Court Opinion

ID: 9945211
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-27 16:01:58.13353+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:24.736447
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13880    Document: 40-1         Date Filed: 02/27/2024   Page: 1 of 21

                                                       [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                           ____________________

                                 No. 22-13880
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

        BOYAN SUBOTIC,
                                                          Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
        versus
        JABIL, INC.,
        a Foreign Proﬁt Corporation,
        a.k.a. Jabil Circuit, Inc.,

                                                        Defendant-Appellee.
                           ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Middle District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 8:21-cv-02137-VMC-SPF
USCA11 Case: 22-13880      Document: 40-1      Date Filed: 02/27/2024     Page: 2 of 21

        2                      Opinion of the Court                 22-13880

                             ____________________

        Before JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
                Boyan Subotic appeals the district court’s order granting
        summary judgment to Jabil, Inc., (“Jabil”) on his claims of discrim-
        ination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”),
        42 U.S.C. § 2000e, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the Florida Civil Rights Act
        of 1992 (“FCRA”), FLA. STAT. § 760.10, and his retaliation claims
        under Title VII, § 1981, the FCRA, and the Florida Whistleblowers
        Protection Act (“FWA”), FLA. STAT. § 448.102. Jabil also seeks at-
        torney’s fees under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38. After
        careful review, we affirm the rulings of the district court but deny
        Jabil’s motion for fees.
                                          I.
               Subotic was born and raised in Bosnia before moving to the
        United States when he was 19 years old, and he describes his eth-
        nicity as “Serbian.” Subotic also considers himself to be a “white
        Caucasian male.”
              In April 2017, Jabil hired Subotic as a full-time employee in
        the position of Support Technician II (“Tech II”) at Jabil’s Defense
        and Aerospace facility in St. Petersburg, Florida. Subotic self-iden-
        tiﬁed as “White (not Hispanic or Latino)” on his employment
        forms. The form did not have a space for Subotic to indicate his
        Serbian ethnicity or national origin, and Subotic did not identify
USCA11 Case: 22-13880      Document: 40-1      Date Filed: 02/27/2024     Page: 3 of 21

        22-13880               Opinion of the Court                         3

        himself or indicate that he was either from Bosnia or of Serbian
        national origin.
                In becoming a Jabil employee, Subotic received a Jabil Hand-
        book and agreed to follow Jabil’s policies and procedures. As rele-
        vant here, Subotic agreed to “[m]aintain discretion and conﬁdenti-
        ality in all areas pertaining to IT systems.” He also agreed to follow
        the company’s Global Information Security Policy. That Policy
        states that “[a]ll accounts providing access to Jabil information re-
        sources must be unique to each individual and must be used only
        by the assigned individual or approved by Global Information Se-
        curity.” Jabil considers a violation of the security policy to be “a
        serious oﬀense” that could result in termination and legal action.
               Similarly, Jabil’s Standards of Performance and Conduct sec-
        tion of the employee handbook prohibited the following “[i]nap-
        propriate [c]onduct,” the violation of which could result in disci-
        pline, including termination: misuse of company or employee
        property, harassing behavior, deliberate damage or attempts to
        damage company or employee property, and tampering with secu-
        rity equipment.
              At Jabil, each employee is assigned an individual Jabil com-
        puter and email account. The username for an employee’s Jabil
        account is their 9-digit Jabil employee number.
               As a Tech II, Subotic also had a Jabil administrator account
        with its own unique account number. Subotic understood that he
        was allowed to access other employees’ Jabil accounts only when
        the user or his supervisors requested he do so for IT purposes. At
USCA11 Case: 22-13880      Document: 40-1      Date Filed: 02/27/2024     Page: 4 of 21

