Court Opinion

ID: 9881862
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-04 15:00:58.643663+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:19.932387
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 21-11016    Document: 51-1      Date Filed: 10/04/2023   Page: 1 of 15

                                                              [PUBLISH]
                                    In the
                 United States Court of Appeals
                         For the Eleventh Circuit

                           ____________________

                                No. 21-11016
                           ____________________

        MARY E. HARRIS,
                                                       Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
        versus
        THE PUBLIC HEALTH TRUST OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY,
        d.b.a. Jackson Health System,
        d.b.a. Jackson Memorial Hospital,
        d.b.a. Jackson Hospital Ambulatory Clinic,
                                                   Defendant-Appellee.
                           ____________________
                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Florida
                     D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cv-25298-KMM
                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 21-11016         Document: 51-1        Date Filed: 10/04/2023        Page: 2 of 15

        2                         Opinion of the Court                      21-11016

        Before JILL PRYOR, NEWSOM, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
              Mary E. Harris—a black nurse who was disciplined and ulti-
        mately fired by her employer, Public Health Trust of Miami-Dade
        County—appeals the district court’s entry of summary judgment
        on her Title VII and state-law claims alleging (1) employment dis-
        crimination, (2) hostile work environment, and (3) retaliation.
        Harris contends that the district court erred in rejecting all three
        claims. We disagree and affirm.
                                              I
               First, a few basic facts: Harris worked for Public Health
        Trust for ten years. For the first eight, she was at Jackson North
        Medical Center. After her position there was eliminated, she re-
        quested and received a transfer to Jackson Reeves Senior Health
        Center, but following a series of disciplinary actions, Public Health
        Trust fired her. Harris claims that she experienced discrimination
        at both locations and that her termination was based on her race.
                                              II
               Having set the stage, we will consider Harris’s employment-
        discrimination, hostile-work-environment, and retaliation claims
        in turn, canvassing additional facts as necessary. 1

        1 We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, “consid-

        ering all of the evidence and the inferences it may yield in the light most fa-
        vorable to” Harris as “the nonmoving party.” Ellis v. England, 432 F.3d 1321,
        1325–26 (11th Cir. 2005).
USCA11 Case: 21-11016         Document: 51-1         Date Filed: 10/04/2023         Page: 3 of 15

        21-11016                   Opinion of the Court                                3

                                               A
               Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Florida Civil
        Rights Act of 1992 both make it unlawful for a private employer to
        “discriminate against any individual with respect to [her] compen-
        sation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of”
        her race or national origin. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1); see Fla. Stat.
        § 760.10(1)(a). 2
                In assessing an employment-discrimination claim at sum-
        mary judgment, we use one or more of three legal frameworks.
        First, and most obviously, direct evidence of discrimination neces-
        sarily creates a sufficiently genuine dispute to prevent summary
        judgment. Cases in which there is no direct evidence may proceed
        under either the burden-shifting analysis outlined in McDonnell
        Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), or the “convincing mo-
        saic” standard described in Smith v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 644 F.3d
        1321, 1328 (11th Cir. 2011).
               The district court here found no direct evidence of race dis-
        crimination, and so applied the McDonnell Douglas framework. Be-
        fore us, Harris insists that there is direct evidence—namely, an in-
        credibly nasty comment made by her supervisor at Jackson Reeves,
        Gianella Carreno, that “blacks are lazy, and don’t like to work.”
        Indeed, on appeal, Harris puts all her eggs in the direct-evidence

        2 Claims under Title VII and the FCRA are analyzed under the same frame-

        work. See Alvarez v. Royal Atl. Devs., Inc., 610 F.3d 1253, 1271 (11th Cir. 2010)
        (discrimination and retaliation); Wilbur v. Correctional Servs. Corp., 393 F.3d
        1192, 1195 n.1 (11th Cir. 2004) (hostile work environment).
USCA11 Case: 21-11016       Document: 51-1       Date Filed: 10/04/2023      Page: 4 of 15

