Court Opinion

ID: 9928408
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-31 18:01:52.612162+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:48:10.443320
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-10228    Document: 43-1      Date Filed: 01/31/2024   Page: 1 of 11

                                                    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                    In the
                 United States Court of Appeals
                         For the Eleventh Circuit

                           ____________________

                                 No. 22-10228
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

        MANUEL CHAVOUS,
                                                       Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
        versus
        CITY OF SAINT PETERSBURG,

                                                     Defendant-Appellee.

                           ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Middle District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 8:20-cv-01614-KKM-JSS
                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-10228      Document: 43-1      Date Filed: 01/31/2024      Page: 2 of 11

        2                      Opinion of the Court                  22-10228

        Before BRASHER, ABUDU, and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
                Manuel Chavous appeals the district court’s grant of sum-
        mary judgment to the City of Saint Petersburg (the “City”), his for-
        mer employer, on his claims for interference and retaliation under
        the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq.,
        and the Florida Workers’ Compensation Act (“FWCA”), Fla. Stat.
        § 440.205. On appeal, he argues: (1) the court erred in concluding
        that he failed to state a prima facie case of interference under the
        FMLA, and erred in finding that the City’s reason for terminating
        him was unrelated to his FMLA leave; (2) the court erred in con-
        cluding that he failed to state a prima facie case of retaliation under
        the FMLA, since the temporal proximity of his FMLA leave and his
        termination stated a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas v.
        Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), and erred in finding that he failed to
        show that his termination was pretextual; and (3) the court erred
        in granting summary judgment on his FWCA retaliation claim for
        the same reason that it granted summary judgment on his FMLA
        retaliation claim. After careful review, we affirm.
                                          I.
              We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judg-
        ment, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to, and
        drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of, the nonmoving party.
        McAlpin v. Sneads, 61 F.4th 916, 927 (11th Cir. 2023). Summary
        judgment is appropriate when “there is no genuine dispute as to
USCA11 Case: 22-10228       Document: 43-1      Date Filed: 01/31/2024      Page: 3 of 11

        22-10228                Opinion of the Court                          3

        any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter
        of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
                The movant bears the initial burden “of showing the ab-
        sence of a genuine issue as to any material fact, and in deciding
        whether the movant has met this burden the court must view the
        movant’s evidence and all factual inferences arising from it in the
        light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Allen v. Tyson Foods,
        Inc., 121 F.3d 642, 646 (11th Cir. 1997). Once a movant satisfies its
        initial burden under Rule 56, the burden shifts to the nonmovant
        to demonstrate that there is a material issue of fact that precludes
        summary judgment. Id. “‘A mere ‘scintilla’ of evidence supporting
        the [nonmoving] party’s position will not suffice; there must be
        enough of a showing that the jury could reasonably find for that
        party.’” Id. (quotations omitted). “Where the record taken as a
        whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-mov-
        ing party, there is no genuine issue for trial.” Id. (quoting Matsu-
        shita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986)).
                                          II.
                First, we are unpersuaded by Chavous’s claim that the dis-
        trict court erred in concluding that he failed to state a prima facie
        case of interference under the FMLA. The FMLA generally creates
        two types of claims, interference claims and retaliation claims. 29
        U.S.C. § 2615(a)(1)–(2); Strickland v. Water Works & Sewer Bd. of City
        of Birmingham, 239 F.3d 1199, 1206 n.9 (11th Cir. 2001). An em-
        ployee establishes a prima facie case of FMLA interference when he
USCA11 Case: 22-10228     Document: 43-1      Date Filed: 01/31/2024    Page: 4 of 11