        4                      Opinion of the Court                 22-13880

        Jabil, employees could request onsite IT assistance by (1) submit-
        ting an IT ticket, (2) going to the IT desk to ask a Tech for help, or
        (3) calling the IT desk or Tech for assistance.
                From the time Subotic began working at Jabil and until No-
        vember 2019, Subotic directly reported to Site IT Manager Romeo
        Cooper. As Subotic’s supervisor, Cooper rated Subotic’s perfor-
        mance in 2017 and 2018 as “meets standards.” But in 2019, Cooper
        found that Subotic’s performance declined, rating him as only “par-
        tially meets standards” and advising Subotic that he needed to “im-
        prove his support skills as a Support Technician II.”
              In November 2019, Andrew Eells was named IT Supervisor,
        and Eells became Subotic’s new direct supervisor. Eells, in turn,
        reported to Cooper at that time. Like Cooper, Eells found Subotic’s
        work as a Tech II to be lacking. Cooper thought Subotic’s skills
        were closer to a level-one support technician.
               On May 18, 2020, Natasha Holton was promoted to Site IT
        Manager, replacing Cooper. Holton’s duties required her to im-
        prove the performance of the onsite IT team, including Subotic.
        Eells remained Subotic’s direct supervisor, but he now reported to
        Holton.
              Subotic states that he does not believe he was discriminated
        against on any basis while working at Jabil from 2017 through mid-
        2020. At this point, though, Subotic alleges that his supervisors
        Holton and Eells unfairly disciplined him several times because he
        was Serbian, and that ultimately led to his unlawful termination.
USCA11 Case: 22-13880      Document: 40-1      Date Filed: 02/27/2024      Page: 5 of 21

        22-13880               Opinion of the Court                          5

               According to Subotic, he experienced discrimination when
        he was disciplined over his failure to execute his on-call duties. Out-
        side normal operating hours and on the weekends, Jabil technicians
        rotate being on call. Jabil’s expectation was that the on-call techni-
        cian would (1) answer the on-call telephone when it rang, (2) im-
        mediately begin working on resolving the issue and, (3) depending
        on the nature and severity of the issue, travel to the facility to re-
        solve the issue if it could not be resolved remotely.
               While on call on July 11, 2020, Subotic did not answer two
        phone calls from Holton and did not call her back for three hours,
        even though he was aware he was required to answer his phone
        while on call. Once Subotic learned that two employees were
        locked out of their accounts and needed help, he sent the users
        emails—even though Subotic knew that they “probably [could]
        not” access or read the emails because they were locked out of their
        computers. The two employees were eventually sent home be-
        cause they could not work while locked out of their computers.
               On July 14, 2020, Holton and Eells issued Subotic a verbal
        warning for his failure to properly perform his on-call duties on the
        weekend of July 11–12, 2020. Jabil’s Human Resources Generalist
        Jaclyn Mitchell approved the warning before Holton and Eells is-
        sued it.
              Subotic was disciplined again a week later for failing to carry
        an onsite phone. Jabil had an onsite IT phone that technicians were
        supposed to rotate carrying, according to an agreed-upon schedule.
        On July 21, 2020, Subotic’s co-worker, Support Technician I Scott
USCA11 Case: 22-13880      Document: 40-1      Date Filed: 02/27/2024     Page: 6 of 21

        6                      Opinion of the Court                 22-13880

        Marsala, saw that Subotic was not carrying the onsite phone and
        reported the violation to Eells. Later that morning, Holton and
        Eells issued Subotic a written warning for his failure to carry the
        onsite phone. Mitchell again approved the warning before Holton
        and Eells issued it. Subotic cannot recall whether he was carrying
        the onsite phone on July 20, 2020, but he did not object to the writ-
        ten warning.
               Subotic claims that he was unfairly singled out for discipline.
        According to Subotic, Marsala also had failed to carry the onsite
        phone as required, yet Marsala was not disciplined. But Subotic did
        not report Marsala at the time of the incident, and his supervisors
        were aware that Marsala forwarded calls to the onsite phone to
        their regular phone so that carrying the onsite phone was not nec-
        essary for Marsala to execute his duties.
               Ten days later on Friday, July 31, 2020, Subotic sent an email
        to Human Resources Manager Deanna Doheny, with copies to
        Eells and Holton, alleging that his “manager” had discriminated
        against him based upon his “national origin as being of a Serbian
        ethnicity.” Doheny began an investigation and met with Subotic
        the same day to get more information about his claims. Subotic
        alleged that Holton was discriminating against him by writing him
        up when she was not disciplining other technicians for similar in-
        fractions. Subotic had not been disciplined in the prior three years
        when Cooper had been the Site IT Manager.
             Subotic admitted to Doheny that his supervisors, Holton
        and Eells, had never made any negative comments about his
USCA11 Case: 22-13880      Document: 40-1      Date Filed: 02/27/2024     Page: 7 of 21

