Opinion ID: 76798
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: ADA Retaliation Claims Against McMichael and Eberhardt

Text: 26 We typically examine whether a plaintiff has established a prima facie case of retaliation under the ADA in the employment context, but the ADA also recognizes retaliation claims outside the employment context. See 42 U.S.C. § 12203(a). The anti-retaliation provision of the ADA prohibits discrimination against an individual because that individual opposed any act or practice made unlawful by [the ADA] or because such individual made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding or hearing conducted under the statute. Id. (emphasis added). This provision allows a complaint of retaliation against a public entity or its employees governed by Title II in the same manner that this provision allows a complaint of retaliation against an employer under Title I. Shotz, 344 F.3d at 1181 n. 3. 27 To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under the ADA, a plaintiff must show that (1) she engaged in statutorily protected expression; (2) she suffered an adverse ... action; and (3) the adverse action was causally related to the protected expression. Id. at 1180 (quoting Weeks, 291 F.3d at 1311). The failure to satisfy any of these elements is fatal to a complaint of retaliation. We consider Higdon's evidence of the second and third elements and conclude that Higdon failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation against either McMichael or Eberhardt.
28 In Shotz, this Court, with the guidance of employment case law, examined the second element of a prima facie case of retaliation under Title II of the ADA: adverse action. 344 F.3d at 1181-84. In defining an adverse action, Shotz explained that the ADA is not a code of civility, and allegations of adverse actions must be considered under both an objection and subjective standard: 29 Indeed, not every unkind act is sufficiently adverse. Rather, we analyze that sufficiency on a case-by-case basis, using both a subjective and objective standard. As a general rule, [a]n ADA plaintiff must demonstrate that a reasonable person in his position would view the ... action in question as adverse. We have said that [a]n employment action is considered `adverse' only if it results in some tangible, negative effect.... 30 [W]hile conduct must be material to be adverse in this context, it need not be traumatic. If we set the bar too high, we run the risk of chilling legitimate opposition to unlawful and discriminatory practices, and could stifle [a person's] willingness to file charges of discrimination. 31 Shotz, 344 F.3d at 1181, 1182-83 (citations omitted). We have explained that an employment action ... is not adverse merely because the employee dislikes it or disagrees with it, and not everything that makes an employee unhappy is an actionable adverse action. Doe v. Dekalb County Sch. Dist., 145 F.3d 1441, 1449 (11th Cir.1998) (citations and quotations omitted). An adverse action must meet a threshold level of substantiality before it can serve as the basis of a retaliation claim. Wideman v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 141 F.3d 1453, 1456 (11th Cir.1998). 32 In support of her argument that she suffered an adverse action, Higdon contends that, on separate occasions, Eberhardt and McMichael retaliated against Higdon. First, Higdon complains that she suffered an adverse action when Eberhardt approached Higdon on several occasions and, in front of other customers, accused Higdon of not coming to the Trade Port office on the correct day and told Higdon that the employees were watching her. Second, Higdon complains that McMichael bumped her car into Higdon's car while Higdon was waiting in a line at a bank. 33 Eberhardt's conduct does not rise to the level of an adverse action. Higdon's evidence shows a contentious relationship with Eberhardt, but there was no tangible negative effect on Higdon. Lucas, 257 F.3d at 1261. Higdon testified that, after Eberhardt reviewed her paperwork, Higdon was allowed to stay at the Trade Port office, and Eberhardt never prevented Higdon from processing her titles. Higdon alleges that Eberhardt was rude, but this Court has repeatedly stated that the civil rights laws were not intended to be a civility code. See, e.g., Davis v. Town of Lake Park, Fla., 245 F.3d 1232, 1239 (11th Cir.2001). Higdon's complaint of retaliation against Eberhardt fails. 34 McMichael's alleged actions present a closer question. Higdon contends that McMichael's car bumped her car while Higdon was waiting in line at the bank. After examining her car, Higdon stated that she recognized McMichael and approached the driver's side of McMichael's car. Higdon testified that McMichael made eye contact, only stared at her, and did not say anything. It is undisputed that there was no damage to either Higdon's car or McMichael's car. Because Higdon's complaint involves an alleged battery, although a minor one, we will assume, without deciding, that this incident constitutes an adverse action. We turn next to the third element of a prima facie case of retaliation: causal relationship.
35 We construe the causal link element broadly so that a plaintiff merely has to prove that the protected activity and the ... [adverse] action are not completely unrelated. Olmsted v. Taco Bell Corp., 141 F.3d 1457, 1460 (11th Cir.1998). A plaintiff satisfies this element if [s]he provides sufficient evidence of knowledge of the protected expression and that there was a close temporal proximity between this awareness and the adverse ... action. Shotz, 344 F.3d at 1180 n. 3 (quoting Farley v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 197 F.3d 1322, 1337 (11th Cir. 1999)). A close temporal proximity between the protected expression and an adverse action is sufficient circumstantial evidence of a causal connection for purposes of a prima facie case. See Olmsted, 141 F.3d at 1460. We have held that a period as much as one month between the protected expression and the adverse action is not too protracted. See Wideman, 141 F.3d at 1457 (citing Donnellon v. Fruehauf Corp., 794 F.2d 598, 601 (11th Cir.1986)). 36 The Supreme Court has stated that mere temporal proximity between... knowledge of protected activity and an adverse ... action... must be `very close.' Clark County Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268, 273, 121 S.Ct. 1508, 1511, 149 L.Ed.2d 509 (2001) (citations omitted). The Court cited with approval decisions in which a three to four month disparity was found to be insufficient to show causal connection. See id. (citing Richmond v. ONEOK, 120 F.3d 205, 209 (10th Cir.1997) (3-month period insufficient) and Hughes v. Derwinski, 967 F.2d 1168, 1174-75 (7th Cir.1992) (4-month period insufficient)). If there is a substantial delay between the protected expression and the adverse action in the absence of other evidence tending to show causation, the complaint of retaliation fails as a matter of law. In Wascura v. City of South Miami , we held that Wascura failed to present evidence from which a reasonable jury could find any causal connection between Wascura's notice to the Commissioners in January 1995 of her potential need to take time off to care for her son and her subsequent termination on May 16, 1995. 257 F.3d 1238, 1248 (11th Cir.2001). 37 McMichael had knowledge of the protected expression when she received the September 29, 1999, letter from Higdon's attorney, but the incident of car bumping occurred on December 31, 1999, three months after the letter was mailed. Although she testified that she believed that the act was intentional, Higdon admitted that she did not have any evidence that McMichael intentionally hit her. Instead, Higdon stated that she thought the event was ironic. 38 By itself, the three month period between the September 29 letter and the December 31 incident does not allow a reasonable inference of a causal relation between the protected expression and the adverse action. See Clark County Sch. Dist., 532 U.S. at 273, 121 S.Ct. at 1511. Aside from the three month temporal proximity, Higdon has not presented any other evidence of causation. There is no evidence in the record that McMichael even knew that Higdon's car was in front of her car in the bank line. Higdon, therefore, cannot establish that her protected expression and the adverse action were causally related. Because Higdon cannot establish a prima facie case of retaliation under Title II of the ADA, the district court properly entered summary judgment against Higdon's claim of retaliation.