        4                     Opinion of the Court                 22-10228

        shows that he was “denied a benefit to which [he] was entitled un-
        der the FMLA.” McAlpin, 61 F.4th at 933 (quotations omitted).
               An employee’s primary benefit under the FMLA is his enti-
        tlement to 12 weeks of leave during a 12-month period “[b]ecause
        of a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to
        perform the functions of [his] position.” 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1)(D).
        When an employee takes FMLA leave, he is entitled to be restored
        to the same or an equivalent position. Id. § 2614(a)(1).
                In an FMLA interference claim, an employer’s motives for
        denying an employee an FMLA benefit to which he is entitled are
        generally irrelevant. McAlpin, 61 F.4th at 933. However, where an
        employer shows that its motives were “wholly unrelated” to the
        employee’s FMLA leave, the employer is not liable. Strickland, 239
        F.3d at 1208. So, when an FMLA interference claim is based on an
        employee’s termination, an employer may defend against the claim
        by showing that it would have terminated the employee regardless
        of his request for FMLA leave. McAlpin, 61 F.4th at 933.
                Here, the district court did not err in finding that Chavous
        failed to state a prima facie case of FMLA interference. For pur-
        poses of this claim, there are two relevant terminations, July 26,
        2018, and August 27, 2018. As for the first termination, the undis-
        puted record reflects that the City based its decision to terminate
        him on his decision to take 17 days of “unscheduled leave,” after
        Chavous was involved in a car accident. However, once Chavous’s
        doctor finally submitted the certification necessary for the City to
        properly consider Chavous’s FMLA leave request for these 17 days
USCA11 Case: 22-10228      Document: 43-1      Date Filed: 01/31/2024      Page: 5 of 11

        22-10228               Opinion of the Court                          5

        -- on July 27, the very last day allowable under the City’s Rules and
        Regulations -- the City reinstated him to his prior position at a hear-
        ing on August 7, 2018 and told him to return to work the next day.
        What’s more, it awarded him back pay from the date his FMLA
        leave ended, July 26, 2018, until August 7, 2018, the day before he
        was supposed to return to work. Because Chavous’s first termina-
        tion was ultimately rescinded and he was made whole, he was not
        “denied a benefit to which [he] was entitled under the FMLA.”
        McAlpin, 61 F.4th at 933.
               As for his second termination on August 27, 2018, Chavous
        was not on FMLA leave -- his FMLA leave had ended on August 8,
        but he had still not returned to work. Chavous argues on appeal
        that his doctor told him his full recovery from the accident could
        take up to four weeks from July 12, 2018. But as the undisputed
        record reveals, his doctor listed his FMLA leave from July 12, 2018,
        to July 26, 2018, and added that Chavous “may return sooner as
        [symptoms] improve.” Nevertheless, Chavous did not request ad-
        ditional FMLA leave following July 26, 2018. As a result, his second
        termination on August 27 also did not “den[y] [him] a benefit to
        which [he] was entitled under the FMLA.” Id.
               To the extent Chavous claims that there is a genuine issue
        of material fact about whether he was restored to his pre-FMLA
        position on August 7, we disagree. Chavous testified at his deposi-
        tion that he could not recall being notified that his employment
        was reinstated, but the undisputed evidence shows that at a hearing
        on August 7, 2018, the City reinstated him, instructed him to return
USCA11 Case: 22-10228      Document: 43-1       Date Filed: 01/31/2024     Page: 6 of 11

        6                      Opinion of the Court                  22-10228

        to work on August 8, and agreed to pay him back pay from the end
        of his FMLA leave until August 7. The record also reflects that after
        he failed to return to work on August 8, he was notified of another
        hearing on August 27. Chavous acknowledged receiving a check
        and a letter from the City, and even acknowledged that it was “pos-
        sible” the letter concerned the August 27 hearing. Considering
        Chavous’s testimony in light of the entire record, a rational trier of
        fact could not reasonably infer a causal connection between the
        City’s decision to terminate Chavous and his prior request for
        FMLA leave. Allen, 121 F.3d at 646. Accordingly, Chavous has not
        established a prima facie case of FMLA interference, we need not
        reach whether the City terminated him for violations of City policy
        unrelated to his FMLA leave, and we affirm the district court’s
        grant of summary judgment in favor of the City on this claim.
                                         III.
                We also find no merit to Chavous’s claim that the district
        court erred in concluding that he failed to state a prima facie case of
        retaliation under the FMLA. Unlike FMLA interference claims,
        FMLA retaliation claims impose an increased burden on the em-
        ployee to show that the employer’s action “were motivated by an
        impermissible retaliatory or discriminatory animus.” Strickland,
        239 F.3d at 1207 (quotations omitted).
               We analyze FMLA retaliation claims under the burden-shift-
        ing framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 801–05.
        McAlpin, 61 F.4th at 927. An employee establishes a prima facie case
        of FMLA retaliation by showing that (1) he engaged in FMLA
USCA11 Case: 22-10228      Document: 43-1      Date Filed: 01/31/2024     Page: 7 of 11