        22-13880               Opinion of the Court                         7

        Serbian ethnicity. And Holton claims she was unaware of Subotic’s
        national origin until he identiﬁed himself as Serbian in his July 31,
        2020, email. Subotic also does not recall otherwise informing her
        of his ethnicity. Eells, though, knew that Subotic was Serbian be-
        cause Subotic had told him. As for any other knowledge of Su-
        botic’s national origin on the part of Jabil employees, Subotic said
        that his co-worker, Marsala, had stated he did not want to try the
        “pity ethnic food” that Subotic had brought for lunch one day.
                On Monday, August 3, 2020, the following business day, Do-
        heny interviewed Holton about Subotic’s allegations. Holton de-
        nied discriminating against Subotic for any reason. She also advised
        Doheny about the warnings that she and Eells had issued to Subotic
        in July 2020 for his failure to perform his on-call duties. And Holton
        told Doheny that Mitchell had reviewed and approved each disci-
        plinary warning for Subotic.
                Holton advised Doheny that she and Eells had also disci-
        plined other employees for similar job-performance issues. She
        pointed, for instance, to Tech II Manny Freitas, who was issued a
        verbal warning on June 1, 2020, a written warning on June 29, 2020,
        a ﬁnal written warning on July 17, 2020, and then terminated on
        July 28, 2020, for his repeated job-performance issues, including ac-
        cessing employee accounts without a service ticket. Holton also
        mentioned a counseling session that she and Eells held with Tech I
        Marsala about complaints they had received from other techni-
        cians, including Subotic, about Marsala’s teamwork.
USCA11 Case: 22-13880     Document: 40-1      Date Filed: 02/27/2024    Page: 8 of 21

        8                     Opinion of the Court                 22-13880

                Finally, Holton told Doheny that in mid-July 2020, she had
        begun investigating a complaint made by an employee, Tatianna
        Lane, that Subotic had been trying to access her Jabil account with-
        out authorization. In an interview with Lane, Doheny learned that
        Lane had been experiencing an ongoing issue where she would be
        unable to log in to her Jabil account because of “too many failed
        login attempts,” despite the fact that Lane herself had made no
        failed login attempts. Lane had asked Marsala to help her ﬁgure
        out what was going wrong, and Marsala had discovered that Lane
        was locked out of her account because of unsuccessful login at-
        tempts from Subotic. Lane suspected that Subotic was attempting
        to log in to her computer because of several interpersonal incidents
        that had happened in the past. Subotic had previously inappropri-
        ately touched Lane’s vagina after a Jabil holiday party, expressed
        that he had “strong feelings” for her, and showed up at her apart-
        ment uninvited.
               After Lane reported this information to Holton, Holton and
        another employee, IT Architect Rob Ingenthron, investigated the
        system logs. Holton and Ingenthron discovered that Subotic’s
        login was used in six attempts to access or disable Lane’s account,
        from March to July 2020. There were no corresponding IT tickets
        for Lane during these times, and Lane denied otherwise asking Su-
        botic for assistance. Doheny also reviewed video footage of the IT
        area from the period that one of the attempts occurred. In it, she
        saw a man sitting in Subotic’s cubicle alone. Doheny presumed the
        man was Subotic because she saw Subotic enter his cube. Still,
        though, in her deposition, Doheny admitted that she had “no
USCA11 Case: 22-13880     Document: 40-1     Date Filed: 02/27/2024   Page: 9 of 21

