Court Opinion

ID: 9954425
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-26 14:00:42.723583+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:12:11.973491
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13278    Document: 23-1      Date Filed: 03/26/2024   Page: 1 of 17

                                                    [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                           ____________________

                                 No. 22-13278
                            Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

        JULIUS TRIMBLE,
                                                       Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
        versus
        FORT VALLEY STATE UNIVERSITY,
        Department of Legal and Governmental Services,
        VALARIE BASS,
        Social and Behavioral Sciences Department Secretary,
        KOMANDURI S MURTY,
        Social and Behavioral Sciences Department Chair,
        GREGORY FORD,
        Vice Chancelor for Academic Aﬀairs,
USCA11 Case: 22-13278         Document: 23-1          Date Filed: 03/26/2024         Page: 2 of 17

        2                          Opinion of the Court                        22-13278

                                                              Defendants-Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Middle District of Georgia
                        D.C. Docket No. 5:22-cv-00070-TES
                              ____________________

        Before WILSON, LUCK, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
                Plaintiff in this pro se action asserts sex discrimination and
        retaliation claims under Title VII against his former employer Fort
        Valley State University (“Fort Valley”). 1 The district court dis-
        missed Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Federal Rule 12(b)(6) for
        failure to state a claim. After a careful review of the record and the
        briefing submitted by the parties, we AFFIRM.

        1 In his original complaint, Plaintiff also asserted claims against other individ-

        uals who had either supervised or worked with him at Fort Valley. Plaintiff
        subsequently filed a motion to amend his complaint, which the district court
        granted. The amended, operative complaint names only Fort Valley as a de-
        fendant. Accordingly, the district court did not address below, and we do not
        consider on appeal, the claims Plaintiff initially asserted against the individual
        defendants.
USCA11 Case: 22-13278        Document: 23-1        Date Filed: 03/26/2024       Page: 3 of 17

        22-13278                 Opinion of the Court                              3

                                    BACKGROUND
               This case arises from Plaintiff’s employment with and even-
        tual resignation from Fort Valley. 2 Plaintiff does not specify the
        dates or terms of his employment, but we gather from the facts set
        out in the complaint that he was hired as a professor in Fort Val-
        ley’s criminal justice department sometime before 2014, and that
        he worked in that position until he resigned from Fort Valley in
        August 2021. Until June 2021, Plaintiff had also been serving as the
        program coordinator for the department. In his position as profes-
        sor and program coordinator, Plaintiff worked with Valarie Bass,
        the administrative assistant for the criminal justice department.
        The criminal justice department was itself a part of the larger Social
        and Behavioral Sciences Department. Accordingly, Plaintiff was
        supervised by the chair of that department, Dr. Komanduri Murty,
        who in turn was supervised by Dr. Gregory Ford, the dean of the
        College of Arts and Sciences. Both Dr. Murty and Dr. Ford are
        male; Ms. Bass is female.
               After an instructor in the criminal justice department, Ms.
        Barner-Bowman, passed away unexpectedly in March 2020, Dr.
        Murty asked Plaintiff to advise the students who Bowman had been
        advising, as well as to teach her two online criminal law classes.
        Plaintiff alleges that, thereafter, Bass began a campaign of harass-
        ment against him that continued until he resigned from Fort Valley
        more than a year later. According to Plaintiff, the harassment

        2 We restate the facts of this case as set out in the amended, operative com-
        plaint, which for simplicity’s sake we refer to as “the Complaint.”
USCA11 Case: 22-13278       Document: 23-1      Date Filed: 03/26/2024      Page: 4 of 17

