Opinion ID: 41149
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure to Promote, Disparate Treatment,

Text: and Retaliation Claims On appeal, Revere asserts the government discriminated and retaliated against her for filing an EEOC complaint, by taking several adverse employment actions. First, she asserts she was referred to the Criminal Investigation Division due to her travel voucher irregularities, even though a white employee with similar irregularities was not investigated. Second, an adverse action occurred when she 5 was not promoted from a GS-11 position to a GS-12 position, because she lost pay and benefits. Third, the government’s reasons for her non-selection to the GS-13 EEO Manager Position, that she did not have one-year of experience at the GS-12 level, was pretext. Failure to promote, disparate treatment In a failure-to-promote case, the plaintiff may satisfy her burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination by showing that (1) she belongs to a protected class, (2) she applied for and was qualified for a promotion, (3) she was rejected despite her qualifications, and (4) other equally or less-qualified employees outside her class were promoted. Wilson v. B/E Aerospace, Inc., 376 F.3d 1079, 1089 (11th Cir. 2004). The comparators for the fourth prong must be “similarly situated in all relevant respects.” Holifield v. Reno, 115 F.3d 1555, 1562 (11th Cir. 1997). The comparator must have been accused of the same or similar conduct but disciplined differently. Id. Once a prima facie case of discrimination has been established, the burden then shifts to the defendant, who must “articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason” for the allegedly discriminatory actions. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 1824, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). The plaintiff may then attack the defendant’s legitimate, 6 nondiscriminatory reason “either directly by persuading the court that a discriminatory reason more likely motivated the employer or indirectly by showing that the employer’s proffered explanation is unworthy of credence.” Brooks v. County Com’n of Jefferson County, Ala., 446 F.3d 1160, 1163 (11th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). The plaintiff must show that the defendant’s explanation is both false “and that discrimination was the real reason.” Id. Revere has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination based upon the government’s failure to promote her to the GS-13 position. Another African-American woman was promoted to the GS-13 position that Revere sought. Furthermore, she had not been in a GS-12 position for at least one year, as required for the promotion. Thus, she has failed to demonstrate that (1) someone outside her protected class was promoted to the position she sought; or (2) she was qualified for the promotion that she sought. Revere has also failed to rebut the government’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for failing to promote her to the GS-12 position, and for investigating her travel reimbursement irregularities. Revere admits that the investigation showed a variety of travel irregularities. Moreover, the nature and number of her irregularities were different from the white male comparator she presented. Retaliation 7 To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under Title VII, a plaintiff must show that (1) she engaged in statutorily protected expression, (2) she suffered an adverse employment action, and (3) there was some causal connection between the two events. Pennington v. City of Huntsville, 261 F.3d 1262, 1266 (11th Cir. 2001). A plaintiff satisfies the causal-relationship prong if she provides sufficient evidence that her employer had knowledge of the protected expression and “that there was a close temporal proximity between this awareness and the adverse . . . action.” Higdon v. Jackson, 393 F.3d 1211, 1220 (11th Cir. 2004) (noting that the Supreme Court cited with approval decisions holding that a three to four month disparity is insufficient to establish a causal connection). Once a plaintiff has established a prima facie case, the employer then has an opportunity to articulate a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for the challenged employment action. Pennington, 261 F.3d at 1266. If the employer proffers such an explanation, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to prove that the defendant’s explanation is merely a pretext. Lubetsky v. Applied Card Sys., Inc., 296 F.3d 1301, 1305 (11th Cir. 2002). Because Revere did not establish a causal connection between her EEO activities and the adverse employment actions taken against her, the district court 8 did not err in finding that Revere had failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation. The district also did not err in finding that, even if Revere had established a prima facie case of retaliation, Revere had failed to prove that the government’s legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for investigating her travel reimbursement irregularities and not promoting her to the GS-12 position, were pretextual.