        22-10228               Opinion of the Court                         7

        protected conduct, (2) he suffered an adverse employment action,
        and (3) there is a causal link between the protected conduct and the
        adverse employment action. Id. If an employee establishes a prima
        facie case, the burden shifts to the employer to proffer a legitimate,
        non-retaliatory reason for the adverse action. Id. If the employer
        can do so, the burden shifts back to the employee to prove by a
        preponderance of the evidence that the legitimate, non-retaliatory
        reason is “merely pretext for prohibited, retaliatory conduct.” Id.
        (quotations omitted).
               As for the third element of a prima facie case of FMLA retali-
        ation, to establish causation the employee must prove only “that
        the protected activity and the negative employment action are not
        completely unrelated.” Id. at 932 (quotations omitted). For pur-
        poses of establishing causation, the relevant period is “measured
        from the last day of an employee’s FMLA leave until the adverse
        employment action at issue occurs.” Jones v. Gulf Coast Health Care
        of Delaware, LLC, 854 F.3d 1261, 1272 (11th Cir. 2017). We have
        held that a period of one month between the protected activity and
        adverse employment action is not “too protracted” to establish
        causation and thus a prima facie case. Higdon v. Jackson, 393 F.3d
        1211, 1220 (11th Cir. 2004) (Americans with Disabilities Act retali-
        ation claim). Although “[t]he burden of causation can be met by
        showing close temporal proximity between the statutorily pro-
        tected activity and the adverse employment action[,] . . . mere tem-
        poral proximity, without more, must be very close.” McAlpin, 61
        F.4th at 932 (quotations omitted). Further, “when an employer
        contemplates an adverse employment action before an employee
USCA11 Case: 22-10228         Document: 43-1        Date Filed: 01/31/2024        Page: 8 of 11

        8                         Opinion of the Court                      22-10228

        engaged in protected activity, temporal proximity between the
        protected activity and the subsequent adverse employment action
        does not suffice to show causation.” Drago v. Jenne, 453 F.3d 1301,
        1308 (11th Cir. 2006).
                Here, the district court did not err in finding that Chavous
        failed to state a prima facie case of FMLA retaliation. For starters,
        the City does not dispute that Chavous satisfied the first two ele-
        ments of a prima facie case -- i.e., engaging in FMLA-protected con-
        duct and suffering an adverse employment action. McAlpin, 61
        F.4th at 927. This means that the remaining issue is whether there
        is a sufficient causal link between the protected conduct of request-
        ing FMLA leave and the adverse employment action of being ter-
        minated. Id. As we see it, there is not.
               To analyze his retaliation claim, the relevant period begins
        on Chavous’s last day of FMLA leave, July 26, 2018, and ends on
        his termination on August 27, 2018. 1 Ordinarily, a period of one
        month from the end of a protected activity and adverse employ-
        ment action is not “too protracted” to establish the causation
        needed to state a prima facie case. See Higdon, 393 F.3d at 1220.
        However, more is needed when, as here, an employer contem-
        plates an adverse employment action before an employee engaged

        1 To the extent that Chavous argues that temporal proximity should be meas-

        ured from when he requested FMLA documentation (July 12, 2018) to his first,
        and ultimately rescinded, termination (July 26, 2018), he is incorrect. In ana-
        lyzing causation in FMLA retaliation claims, we measure from the last day of
        FMLA leave (here, July 26, 2018) to the date of the adverse employment action
        (here, August 27, 2018). See Jones, 854 F.3d at 1272.
USCA11 Case: 22-10228       Document: 43-1      Date Filed: 01/31/2024      Page: 9 of 11