        4                       Opinion of the Court                  22-13278

        primarily involved Bass encouraging former students of Bowman
        who were now being advised by Plaintiff, to send email messages
        to Plaintiff, copied to Dr. Murty and Dean Ford, in which emails
        the students requested assistance or asked questions about the
        courses they needed to take. Most of the allegations in Plaintiff’s
        complaint consist of direct quotes from these emails, accompanied
        by Plaintiff’s commentary concerning the subject matter of the
        email. As described by Plaintiff, the emails seem typical of what a
        college professor would expect to receive from students under his
        advisement. They generally consist of a polite request for help
        with registration or an audit to determine whether a student is on
        track to graduate, albeit a few of the emails include pointed com-
        plaints about Plaintiff’s failure to respond to a specific request for
        assistance.
                But, according to Plaintiff, many of these emails reflected
        the first time that the student had contacted Plaintiff, and he sus-
        pected that Bass had encouraged the students to copy Dr. Murty
        and Dean Ford to make it appear that Plaintiff was unresponsive to
        students. In short, it is Plaintiff’s theory that Bass orchestrated this
        email campaign to undermine his reputation with Dr. Murty and
        Dean Ford.
              Finally, on June 17, 2021, which was approximately 15
        months after Plaintiff claims the email harassment had started, Dr.
        Murty telephoned Plaintiff and informed him that Murty was re-
        moving Plaintiff from the program coordinator position within the
        criminal justice department and that a new coordinator would be
USCA11 Case: 22-13278      Document: 23-1     Date Filed: 03/26/2024     Page: 5 of 17

        22-13278               Opinion of the Court                        5

        named for the upcoming academic year. Dr. Murty explained that
        he made this decision as a result of Plaintiff’s continuing bad work-
        ing relationship with Bass, who had indicated that she found work-
        ing with Plaintiff to be difficult and who said that she preferred to
        work with Dr. Craig, who was another male professor in the de-
        partment. Dr. Murty further explained that Dean Ford had in-
        quired whether Murty was going to continue Plaintiff in this posi-
        tion, given the issues concerning Plaintiff’s unresponsiveness to
        students.
               A few minutes after this telephone conversation, Plaintiff re-
        ceived a “message” from Dr. Murty indicating that, per their recent
        telephone conversation, Plaintiff’s three-year term as program co-
        ordinator had ended and that a new coordinator would be named
        for the next year. Dr. Murty thanked Plaintiff for his services,
        which he said were “much appreciated.” Plaintiff then contacted
        Dean Ford who indicated that Dr. Murty had stated that a change
        needed to be made given the ongoing tension between Plaintiff and
        Bass.
               A few weeks later, in July 2021, Plaintiff contacted Dr. Murty
        and told him he could no longer work with Bass because of her
        continuing harassment. According to Plaintiff, Dr. Murty re-
        sponded that if he did not want to work with Bass, who was the
        administrative assistant for the criminal justice department in
        which Plaintiff was employed, then Plaintiff should resign his posi-
        tion. At that time, Plaintiff declined to resign.
USCA11 Case: 22-13278       Document: 23-1       Date Filed: 03/26/2024      Page: 6 of 17

        6                       Opinion of the Court                   22-13278

                Ultimately, however, in August 2021 Plaintiff did decide to
        resign, which resignation was approved by Dr. Murty on August 9,
        2021. Plaintiff suggested in a written letter to Dr. Murty that his
        resignation was orchestrated by Bass, and he indicated that he
        would be pursuing legal action against Fort Valley. Plaintiff re-
        ceived a response from Dr. Murty thanking him again for his ser-
        vices and stating that his contributions were appreciated “despite
        [his] false accusations.”
                As to the motivation for Bass’s alleged efforts to undermine
        Plaintiff, Plaintiff believes that Bass preferred that Dr. Craig, a male
        professor in the department, act as program coordinator because
        Bass found it easier to get along with Dr. Craig, whom Plaintiff be-
        lieves to have been her friend. Plaintiff also notes in his brief, albeit
        not in his Complaint, two other reasons why Bass had developed
        personal animosity toward him. Specifically, Bass had once re-
        quested that Plaintiff hire a “Mr. Edwards” as an adjunct professor,
        but Plaintiff had declined to do so, noting that this decision was up
        to Dr. Murty. Second, Plaintiff had declined Bass’s request that her
        friend, Ms. Bowman, be allowed to take over the internship pro-
        gram.
               After he resigned in August 2021, Plaintiff filed an EEOC
        charge against Fort Valley alleging sex discrimination and retalia-
        tion in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. Plaintiff sub-
        sequently received his right to sue letter and initiated this action.
        Although he identifies several “discriminatory employment ac-
        tions,” Plaintiff’s Title VII sex discrimination claim essentially boils
USCA11 Case: 22-13278      Document: 23-1      Date Filed: 03/26/2024      Page: 7 of 17