        4                       Opinion of the Court                   21-11016

        basket; she doesn’t pursue either of the available methods of mak-
        ing out a circumstantial-evidence case. Under our precedent, she
        has thereby forfeited any circumstantial-evidence claims that she
        might have had. See Bryant v. Jones, 575 F.3d 1281, 1308 (11th Cir.
        2009) (holding that an argument under McDonnell Douglas was for-
        feited by failing to raise it in the district court); Bailey v. Metro Am-
        bulance Servs., Inc., 992 F.3d 1265, 1274 (11th Cir. 2021) (holding that
        a convincing-mosaic argument was forfeited on appeal). There-
        fore, unless Carreno’s statement constitutes direct evidence, Har-
        ris’s employment-discrimination claim will fail.
                We have held that only the “most blatant remarks,” whose
        intent could be nothing other than to discriminate, constitute di-
        rect evidence of discrimination. Wilson v. B/E Aerospace, Inc., 376
        F.3d 1079, 1086 (11th Cir. 2004). “If the alleged statement suggests,
        but does not prove, a discriminatory motive, then it is circumstan-
        tial evidence”—not direct. Id. While statements made by a deci-
        sionmaker—i.e., the one who ultimately fired, demoted, or pun-
        ished the plaintiff—may constitute direct evidence, see, e.g., EEOC
        v. Alton Packaging Corp., 901 F.2d 920, 923 (11th Cir. 1990), “remarks
        by non-decisionmakers or remarks unrelated to the decisionmak-
        ing process itself are not direct evidence of discrimination,” Stand-
        ard v. A.B.E.L. Servs., Inc., 161 F.3d 1318, 1330 (11th Cir. 1998).
               Harris concedes that Carreno wasn’t the formal deci-
        sionmaker but nonetheless insists that she was the driving force be-
        hind her discipline and eventual termination. Harris is thus making
        a so-called “cat’s paw” argument, although “puppet master” might
USCA11 Case: 21-11016         Document: 51-1          Date Filed: 10/04/2023         Page: 5 of 15

        21-11016                   Opinion of the Court                                 5

        more aptly describe it. We have never applied the cat’s-paw theory
        to a direct-evidence claim, 3 and we needn’t decide today whether
        it so applies, because even if it did, it wouldn’t be satisfied here. A
        cat’s-paw argument requires evidence that the ultimate (and ma-
        nipulated) decisionmaker—the puppet—“followed the biased rec-
        ommendation” of another—the puppeteer—“without inde-
        pendently investigating the complaint against the employee.”
        Stimpson v. City of Tuscaloosa, 186 F.3d 1328, 1332 (11th Cir. 1999).
        But beyond “mere conclusions and unsupported factual allega-
        tions,” which don’t suffice to defeat summary judgment, Ellis v.
        England, 432 F.3d 1321, 1327 (11th Cir. 2005), Harris provides no
        evidence of a failure to investigate. To the contrary, Harris con-
        cedes that the individual who fired her, Caridad Nieves, conducted
        her own investigation and relied on, if anything, the recommenda-
        tion of someone other than Carreno. And the supervisors who
        meted out Harris’s pre-termination reprimands likewise inde-
        pendently investigated the underlying facts. See Doc. 32-2 ¶¶ 7–12
        (Freeman); Doc. 32-15 ¶¶ 3, 4–6 (Nieves). Harris responds that
        those supervisors failed to investigate whether Carreno was biased,
        but they didn’t have to—Harris mistakes the object of the required

        3 Neither decision that Harris cites held that a cat’s-paw theory can be the basis

        for a direct-evidence claim. See Llampallas v. Mini-Circuits, Lab, Inc., 163 F.3d
        1236, 1249 (11th Cir. 1998); Wright v. Southland Corp., 187 F.3d 1287, 1304 n.20
        (11th Cir. 1999). The portion of Wright on which Harris relies also comes from
        an opinion joined only by a single judge. See id. at 1306 (Cox, J., concurring)
        (“I do not join Judge Tjoflat’s opinion.”); id. (Hull, J., concurring) (“I concur
        only in the result reached by Judge Tjoflat’s opinion.”).
USCA11 Case: 21-11016      Document: 51-1      Date Filed: 10/04/2023     Page: 6 of 15

