Opinion ID: 2742088
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: fwa

Text: Butterworth contends that evidence established genuine issues of material fact regarding the actions LabCorp took against her for raising concerns that LabCorp was engaged in illegal business practices. She complained about operational deficiencies that violated either federal or state law, or contravened Bahamian law. 4 She asserts she was terminated within a few business days of her complaint about deceiving Bahamian immigration authorities, and thus a jury could conclude that the reason given for her termination was a pretext for retaliation under the FWA. The FWA provides that a form of expression is statutorily protected if an employee “[o]bjected to, or refused to participate in, any activity, policy, or practice of the employer which is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation.” Fla. 4 The applicability of the FWA to violations of Bahamian law alleged by Butterworth is unclear, but our resolution of this claim does not require us to decide the issue. 8 Case: 13-15021 Date Filed: 10/14/2014 Page: 9 of 15 Stat. § 448.102. We apply Title VII retaliation analysis to a claim of retaliatory discharge under the FWA. Sierminski v. Transouth Financial Corp., 216 F.3d 945, 950-51 (11th Cir. 2000). Even if we assume that Butterworth established a prima facie case of retaliation under the FWA, she failed, for the same reasons discussed above, to demonstrate that LabCorp’s stated reasons for terminating her were pretexts for whistleblower retaliation. See id. First, Gornto indicated in an email on June 12, three days prior to Butterworth’s submission of her operational complaints to Farrell, that he was concerned about potential conflicts of interest posed by the RTS website. LabCorp management was already considering terminating her when she submitted her operational complaint on June 15, precluding Butterworth’s argument that temporal proximity alone established a causal connection between her complaint and her termination. Second, Butterworth failed to demonstrate that LabCorp’s stated reasons for her termination, namely her involvement with the RTS website and the associated conflicts of interest, and her refusal to discuss the same, were false, and thus failed to show pretext. See id. Accordingly, Butterworth failed to demonstrate pretext, and her claim under the FWA fails. See Reeves, 530 U.S. at 143. We affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to LabCorp on Butterworth’s FWA claim. 9 Case: 13-15021 Date Filed: 10/14/2014 Page: 10 of 15