        22-13278               Opinion of the Court                          7

        down to a claim that he was harassed and constructively discharged
        as a result of Bass’s email campaign against him. Secondarily, he
        claims that he was retaliated against because he complained about
        the email harassment.
                The district court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to
        Federal Rule 12(b)(6) after concluding that it failed to state a plau-
        sible claim for relief under Title VII. The court noted that Plaintiff
        had not alleged any adverse employment action and that his com-
        plaint contained no facts to support a reasonable inference that the
        mistreatment he complained about had anything to do with his sex,
        both of which are required to sustain a claim for discrimination un-
        der Title VII. Essentially, the district court concluded, Plaintiff’s
        complaint described a “common workplace quibble” between him-
        self and Bass that did not constitute actionable discrimination un-
        der Title VII. As for retaliation, the court determined that Plaintiff
        had not plausibly alleged protected activity, which is an essential
        element of a retaliation claim.
                Plaintiff appeals the dismissal of his complaint. Because we
        conclude that Plaintiff has failed to allege a plausible claim for sex-
        based discrimination or retaliation under Title VII, we affirm the
        district court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint.
                                   DISCUSSION
        I.     Standard of Review
              We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s
        complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule 12(b)(6),
        accepting the facts asserted in the complaint as true and applying
USCA11 Case: 22-13278       Document: 23-1       Date Filed: 03/26/2024      Page: 8 of 17

        8                       Opinion of the Court                    22-13278

        the same standard as the district court to determine whether those
        facts are sufficient to survive dismissal. See Jacob v. Mentor World-
        wide, LLC, 40 F.4th 1329, 1334 (11th Cir. 2022). The federal rules
        require that a complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the
        claim” asserted by the plaintiff. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). In addition
        to containing well-pleaded factual allegations, a complaint must
        also meet the “plausibility standard” set forth by the Supreme
        Court in Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) and
        Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). Under that standard, the com-
        plaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
        state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
        678 (citation and quotation marks omitted). That is, the complaint
        must include facts that permit a “reasonable inference that the de-
        fendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.
               As a pro se litigant, Plaintiff’s pleadings “are held to a less
        stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will,
        therefore, be liberally construed.” Tannenbaum v. United States, 148
        F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). However, this leniency does not
        give a court “license to serve as de facto counsel for a party, or to
        rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an ac-
        tion.” GJR Invs., Inc. v. Cnty. of Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d 1359, 1369
        (11th Cir. 1998) (citations omitted), overruled on other grounds by Iq-
        bal, 556 U.S. 662. Like any other litigant, a pro se plaintiff must meet
        the pleading standards of Rule 8 and the plausibility standard of
        Twombly and Iqbal to avoid dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).
USCA11 Case: 22-13278      Document: 23-1     Date Filed: 03/26/2024     Page: 9 of 17