        6                      Opinion of the Court                 21-11016

        investigation. As we have explained, what’s required to rebut a
        cat’s-paw allegation is an investigation of “the complaint against
        the employee”—not of the bias of the recommender. Stimpson, 186
        F.3d at 1332.
             We therefore affirm the district court’s grant of summary
        judgment on Harris’s employment-discrimination claim.
                                          B
               To prevail on her hostile-work-environment claim, Harris
        must establish that she suffered unwelcome harassment, that it was
        based on a protected characteristic, and that it was sufficiently “se-
        vere or pervasive” to alter the terms and conditions of her employ-
        ment and create an abusive working environment. Miller v. Ken-
        worth of Dothan, Inc., 277 F.3d 1269, 1275 (11th Cir. 2002).
                The “severe or pervasive” requirement entails both an ob-
        jective component—namely, that a reasonable person would find
        the environment hostile or abusive—and a subjective component.
        Id. at 1276. In evaluating the objective severity of the harassment,
        we consider (1) the frequency of the conduct, (2) its severity,
        (3) whether it was “physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere
        offensive utterance,” and (4) whether it unreasonably interfered
        with the employee’s job performance. Id. Title VII, as we have
        emphasized, is not a federal “civility code.” Reeves v. C.H. Robinson
        Worldwide, Inc., 594 F.3d 798, 809 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (quot-
        ing Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788 (1998)).
               Harris alleges nine events or conditions that, she says, col-
        lectively rendered her workplace environment actionably hostile.
USCA11 Case: 21-11016       Document: 51-1      Date Filed: 10/04/2023      Page: 7 of 15

        21-11016                Opinion of the Court                          7

        In particular, she asserts that over a three-year period, her supervi-
        sors (1) made the one highly offensive comment (i.e., Carreno’s
        slur that “blacks are lazy, and don’t like to work”), (2) restricted her
        access to a supply closet, (3) micromanaged and excessively moni-
        tored her work, (4) solicited peers to report on her violations, (5)
        made her work alongside colleagues with histories of abuse, (6)
        once poked her on the shoulder, (7) wrongfully disciplined her, (8)
        made her perform more clerical duties than her peers, and (9) dis-
        believed or otherwise ignored her complaints of race discrimina-
        tion. The district court refused to consider parts of No. 3 and all of
        No. 5 on the ground that they were time-barred. It otherwise
        found that the conditions that Harris alleged weren’t sufficiently
        severe or pervasive to constitute a hostile work environment.
                Before us, the parties dispute which of the nine items we
        should consider. Harris argues that the district court incorrectly
        excluded evidence from her time at Jackson North as time-barred.
        Public Health Trust counters that several of the other events that
        Harris alleges are irrelevant because they weren’t caused by her
        race. Separately, the parties dispute whether the workplace con-
        duct met the severe-or-pervasive threshold. We’ll address those
        issues in turn.
                                           1
               As an initial matter, we conclude that the district court
        properly refused to consider the Jackson North evidence, albeit for
        the wrong reason. Title VII and the FCRA require employees to
        file administrative complaints within a specified number of days
USCA11 Case: 21-11016         Document: 51-1         Date Filed: 10/04/2023      Page: 8 of 15

        8                          Opinion of the Court                    21-11016

        from the challenged employment action(s). See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-
        5(e); Fla. Stat. § 760.11(1). In general, events that occur outside the
        prescribed period aren’t actionable. There are two respects,
        though, in which such events might be relevant. 4 First, for any
        type of discrimination claim, an employee can cite “prior acts as
        background evidence in support of a timely claim.” National R.R.
        Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 113 (2002). Second, a single,
        continuing hostile work environment can include events that pre-
        date the applicable time period. Id. at 115–21. That’s because
        “[h]ostile environment claims are different in kind” in that they are
        “composed of a series of separate acts that collectively constitute
        one ‘unlawful employment practice.’” Id. at 115, 117 (quoting 42
        U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1)). Importantly, though, events that occurred
        outside the prescribed period aren’t part of the same timely hostile-
        work-environment claim if they aren’t related to those that oc-
        curred within the period. Id. at 118.
               The district court correctly held that the events that Harris
        described at Jackson North—her previous supervisors’ microman-
        aging and her being made to work with abusive colleagues—were
        not relevant “background evidence.” By background evidence, we
        mean “prior practices” that are “relevant to show[ing] inde-
        pendently actionable conduct occurring within the statutory pe-
        riod.” Fisher v. Procter & Gamble Mfg. Co., 613 F.2d 527, 540 (5th Cir.