        22-13880              Opinion of the Court                      9

        actual physical evidence” that the person sitting behind Subotic’s
        computer was actually Subotic.
               The investigation into Lane’s claims revealed two other at-
        tempts to access Lane’s account from computers besides Lane’s
        and Subotic’s: once from a computer assigned to employee Duy
        Huynh and once from a computer assigned to employee Nangellie
        Sanlnocencio. Doheny investigated these login attempts and deter-
        mined that Lane was responsible for the attempts, “as the multiple
        Jabil computers assigned to these two employees sat in JDAS con-
        ference rooms and on the JDAS ﬂoor, respectively, and were used
        by numerous employees,” including Lane. Likewise, Holton at-
        tested that the computer in Duy’s name was a conference-room
        computer that Lane had likely tried to use herself, and Lane
        “thought she had logged in” on Sanlnocencio’s computer once.
        Lane denied making any attempts to log in to her Jabil account
        from Subotic’s computer.
              On or about August 12, 2020, Doheny provided Subotic with
        her investigative ﬁndings on his complaint of discrimination
        against Holton. Doheny advised Subotic that she found no evi-
        dence that the warnings he received were unwarranted or that Hol-
        ton was treating him diﬀerently from other employees. Subotic
        told Doheny that he did not have any other concerns or evidence
        he wanted her to investigate, so Doheny informed him the investi-
        gation was closed.
               Several days later, Doheny interviewed Subotic regarding
        Lane’s lockout allegations. Doheny did not mention Lane by name
USCA11 Case: 22-13880     Document: 40-1      Date Filed: 02/27/2024     Page: 10 of 21

        10                     Opinion of the Court                 22-13880

        in this conversation and referred only to “another employee”
        whose account Subotic had attempted to access at least three times.
        In response to Doheny’s questions, Subotic claimed that he had
        locked himself out of his Jabil account, so he created a fake
        username and used a “random” employee identiﬁcation number to
        try to gain access. But Subotic could not oﬀer any explanation as
        to (1) why he had repeatedly used the same “random” employee
        identiﬁcation number belonging to Lane; (2) why these “random”
        attempts after he had a “lockout” occurred on diﬀerent dates; or (3)
        why he had administratively disabled Lane’s computer on two
        other occasions. Subotic did not claim that he had a legitimate rea-
        son to access another employee’s account, such as an IT ticket or a
        request for assistance from the employee.
               Doheny determined Subotic had committed a serious viola-
        tion of Jabil’s Security Policy and Code of Conduct, speciﬁcally of
        Sections 6.9.4 and 6.9.5, by trying to access Lane’s Jabil account and
        disabling her computer without authorization. As a consequence,
        Dohoney recommended that Subotic’s employment be termi-
        nated. Doheny advised Jabil’s Director of Operations, Ron Ander-
        son, and Holton of her recommendation to ﬁre Subotic for his
        breach of Jabil’s policies, and they agreed with the recommenda-
        tion.
               On August 18, 2020, Anderson and Doheny met with Su-
        botic and advised him that his employment with Jabil was being
        terminated because of his violation of Jabil policies. On the same
        day that Subotic was ﬁred, August 18, 2020, Holton and Eells issued
USCA11 Case: 22-13880      Document: 40-1        Date Filed: 02/27/2024     Page: 11 of 21

        22-13880                Opinion of the Court                          11

        Tech I Eric Flynn a verbal warning for his failure to carry the on-
        call phone when he was the technician designated as on call for the
        week of August 10–17, 2020.
               Subotic initiated this action on September 7, 2021. He as-
        serted national-origin discrimination and retaliation in violation of
        federal and state law. The district court awarded summary judg-
        ment in Jabil’s favor on all claims. Subotic v. Jabil, Inc., No. 8:21-CV-
        2137-VMC-SPF, 2022 WL 10487074, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 18, 2022).
        Subotic now appeals.
                                           II.
               We begin with Subotic’s argument that the district court
        abused its discretion when it declined to consider any alleged fac-
        tual disputes or additional material facts from Subotic that Subotic
        did not support with proper citations. The district court’s order on
        summary-judgment procedures required the parties to “set forth a
        pinpoint citation to the record” when disputing a fact, or the court
        would deem the fact admitted if otherwise supported. The court
        also informed the parties that “the page and line number of the
        deposition transcript must be included” for any factual statements
        they wanted to admit. (Emphasis added).
                In violation of the district court’s order, Subotic failed to
        properly dispute certain statements of material fact when he did
        not cite to any record evidence in support of his dispute. Subotic
        also failed to properly cite deposition testimony because he did not
        include specific line citations. Subotic, 2022 WL 10487074, at *7.
        For these reasons, the district court declined to consider the
USCA11 Case: 22-13880        Document: 40-1         Date Filed: 02/27/2024        Page: 12 of 21