        22-10228                Opinion of the Court                          9

        in protected activity. See Drago, 453 F.3d at 1208. The undisputed
        record in this case, which includes Chavous’s disciplinary em-
        ployee notices, reflects that he had a documented history of absen-
        teeism since he began working for the City in April 2017. Among
        other things, Chavous took unscheduled leave twice in January
        2018, several days in March 2018, and a week in April 2018, all of
        which occurred before the accident in May 2018. Indeed, his per-
        formance review noted that he “[u]ses more unscheduled leave
        than is acceptable,” and that he used “a lot of sick leave.” What’s
        more, Chavous knew that the City had a “progressive discipline”
        policy -- discussed during his orientation and in his employee no-
        tices -- and that repeat violations of City policy could result in ter-
        mination. So, on this record, close temporal proximity alone is in-
        sufficient to establish the causal link necessary to state a prima facie
        case of FMLA retaliation. See id.
               Moreover, Chavous failed to point to other evidence that
        could have established a causal link between his FMLA leave and
        his termination. To the extent that Chavous relies on “derogatory
        comments” on performance evaluations and “shifting disciplinary
        actions” to help his causation showing, we disagree. The com-
        ments on his performance review consisted of the factually-based,
        attendance-related comments we just listed, and include construc-
        tive, non-derogatory criticism, including his supervisor’s desire to
        see Chavous “be more of a team player and be dedicated to his
        job.” Also, apart from the constructive criticism his supervisor pro-
        vided, he noted several non-attendance categories in which he
        rated Chavous “good” or “very good.”
USCA11 Case: 22-10228      Document: 43-1      Date Filed: 01/31/2024     Page: 10 of 11

        10                     Opinion of the Court                  22-10228

                Nor did the City engage in “shifting disciplinary actions”
        from which “retaliatory animus” could be inferred. As for the first
        employee notice Chavous cites to, in which the City classified his
        late arrival as “misconduct” as opposed to “tardiness,” Chavous ap-
        pealed this grievance. At the grievance hearing, the City presented
        evidence he did not dispute, which led the decisionmaker to deter-
        mine that his failure to timely report amounted to a disregard for
        job duties (i.e., misconduct). Chavous had an opportunity to ap-
        peal this decision, and he failed to timely do so. As for the second
        employee notice Chavous cites to, in which the City suspended
        him for five days instead of two days in contravention of the un-
        ion’s collective bargaining agreement, this notice was amended to
        a two-day suspension following a meeting and agreement with
        Chavous and his union representative, thereby remedying any po-
        tential inconsistency. And, as for his claim that he was not in-
        formed that his employment was reinstated, as we’ve already dis-
        cussed, no rational trier of fact could reasonably infer from the rec-
        ord a causal connection between the City’s decision to terminate
        Chavous and his request for FMLA leave. Allen, 121 F.3d at 646.
                In short, Chavous has failed to establish a prima facie case of
        FMLA retaliation. Further, because he has not established a prima
        facie case, we do not reach whether the City’s reason for terminat-
        ing him was pretextual.
                                         IV.
              Finally, we are similarly unconvinced by Chavous’s argu-
        ment that the district court erred in granting summary judgment
USCA11 Case: 22-10228     Document: 43-1      Date Filed: 01/31/2024     Page: 11 of 11

        22-10228               Opinion of the Court                        11

        on his FWCA retaliation claim. Under the FWCA, “[n]o employer
        shall discharge, threaten to discharge, intimidate, or coerce any em-
        ployee by reason of such employee’s valid claim for compensation
        or attempt to claim compensation under the Workers’ Compensa-
        tion Law.” Fla. Stat. § 440.205. This statute “creates a cause of ac-
        tion for employees who are subject to retaliatory treatment . . . for
        attempting to claim workers’ compensation [benefits].” Bifulco v.
        Patient Bus. & Fin. Servs., Inc., 39 So. 3d 1255, 1257 (Fla. 2010). We
        analyze FWCA retaliation claims under the McDonnell Douglas bur-
        den-shifting framework. See Andrews v. Direct Mail Exp., Inc., 1 So.
        3d 1192, 1193 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009).
                Here, the district court did not err in finding that Chavous
        failed to state a prima facie case of FWCA retaliation. Notably,
        Chavous does not identify in his complaint the dates on which he
        received workers’ compensation benefits. Nevertheless, the par-
        ties do not dispute that he received workers’ compensation bene-
        fits. However, as we’ve already explained, Chavous’s final termi-
        nation on August 27, 2018, was unrelated to either his request for
        FMLA leave or his receipt of workers’ compensation benefits. In-
        stead, it was due to his failure to report to work as directed. There-
        fore, Chavous has not stated a prima facie case for retaliation under
        the FWCA, and, again, we need not reach whether the City’s rea-
        son for terminating him was pretextual. Accordingly, we affirm
        the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the City of Saint
        Petersburg.
               AFFIRMED.