        4 The citations that follow interpret Title VII. Florida’s courts have adopted
        the same approach to the FCRA. See, e.g., Maggio v. Dep’t of Lab. & Emp. Sec.,
        910 So. 2d 876, 879–80 (Fla. 2d Dist. Ct. App. 2005).
USCA11 Case: 21-11016       Document: 51-1       Date Filed: 10/04/2023      Page: 9 of 15

        21-11016                Opinion of the Court                           9

        1980) (citing United Air Lines, Inc. v. Evans, 431 U.S. 553, 558 (1977)).
        Such background evidence could, for example, show that the
        within-period practices were caused by discrimination, see Jepsen v.
        Fla. Bd. of Regents, 610 F.2d 1379, 1383 (5th Cir. 1980), or that they
        were severe or pervasive. The events at Jackson North do neither.
        Actions taken by managers at one location aren’t probative of what
        caused actions later taken by different managers at a different loca-
        tion. Nor are they probative of the later actions’ severity.
                The district court failed to consider whether the Jackson
        North events were part of the same, ongoing hostile work environ-
        ment, but its error doesn’t affect the outcome because they
        weren’t. In Watson v. Blue Circle, Inc., we held that where an em-
        ployer confronted a harassing supervisor and the employee there-
        after experienced no further problems with that individual, the pre-
        confrontation events weren’t part of the same practice as later
        events. 324 F.3d 1252, 1259 (11th Cir. 2003). So too here. In 2014,
        Public Health Trust granted Harris’s requested transfer from Jack-
        son North to Jackson Reeves. Because Harris changed physical
        work environments and thereafter encountered no discrimination
        at the hands of her former supervisors, the events at Jackson North
        can’t be deemed part of the same, continuing practice as those that
        occurred at Jackson Reeves. See McGullam v. Cedar Graphics, Inc.,
        609 F.3d 70, 78 (2d Cir. 2010) (explaining that transfer to a “different
        sector of the building” is one reason prior events were unrelated).
USCA11 Case: 21-11016      Document: 51-1       Date Filed: 10/04/2023      Page: 10 of 15

        10                      Opinion of the Court                   21-11016

                                           2
               Public Health Trust says that several incidents that occurred
        at Jackson Reeves shouldn’t be considered because they weren’t
        caused by Harris’s race. Public Health Trust is correct that federal
        law doesn’t prohibit hostility in the workplace—only hostility
        caused by impermissible discrimination. See Oncale v. Sundowner
        Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 80 (1998). Accordingly, Harris
        must ultimately show that “but for the fact of her” race, “she would
        not have been the object of” the actions that collectively constitute
        her hostile-work-environment claim. Mendoza v. Borden, Inc., 195
        F.3d 1238, 1247–48 & 1248 n.5 (11th Cir. 1999) (en banc) (assessing
        discrimination on an action-by-action basis and citing, among other
        cases, Brill v. Lante Corp., 119 F.3d 1266, 1274 (7th Cir.1997)); cf. On-
        cale, 523 U.S. at 81 (“Whatever evidentiary route the plaintiff
        chooses to follow, he or she must always prove that the conduct at
        issue was not merely tinged with offensive sexual connotations,
        but actually constituted ‘discrimina[tion] . . . because of . . . sex.’”)
        (alteration in original). At summary judgment, therefore, she must
        demonstrate a genuine factual dispute about the causation issue.
               We agree with Public Health Trust that three of the inci-
        dents weren’t caused by Harris’s race and, accordingly, shouldn’t
        be considered as part of the hostile-work-environment calculus.
        The first is straightforward: In affirming the district court’s grant
        of summary judgment on Harris’s employment-discrimination
USCA11 Case: 21-11016         Document: 51-1          Date Filed: 10/04/2023           Page: 11 of 15