        12                        Opinion of the Court                       22-13880

        improperly cited material and deemed admitted any material fact
        that Subotic had failed to properly dispute. Id. 1
                “Because the decision to admit or to exclude evidence is a
        matter for the sound discretion of the trial judge,” we review the
        district court’s application of the rules in its order for abuse of dis-
        cretion. United States v. Gold, 743 F.2d 800, 815 (11th Cir. 1984); see
        Reese v. Herbert, 527 F.3d 1253, 1267 n.22 (11th Cir. 2008) (reviewing
        the court’s application of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
        a corresponding local rule for abuse of discretion). Our review un-
        der the abuse-of-discretion standard is limited, and we give the dis-
        trict court considerably more leeway than if we were reviewing the
        decision de novo. Young v. City of Palm Bay, 358 F.3d 859, 863 (11th
        Cir. 2004). The district court enjoys a range of options under the
        abuse-of-discretion standard. So long as the district court does not
        commit a clear error in judgment, we will affirm its decision under
        this standard. Id.
                Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c)(1)(A) requires a party
        who asserts a genuine dispute of fact to support the assertion by
        citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depo-
        sitions. Judges generally cannot impose disadvantages for noncom-
        pliance with requirements not in federal law, federal rules, or the
        local rules “unless the alleged violator has been furnished in the

        1 The district court also excluded any evidence that Subotic failed to properly

        include in his statement of additional material facts, such as evidence in foot-
        notes in the body of his argument. Subotic, No. 2022 WL 10487074, at *7. Su-
        botic does not appear to dispute this exclusion of evidence.
USCA11 Case: 22-13880      Document: 40-1        Date Filed: 02/27/2024    Page: 13 of 21

        22-13880                Opinion of the Court                         13

        particular case with actual notice of the requirement.” FED. R. CIV.
        P. 83(b). Furnishing the litigants with the judge’s practices or an
        order in a case specifically adopting those preferences, though, suf-
        fices to give actual notice. Id. advisory committee’s note to 1995
        amendment.
                Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion in enforc-
        ing the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the preferences it artic-
        ulated in its order against Subotic. The court notified the parties in
        its order that it required line numbers in citations to deposition tes-
        timony, and it noted the consequences for failing to comply. In
        other words, the order gave Subotic actual notice of the court’s re-
        quirements. Id. Therefore, the district court did not commit a
        clear error of judgment in refusing to consider Subotic’s improp-
        erly cited evidence.
                                          III.
                We review the grant of summary judgment de novo. Thomas
        v. Cooper Lighting, Inc., 506 F.3d 1361, 1363 (11th Cir. 2007). When
        we review a motion for summary judgment, we must view all the
        evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, draw-
        ing all reasonable inferences and resolving all reasonable doubts in
        that party’s favor. Rioux v. City of Atlanta, 520 F.3d 1269, 1274 (11th
        Cir. 2008). Summary judgment is appropriate if the movant shows
        that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the mo-
        vant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. FED. R. CIV.
        P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). A factual
        dispute is genuine if it has a real basis in the record and the evidence
USCA11 Case: 22-13880         Document: 40-1          Date Filed: 02/27/2024         Page: 14 of 21

        14                         Opinion of the Court                         22-13880

        would allow a reasonable jury to rule in favor of the nonmovant.
        Ellis v. England, 432 F.3d 1321, 1325–26 (11th Cir. 2005). We may
        affirm an order granting summary judgment on any adequate basis
        that the record reflects, regardless of whether it is the one on which
        the district court relied. Fitzpatrick v. City of Atlanta, 2 F.3d 1112,
        1117 (11th Cir. 1993).
                                               III.
               We begin with Subotic’s discrimination claims, brought un-
        der Title VII and the FCRA. 2 Title VII prohibits an employer from
        discriminating against a person with respect to the “terms, condi-
        tions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s na-
        tional origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). The FCRA prohibits an
        employer from discharging or discriminating against any individual
        with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of

