Opinion ID: 3191373
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Reassignment to Float Pool

Text: We have considerable doubt about whether the plaintiffs’ reassignment to the float pool can satisfy the elements of a prima facie retaliation case. A work reassignment may constitute an adverse employment action when the change is “so substantial and material that it . . . alter[s] the terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.” See Davis v. Town of Lake Park, Fla., 245 F.3d 1232, 1245 (11th Cir. 2001) (quotation marks omitted). Here, the plaintiffs’ reassignment resulted in no decrease in pay or grade. And while the plaintiffs offered some subjective evidence that the float pharmacist position involved decreased responsibility and prestige and required the performance of more menial tasks, it is not clear that these changes were so substantial that they amounted to an actionable adverse employment action. See id. (“In the vast majority of instances, . . . an employee alleging a loss of prestige on account of a change in work assignments, without any tangible harm, will be outside the protection afforded by Congress in Title VII's anti-discrimination clause.”). Additionally, Title VII retaliation claims require proof that “[the] protected activity was a but-for cause of the alleged adverse action by the employer.” Univ. 26 Case: 15-11709 Date Filed: 04/05/2016 Page: 27 of 31 of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 2517, 2534 (2013). As early as February 2011, almost eight months before the plaintiffs engaged in their protected activity, pharmacy management stated that pharmacists who were not selected for PACT positions might become floating pharmacists. Because pharmacy management had already decided to reassign module pharmacists who were not selected for PACT positions to the float pool following the implementation of PACT, the plaintiffs’ protected activity could not have been a but-for cause of their reassignment. See id. In any event, even assuming arguendo that the plaintiffs’ reassignment to the float pool constitutes a prima facie retaliation case, the plaintiffs presented no evidence that the Bay Pines’ legitimate non-discriminatory reason for the reassignment was pretextual. The record evidence demonstrates that the plaintiffs’ reassignment to the float pool was a natural consequence of their non-selection for the PACT positions and the elimination of module pharmacist assignments. Because Bay Pines proffered legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for the plaintiffs’ reassignment to the float pool, the plaintiffs had the burden of demonstrating that Bay Pines’ reasons were pretextual. The plaintiffs offer no argument as to how or why this might be the case, let alone point to record evidence demonstrating pretext. Accordingly, the plaintiffs failed to meet their 27 Case: 15-11709 Date Filed: 04/05/2016 Page: 28 of 31 burden to show that Bay Pines had retaliatory intent when it reassigned them to the float pool, and the district court properly granted summary judgment on this claim.