        21-11016                    Opinion of the Court                                  11

        claim, we have already concluded that her discipline wasn’t based
        on her race. 5
                Second, the poke on the shoulder. The only evidence is Har-
        ris’s testimony: “[O]n one occasion I was in the lab room, and Ms.
        Gianella came in and she tapped me on—I was—I had my back
        turned and she came and tapped me on my shoulder, and I said,
        ‘Don’t touch me. Why are you touching me?’” Doc. 32-5 at 81–
        82. To be sure, that is evidence that the event occurred. But “dis-
        crimination is a comparative concept.” Lewis v. City of Union City,
        918 F.3d 1213, 1223 (11th Cir. 2019) (en banc). Without evidence
        that the shoulder-poke was caused by discrimination, such as that
        similarly situated white employees were treated differently,
        “there’s no way of knowing (or even inferring) that discrimination
        [was] afoot.” Id. Because Harris has provided neither, she hasn’t

        5 Technically, the standards applicable to Harris’s employment-discrimination

        and hostile-work-environment claims are different. For whatever reason, we
        haven’t applied the three traditional frameworks—direct evidence, McDonnell
        Douglas, and “convincing mosaic”—to hostile-work-environment claims.
        Others have. See., e.g., Lounds v. Lincare, Inc., 812 F.3d 1208, 1221 (10th Cir.
        2015); Clay v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 501 F.3d 695, 706 (6th Cir. 2007); Erenberg
        v. Methodist Hosp., 357 F.3d 787, 792 (8th Cir. 2004); Bhatti v. Trustees of Bos.
        Univ., 659 F.3d 64, 70 (1st Cir. 2011); cf. also Reeves v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide,
        Inc., 594 F.3d 798, 808 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (noting that a hostile-work-
        environment claim is just a species of disparate-treatment claim). We needn’t
        go down that road today because, for reasons already explained, we conclude
        that Harris hasn’t presented evidence to create a genuine dispute about
        whether her discipline was caused by her race.
USCA11 Case: 21-11016     Document: 51-1      Date Filed: 10/04/2023    Page: 12 of 15

        12                     Opinion of the Court                21-11016

        created a genuine dispute about whether the event was caused by
        her race.
               Finally, access to the supply closet. At a weekly staff meet-
        ing, Public Health Trust announced a change in its policy: Access
        to the supply closet would thereafter be limited to a few specific
        individuals. Harris wasn’t one of those given access. But she hasn’t
        alleged that other similarly situated white nurses had access. Nor
        does she suggest in any other way—beyond mere assertion—that
        the change in policy or the decision to deny her access had anything
        to do with her race. Accordingly, Harris hasn’t created a genuine
        factual dispute sufficient to survive summary judgment.
                                         3
               On, then, to the merits of Harris’s hostile-work-environ-
        ment claim. Of the original nine alleged events, we are left with
        only five: Harris’s supervisors at Jackson Reeves made one highly
        offensive comment, micromanaged and excessively monitored her
        work, solicited peers to report on her violations, made her perform
        clerical duties, and disbelieved or ignored her complaints of race
        discrimination.
               Even considering Harris’s limited evidence in the light most
        favorable to her, these are not, given the totality of the circum-
        stances, sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms and con-
        ditions of her employment and create an abusive working environ-
        ment. See Miller, 277 F.3d at 1275. On the one hand, Carreno’s slur
        about black employees’ poor work ethic was ignorant and ex-
        tremely demeaning. On the other hand, it was isolated, it wasn’t
USCA11 Case: 21-11016      Document: 51-1       Date Filed: 10/04/2023      Page: 13 of 15