        2 Subotic also brough national-origin discrimination and retaliation claims un-

        der § 1981. The district court properly granted summary judgment in Jabil’s
        favor because by its terms, § 1981 applies to claims of discrimination based on
        race, not national origin. Subotic, 2022 WL 10487074, at *13 (citing 42 U.S.C.
        § 1981(a)). While Subotic claimed below and in his brief before this Court that
        “Serbian” is not just a national origin, but also an ethnicity, he does not address
        the district court’s primary reasons for denying his claim: that Subotic’s com-
        plaint does not reference ethnicity at all, that Subotic did not seek to amend
        his complaint to state that the § 1981 claim was based on ethnicity, and that it
        is well-established that plaintiffs cannot amend their complaints through argu-
        ments in briefs. Id. Because Subotic fails to challenge the district court’s ruling
        on these grounds, we affirm it. Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d
        678, 680 (11th Cir. 2014). Still, though, we note that even if Subotic had
        properly pled his § 1981 claims, they would still fail for the reasons we discuss
        later in this opinion.
USCA11 Case: 22-13880        Document: 40-1        Date Filed: 02/27/2024   Page: 15 of 21

        22-13880                  Opinion of the Court                       15

        employment, because of such individual’s national origin. FLA.
        STAT. § 760.10(1)(a). Because the FCRA is modeled on Title VII,
        Florida courts apply Title VII caselaw when they interpret the
        FCRA. Jones v. United Space All., L.L.C., 494 F.3d 1306, 1310 (11th
        Cir. 2007).
               As an initial matter, we address the theories of discrimina-
        tion we consider on appeal. In the district court, Jabil argued under
        the McDonnell Douglas 3 burden-shifting framework that Subotic
        could not establish a prima facie case of national-origin discrimina-
        tion or show that its legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for firing
        Subotic was pretext. In response, Subotic disavowed any single-
        motive theory for his claims, stating that he “d[id] not rely on the
        McDonnell Douglas analysis” but on a mixed-motive theory of liabil-
        ity. As a result, the district court found that Subotic had waived
        any argument that his claims should survive summary judgment
        under the McDonnell Douglas framework. Subotic, 2022 WL
        10487074, at *11. The district court also considered Jabil’s argu-
        ments against Subotic’s mixed-motive theory, made for the first
        time in its reply, because Subotic’s deposition testimony suggested
        that he was bringing single-motive, not mixed-motive, claims. Id.
              On appeal, Subotic argues that the district court should have
        considered whether Jabil’s reason for firing him was pretextual, an-
        yway, and it should have considered Jabil’s mixed-motive argu-
        ments waived. We disagree on both counts.

        3 McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802–03 (1973).
USCA11 Case: 22-13880        Document: 40-1        Date Filed: 02/27/2024        Page: 16 of 21

        16                        Opinion of the Court                      22-13880

                First, we agree with the district court that Subotic affirma-
        tively waived any single-motive theory of liability when he explic-
        itly disclaimed it in his response below. See Bailey v. Metro Ambu-
        lance Servs., Inc., 992 F.3d 1265, 1273–74 (11th Cir. 2021) (finding
        that the plaintiff had forfeited any “convincing mosaic” argument
        when he failed to raise it in relation to specific claims). 4
               Second, the court did not err in considering Jabil’s argu-
        ments against Subotic’s mixed-motive theory, given that Subotic
        insisted in discovery that the sole motive behind his discipline and
        termination was his national origin. District courts may consider
        new arguments made in a reply brief when those arguments re-
        spond to unexpected issues raised for the first time in the opposing
        party’s response. See Bank of Brewton v. Travelers Companies, Inc.,
        777 F.3d 1339, 1342 n.3 (11th Cir. 2015) (holding that it was appro-
        priate for a movant to respond to an argument in its reply that was
        “not fairly disclosed by the pleadings”).
               We also note, as a practical matter, that this is all of little
        consequence because Subotic cannot establish that Jabil’s decision
        to terminate him was even partially motivated by illegal bias.
               This brings us to Subotic’s mixed-motive arguments. A
        mixed-motive theory of discrimination involves showing that ille-
        gal bias, such as bias based on national origin, was a “motivating

        4 On appeal, Subotic discusses the convincing-mosaic theory for the first time.

        That is too late, so this argument has also been waived. Bailey, 992 F.3d at
        1273–74.
USCA11 Case: 22-13880         Document: 40-1          Date Filed: 02/27/2024           Page: 17 of 21