        22-13278               Opinion of the Court                        9

        II.   Analysis
              A.     Sex Discrimination
                Title VII prohibits an employer from discriminating against
        an employee because of the employee’s “race, color, religion, sex,
        or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). Plaintiff’s Title VII
        claim here is based on an allegation of sex-based discrimination.
        When we evaluate such claims at the summary judgment stage of
        a case, the analysis often involves a determination whether the
        plaintiff has established a prima facie case of discrimination under
        the McDonnell Douglas framework. See Johnson v. Miami-Dade Cnty.,
        Fla., 948 F.3d 1318, 1325 (11th Cir. 2020) (noting that the McDonnell
        Douglas burden shifting framework generally applies when a Title
        VII claim is based on circumstantial evidence). But as the district
        court correctly recognized, a complaint “need not allege facts suf-
        ficient to make out a classic McDonnell Douglas prima facie case” in
        order to avoid dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). See Surtain v. Hamlin
        Terrace Found., 789 F.3d 1239, 1246 (11th Cir. 2015) (quotation
        marks omitted). Instead, at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage, the complaint
        “need only provide enough factual matter (taken as true) to suggest
        intentional . . . discrimination.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). Ap-
        plying that standard here, Plaintiff can avoid dismissal under Rule
        12(b)(6) by plausibly alleging that (1) he “suffered an adverse
USCA11 Case: 22-13278        Document: 23-1         Date Filed: 03/26/2024         Page: 10 of 17

        10                         Opinion of the Court                       22-13278

        employment action” and (2) the action can be attributed to “inten-
        tional [sex] discrimination.” See id.
                        1.      Adverse Employment Action
                As to the question whether Plaintiff suffered an adverse em-
        ployment action, an adverse action involves a “serious and material
        change in the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” such
        that “a reasonable person in the circumstances would find the em-
        ployment action to be materially adverse.” Jefferson v. Sewon Am.,
        Inc., 891 F.3d 911, 921 (11th Cir. 2018) (emphasis in original) (quo-
        tation marks omitted). Albeit he sets out several “discriminatory
        employee actions” taken against him, Plaintiff essentially identifies
        three adverse employment actions: (1) Fort Valley’s removal of
        Plaintiff as the program coordinator for the criminal justice depart-
        ment; (2) Fort Valley’s failure to stop the harassment of Plaintiff by
        the administrative assistant for the department; (3) which harass-
        ment became so continuous it constituted a constructive discharge
        that forced Plaintiff to resign his professorship following Fort Val-
        ley’s refusal of his demand that he no longer be required to work
        with the administrative assistant. 3
               We turn first to Plaintiff’s claim of harassment in violation
        of Title VII, which continuing harassment he claims led to his con-
        structive discharge. A claim of harassment is actionable when the

        3 Plaintiff also alleges as a discriminatory employee action Dr. Murty allowing

        the administrative assistant, Bass, to monitor the emails that Plaintiff received
        from students. This act can be folded into Plaintiff’s general harassment alle-
        gation.
USCA11 Case: 22-13278      Document: 23-1      Date Filed: 03/26/2024     Page: 11 of 17

        22-13278               Opinion of the Court                         11

        harassment can be deemed to have created a hostile work environ-
        ment. A hostile work environment exists when “the workplace is
        permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult,
        that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the
        victim’s employment and create an abusive working environ-
        ment.” Fernandez v. Trees, Inc., 961 F.3d 1148, 1152 (11th Cir. 2020)
        (quotation marks omitted). “Constructive discharge occurs when
        an employer deliberately makes an employee’s working conditions
        intolerable and thereby forces him to quit his job.” See Davis v. Le-
        gal Serv. Ala., Inc., 19 F.4th 1261, 1268 (11th Cir. 2021).
                Plaintiff supports his hostile work environment and con-
        structive discharge claims with allegations that administrative as-
        sistant Bass colluded with students to send emails that created a
        false impression that Plaintiff was unresponsive to student ques-
        tions; that Bass undermined Plaintiff’s reputation with his superi-
        ors, Dr. Murty and Dean Ford, by having the students copy the lat-
        ter two men on these emails; that Murty and Ford did nothing to
        stop Bass, although Plaintiff had told them the emails were creating
        a false impression; and that this continuing conduct for over an 18-
        month period rendered his working conditions intolerable. For
        purposes of determining whether Plaintiff has plausibly alleged an
        adverse action, we will assume without deciding that the above-
        described conduct meets the standards applicable to a hostile work
        environment and a constructive discharge claim.
              As to Fort Valley’s decision to remove Plaintiff as program
        coordinator for the department, the district court concluded that
USCA11 Case: 22-13278      Document: 23-1      Date Filed: 03/26/2024      Page: 12 of 17

