Opinion ID: 2824653
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Hill’s Title VII Claims

Text: Summary judgment was proper on Hill’s race-discrimination claim because she cannot establish a prima facie case that either the denial of an air-conditioned bus or her firing were discriminatory. Hill has provided no evidence that being denied an air-conditioned bus counts as an adverse employment action for Title VII purposes. See Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 761 (1998) (defining an adverse employment action as “a significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits”); 2 We review grants of summary judgment de novo, construing facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Lowe v. Ala. Power Co., 244 F.3d 1305, 1307 (11th Cir. 2001). “Summary judgment is appropriate only if ‘the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” Moton v. Cowart, 631 F.3d 1337, 1341 (11th Cir. 2011) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)). 8 Case: 13-14951 Date Filed: 08/07/2015 Page: 9 of 14 Foster v. Mid State Land & Timber Co., Inc., No. 2:06cv405-ID, 2007 WL 3287345, at  (M.D. Ala. Nov. 5, 2007) (denial of opportunity to drive airconditioned tractor following hiring of new employees is not an adverse employment action). And with respect to being fired, Hill has not offered a similarly situated employee as a comparator. After the magistrate judge pointed out the lack of a comparator in his recommendations, Hill responded only with a comparator for purposes of being denied an air-conditioned bus—not being fired. Therefore, summary judgment on Hill’s race-discrimination claim was proper. So was summary judgment on Hill’s retaliation claim because Hill never established a causal relation between statutorily protected expression and an adverse employment action. In her second amended complaint, Hill claimed that the School District fired her because she filed a complaint with the EEOC, protected expression under Title VII. Johnson, 234 F.3d 501 at 507. But, as the magistrate judge pointed out, there was a five-month gap between Hill’s EEOC filing and her termination, too much time to constitute a causal relation in this case. Thomas v. Cooper Lighting, Inc., 506 F.3d 1361, 1364 (11th Cir. 2007). Hill reversed course in her objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendations, taking the position that the School District retaliated against her by placing her on unpaid leave, not by firing her. This argument makes no sense because the School 9 Case: 13-14951 Date Filed: 08/07/2015 Page: 10 of 14 District placed Hill on unpaid leave before she filed her EEOC complaint. Therefore, the district court properly granted summary judgment on Hill’s retaliation claim.