        22-13880                    Opinion of the Court                                  17

        factor” for an adverse employment action, even if other factors also
        motivated the action. Quigg v. Thomas Cnty. Sch. Dist., 814 F.3d
        1227, 1235 (11th Cir. 2016). A mixed-motive theory is distinct from
        a theory based on “multiple but-for causes,” any one of which
        would be a “necessary condition” in an employment decision. Yell-
        ing v. St. Vincent’s Health Sys., 82 F.4th 1329, 1339 (11th Cir. 2023).
        With a mixed-motive theory, “a plaintiff need only show that a pro-
        tected consideration contributed in some way to the outcome—
        even if it ultimately changed nothing.” Id. The mixed-motive the-
        ory framework requires a court to ask whether the plaintiff has of-
        fered evidence sufficient to convince a jury that (1) the defendant
        took an adverse employment action against the plaintiff; and (2) a
        protected characteristic was a motivating factor for the defendant’s
        adverse employment action. Quigg, 814 F.3d at 1239.
               Here, the court did not err in granting summary judgment
        to Jabil on Subotic’s discrimination claims under Title VII and the
        FCRA. First, the record shows that Holton was unaware of his na-
        tional origin when she disciplined him for failure to carry out his
        on-call duties. 5 Second, while Holton was aware of Subotic’s

        5  Subotic raises a cat’s paw argument for the first time on appeal. Under a
        cat’s paw argument, the plaintiff must show that “the ultimate (and manipu-
        lated) decisionmaker—the puppet—followed the biased recommendation of
        another—the puppeteer—without independently investigating the complaint
        against the employee.” Harris v. Pub. Health Tr. of Miami-Dade Cnty., 82 F.4th
        1296, 1401 (11th Cir. 2023) (cleaned up). First, Subotic waived this theory be-
        cause he never raised it in the district court. Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co.,
        385 F.3d 1324, 1331 (11th Cir. 2004). Second, even if he hadn’t, Holton testi-
        fied that Marsala provided a time-stamped photograph of the phone left on
USCA11 Case: 22-13880        Document: 40-1         Date Filed: 02/27/2024        Page: 18 of 21

        18                        Opinion of the Court                       22-13880

        national origin when she terminated him, there is no evidence that
        Holton or Eells harbored any bias towards Serbians. Subotic either
        admitted to or failed to deny that he violated Jabil’s policies and his
        job duties, and other technicians were disciplined for similar of-
        fenses. In particular, Subotic admitted to attempting to access
        Lane’s computer without permission from Lane or his supervisors
        on multiple occasions, a clear violation of Jabil’s policies. There-
        fore, the district court did not err when it granted summary judg-
        ment for Subotic’s discrimination claims in Jabil’s favor.
                                              IV.
               For similar reasons, Subotic’s retaliation claims under Title
        VII, the FCRA, and the FWA also fail. Under these statutes, an
        employer may not retaliate against an employee because the em-
        ployee has opposed an illegal employment practice. 42 U.S.C.
        § 2000e-3(a); FLA. STAT. § 760.10(7); FLA. STAT. § 448.102(3). Su-
        botic relies on circumstantial evidence and the three-step, bur-
        den-shifting McDonnell Douglas framework for his retaliation
        claims. Brown v. Ala. Dep’t of Transp., 597 F.3d 1160, 1181 (11th Cir.
        2010); (applying McDonnell Douglas to Title VII retaliation claims);
        Sierminski v. Transouth Fin. Corp., 216 F.3d 945, 950 (11th Cir. 2000)
        (applying the burden-shifting analysis used in Title VII retaliation

        the desk. And in any case, Marsala’s single comment about Subotic’s “pity
        ethnic food,” while certainly inappropriate, is not enough without more to
        raise the inference that his seemingly accurate report that Subotic was not car-
        rying the phone was motivated by bias, such that it tainted Holton and Eells
        decision to discipline Subotic.
USCA11 Case: 22-13880      Document: 40-1      Date Filed: 02/27/2024      Page: 19 of 21