        12                      Opinion of the Court                  22-13278

        this did not constitute an adverse action because Plaintiff alleged
        no facts indicating that he suffered a loss of income, prestige, or
        other tangible impacts on his employment. It is true that Plaintiff
        has failed to allege that his salary was reduced as a result of his re-
        moval from the coordinator position, which apparently was a non-
        paid assignment. Nevertheless, we need not decide here whether
        this removal constituted an adverse employment action because,
        as explained below, Plaintiff’s sex discrimination claim fails for a
        simple reason: he has not plausibly alleged that any of his em-
        ployer’s or co-employee’s complained-of actions were taken be-
        cause of Plaintiff’s sex.
                      2.     Intentional Sex Discrimination
               We affirm the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s Title VII
        discrimination claims because the facts set out in Plaintiff’s Com-
        plaint fail to suggest that Fort Valley’s actions were motivated by
        intentional sex discrimination. To the contrary, both Plaintiff’s
        Complaint and his briefing indicate his own belief that Bass’s con-
        duct toward Plaintiff was based on personal animus, and not re-
        lated to the fact Plaintiff was a man. As to the genesis of her dislike
        for Plaintiff, Plaintiff points out that he had disappointed Bass when
        he refused to help a friend of hers, a Mr. Edwards, obtain a teaching
        position. Notably, Edwards is male. Likewise, Bass was upset with
        Plaintiff when he declined to allow another instructor, her friend
        Ms. Bowman, to take over the internship program that Plaintiff
        ran. Finally, Plaintiff asserts that Bass wanted him removed as the
        department’s program coordinator because she wanted another
USCA11 Case: 22-13278       Document: 23-1       Date Filed: 03/26/2024       Page: 13 of 17

        22-13278                 Opinion of the Court                           13

        person to act in that role: Dr. Craig—again a man and someone
        who Bass got along better with than she did with Plaintiff. There
        is nothing in these facts to suggest that any of Bass’s actions were
        motivated by Plaintiff’s sex.
                Likewise, there is nothing in the alleged facts to suggest that
        Dr. Murty or Dean Ford’s actions were motivated by the fact that
        Plaintiff is male. Plaintiff complains that the latter two men did not
        treat him fairly because they did not exercise the necessary dili-
        gence to realize that the problems between Plaintiff and Bass were
        Bass’s fault and that Bass was acting out of personal animosity to-
        ward Plaintiff. If that is true, it is certainly unfortunate for Plaintiff.
        Yet, Plaintiff adduces no facts to suggest that Dr. Murty and Dean
        Ford’s assessment of the situation—even if incorrect, as Plaintiff ar-
        gues—was influenced in any way by the fact that Plaintiff is male.
        It is well-established that an “employer may fire an employee for a
        good reason, a bad reason, a reason based on erroneous facts, or
        for no reason at all, as long as its action is not for a discriminatory
        reason.” Nix v. WLCY Radio/Rahall Commc’ns, 738 F.2d 1181, 1187
        (11th Cir. 1984), abrogated on other grounds by Lewis v. City of Union,
        Ga., 918 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir. 2019). See also Alvarez v. Royal Atl.
        Devs., Inc., 610 F.3d 1253, 1266 (11th Cir. 2010) (“Title VII does not
        require the employer’s needs and expectations to be objectively
        reasonable; it simply prohibits the employer from discriminating
        on the basis of membership in a protected class. We do not sit as a
        ‘super-personnel department,’ and it is not our role to second-guess
        the wisdom of an employer’s business decisions—indeed the wis-
        dom of them is irrelevant—as long as those decisions were not
USCA11 Case: 22-13278      Document: 23-1      Date Filed: 03/26/2024      Page: 14 of 17