        21-11016                Opinion of the Court                          13

        directed specifically at Harris, and it wasn’t as severe as the remarks
        that courts have found created hostile environments. See Smelter v.
        Southern Home Care Servs. Inc., 904 F.3d 1276, 1282 (11th Cir. 2018)
        (describing seven similarly severe comments by the plaintiff’s su-
        pervisors); Ayissi-Etoh v. Fannie Mae, 712 F.3d 572, 580 (D.C. Cir.
        2013) (Kavanaugh, J., concurring) (discussing “the n-word”). From
        the limited evidence provided, there is no reasonable inference that
        the other conduct was particularly frequent, physically threaten-
        ing, or humiliating or—even considered together with Carreno’s
        statement—that it unreasonably interfered with Harris’s job per-
        formance.
              We thus conclude that the district court properly granted
        summary judgment to Public Health Trust on Harris’s hostile-
        work-environment claim.
                                           C
               Title VII and the FCRA prohibit an employer from retaliat-
        ing against an employee for opposing an unlawful employment
        practice. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a); Fla. Stat. § 760.10(7).
                A retaliation claim based on circumstantial evidence is ana-
        lyzed under the McDonnell Douglas framework. See Crawford v. Car-
        roll, 529 F.3d 961, 975–76 (11th Cir. 2008). If the plaintiff establishes
        a prima facie case of retaliation, and the employer proffers a legiti-
        mate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions, then the plaintiff
        must show that the employer’s stated reason is pretextual. See
        Gogel v. Kia Motors Mfg. of Ga., Inc., 967 F.3d 1121, 1135 (11th Cir.
        2020) (en banc). In assessing pretext, the court “must evaluate
USCA11 Case: 21-11016        Document: 51-1        Date Filed: 10/04/2023        Page: 14 of 15

        14                        Opinion of the Court                     21-11016

        whether the plaintiff has demonstrated ‘such weaknesses, implau-
        sibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions in the
        employer’s proffered legitimate reasons for its action that a reason-
        able factfinder could find them unworthy of credence.’” Combs v.
        Plantation Patterns, 106 F.3d 1519, 1538 (11th Cir. 1997) (quoting
        Sheridan v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 100 F.3d 1061, 1072 (3d
        Cir. 1996)). Ultimately, the employee’s burden is to prove that “the
        desire to retaliate was the but-for cause” of the challenged action.
        University of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338, 352 (2013).
               Here, because the district court found that Harris’s retalia-
        tion claims failed on several grounds, we can affirm on any one of
        them. See Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins., 739 F.3d 678, 680 (11th
        Cir. 2014). We conclude that, even if Harris presented a prima facie
        case, she failed to show that the employer’s proffered reasons for
        her discipline and termination were pretextual.
               Public Health Trust stated its reasons—primarily tardiness,
        absences, and insubordination—in six disciplinary-action reports,
        two suspension letters, and a termination letter. Other than her
        own testimony, Harris offers essentially no evidence that she
        wasn’t tardy, absent, or insubordinate. Nor does she provide any
        basis for concluding that the hospital’s timekeeping software’s rec-
        ords were inaccurate. 6

        6 Harris also cites a co-worker’s testimony that she (i.e., the co-worker) did

        “not have knowledge of Ms. Harris being excessively tardy or absent” and
        “never witnessed Ms. Harris being insubordinate.” Doc. 42-5. But even taking
        them in the light most favorable to Harris, those general attestations don’t
USCA11 Case: 21-11016        Document: 51-1        Date Filed: 10/04/2023        Page: 15 of 15

        21-11016                  Opinion of the Court                             15

                Harris separately argues that even if the underlying facts are
        true, others wouldn’t have been punished for the same underlying
        facts—and, therefore, that her treatment was the product of race
        discrimination. While that would support a claim if true, Harris
        offers only “mere conclusions and unsupported factual allegations”
        of it. Ellis, 432 F.3d at 1327. She hasn’t provided any evidence that,
        for instance, she was treated worse than any other nurse with a
        spotty attendance record. And that is dispositive. Because Harris
        offers nothing that would allow a fact-finder to conclude that “the
        desire to retaliate was the but-for cause of the challenged employ-
        ment action,” Nassar, 570 U.S. at 352, the district court correctly
        concluded that she has failed to create a genuine dispute about
        whether Public Health Trust’s stated reasons were pretextual. 7
                                             III
                For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the
        district court.
               AFFIRMED.

        create a genuine dispute about whether the documented, specific instances—
        which the coworker doesn’t deny—actually occurred.
        7 Neither of the other two methods of showing discrimination applies. Harris

        hasn’t presented any direct evidence of retaliation. And because Harris hasn’t
        raised a convincing-mosaic argument, our precedents hold that she has for-
        feited it. See supra at 4.