        22-13880                Opinion of the Court                         19

        cases to an FWA claim); Harper v. Blockbuster Ent. Corp., 139 F.3d
        1385, 1389 (11th Cir. 1998) (holding that decisions construing Title
        VII guide the retaliation analysis under the FCRA, such that if a
        retaliation claim cannot stand under Title VII, it cannot stand un-
        der the FCRA).
                Under this framework, to establish a prima facie case of re-
        taliation, a plaintiff must show that (1) he engaged in a statutorily
        protected activity; (2) he suffered an adverse employment action;
        and (3) a causal link exists between the protected activity and the
        adverse action. McAlpin v. Sneads, 61 F.4th 916, 927 (11th Cir. 2023)
        (FWA claims); Pennington v. City of Huntsville, 261 F.3d 1262, 1266
        (11th Cir. 2001) (Title VII claims). If the plaintiff makes a prima
        facie showing, the burden shifts to the defendant to proffer a legit-
        imate, nonretaliatory reason for taking the adverse action. McAl-
        pin, 61 F.4th at 932. If the defendant provides such a reason, the
        burden shifts back to the plaintiff to establish that the proffered rea-
        son is mere pretext for retaliation. Id.
                The plaintiff can show pretext by establishing that it was
        more likely that a retaliatory reason motivated the employer or by
        pointing to “weaknesses, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contra-
        dictions” in the employer’s explanation. Alvarez v. Royal Atl. Devs.,
        Inc., 610 F.3d 1253, 1265 (11th Cir. 2010). If the proffered reason is
        one that would motivate a reasonable employer, a plaintiff cannot
        successfully rebut the reason by simply quarreling with the wisdom
        of the employer’s decision. Chapman v. AI Transp., 229 F.3d 1012,
        1030 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc). And when we assess whether an
USCA11 Case: 22-13880      Document: 40-1       Date Filed: 02/27/2024      Page: 20 of 21

        20                      Opinion of the Court                   22-13880

        employer has properly imposed an adverse action on an employee
        based on that employee’s conduct, the question is not whether the
        employee actually engaged in the conduct, but instead whether the
        employer had a good-faith belief that the employee had done so.
        Gogel v. Kia Motors Mfg. of Ga., Inc., 967 F.3d 1121, 1148 (11th Cir.
        2020).
                Here, the district court did not err in granting summary
        judgment to Jabil on Subotic’s retaliation claims. Subotic failed to
        rebut Jabil’s legitimate, nonretaliatory reason for his termination.
        Subotic admitted in his interview with Doheny that he attempted
        to access another employee’s computer without authorization
        from Lane or a supervisor, a clear violation of Jabil’s policies. And
        Jabil had a good-faith belief that Subotic had also locked Lane out
        of her computer on several occasions, based on the logs from the
        IT department and the video showing Subotic’s occupied cubicle
        at the time of the incident, another clear violation of Jabil’s policies.
        See Gogel, 967 F.3d at 1148. The one-off attempts from other com-
        puters to access Lane’s account were reasonably attributed to con-
        ference-room computers that Lane suggests she may have used
        herself. Subotic claims these reasons are “incoheren[t]” and incon-
        sistent. We disagree. To the contrary, they show that Jabil took
        the time to investigate the claims of wrongdoing and separated out
        what they found to be Subotic’s violations from Lane’s actions that
        were not attributable to Subotic. Subotic’s unauthorized series of
        attempts to access Lane’s account clearly violated Jabil’s security
        and conduct codes. Therefore, Jabil offered a legitimate business
        reason for its decision to terminate Subotic’s employment, and
USCA11 Case: 22-13880      Document: 40-1      Date Filed: 02/27/2024      Page: 21 of 21

        22-13880                Opinion of the Court                         21

        Subotic failed to rebut that legitimate reason. In short, the district
        court did not err when it ruled in favor of Jabil on all of Subotic’s
        retaliation claims.
                                          V.
                For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s sum-
        mary-judgment order in favor of Jabil on all claims. We DENY
        Jabil’s motion to assess damages and costs to Subotic under Federal
        Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 because Subotic’s claims are not
        “utterly devoid of merit,” given Marsala’s alleged comment. See
        Parker v. Am. Traffic Sols., Inc., 835 F.3d 1363, 1371 (11th Cir. 2016).
               AFFIRMED.