (quotin g United States v. Ke lly , 888 F. 2d 73 2, 745 (11th Cir. 1989)). Ther e w as n o s u c h “ c l e ar

e rr o r ” h e r e i nr e f

u s i n g t o g r an t

amo t i o nt o c o mp e l f

i l e de i g h tyei ght day s a ft er

dis co ve ry

ha d c los ed . AFFIRMED in pa rt VACATED i n pa rt a nd REMANDED.