        14                      Opinion of the Court                  22-13278

        made with a discriminatory motive.”). As such, the facts set out by
        Plaintiff do not plausibly allege a violation of Title VII.
               In short, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s
        sex discrimination claims because Plaintiff failed to plausibly allege
        that any such discrimination ever occurred.
               B.     Retaliation
                In addition to prohibiting discrimination based on a pro-
        tected status, such as sex, Title VII also prohibits retaliation against
        an employee who opposes unlawful discrimination in the work-
        place. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3. To state a claim for retaliation under
        Title VII, Plaintiff must allege that: (1) he “engaged in statutorily
        protected conduct—that is, conduct protected by Title VII”—by
        opposing discrimination, (2) he suffered an adverse action, and
        (3) “there is some causal relationship between the two events.” To-
        lar v. Bradley Arant Boult Commings, LLP, 997 F.3d 1280, 1289 (11th
        Cir. 2021) (quotation marks omitted). To support a retaliation
        claim, the complained-of action by the employer must be “materi-
        ally adverse”—that is, it must be an action that “well might have
        dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge
        of discrimination.” Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548
        U.S. 53, 68 (2006) (quotation marks omitted).
               Plaintiff’s allegations here clearly do not suffice. Indeed, he
        gives an unclear timeline of when he allegedly engaged in pro-
        tected conduct and little information about the substance of that
        conduct. But parsing his Complaint, we derive the following. On
        January 25, 2021, a student named Juanye Samuels sent an email to
USCA11 Case: 22-13278     Document: 23-1      Date Filed: 03/26/2024    Page: 15 of 17

        22-13278               Opinion of the Court                       15

        Plaintiff, and copied Dr. Murty and Bass. In that email, the student
        indicated that she needed information concerning how many
        hours she needed to graduate. She further stated that she had tried
        to contact Plaintiff, who was her advisor, but had gotten no re-
        sponse from him. She requested that someone speak to her about
        her question. An hour later, Samuels contacted Dean Ford. On
        that same day, Samuels’ mother complained to Dr. Stuart, the
        Vice-President of Academic Affairs to whom Dean Ford reported.
        According to Plaintiff, he believed that instead of “de-escalating”
        the problem, Bass had encouraged the student to complain to these
        higher-up administrators to make Plaintiff look bad.
               Then, on February 5, 2021, Samuels emailed Dr. Stuart to
        state that she had met with Plaintiff, but she complained that be-
        cause he had not earlier given her adequate information, she would
        now have to graduate a semester later than planned. She further
        indicated that Plaintiff had been unresponsive in the past, requiring
        her to contact other faculty and staff members to obtain help. She
        noted that several of her classmates were struggling with the same
        issue. She closed by requesting a new advisor.
               Half an hour later, Dean Ford emailed Plaintiff, stating: “Dr.
        Trimble you assured Dr. Murty and I that these issues would not
        happen any further and [I] just received another. The complaints
        are all about you not responding to students in a timely manner
        and that you do not treat them with the attention and respect they
        deserve. This has also been an issue with you managing adjunct
        faculty with not responding timely and not being very helpful.”
USCA11 Case: 22-13278     Document: 23-1      Date Filed: 03/26/2024     Page: 16 of 17

        16                     Opinion of the Court                 22-13278

        Dean Ford closed by seeking a meeting with Plaintiff the following
        Monday to address this matter.
               Plaintiff avers that, upon receipt of this email, he contacted
        Dr. Stuart. And it is this contact that represents what Plaintiff
        claims was his first act of protected conduct. But Plaintiff nowhere
        indicates that he informed Dr. Stuart of a belief by Plaintiff that he
        was the victim of sex discrimination. Indeed, he offers no infor-
        mation as to the substance of the conversation other than to say he
        knew he was being “lied on” by Bass and the complaining students.
        In short, the Complaint fails to allege any protected conduct that
        occurred in connection with Plaintiff’s call to Dr. Stuart.
               As to his second alleged act of protected conduct, Plaintiff
        avers that he spoke with Human Resources Director Battle follow-
        ing his telephone call with Dr. Murty on June 17, 2021, in which
        call Murty had informed Plaintiff that he was being removed as
        program coordinator. But again, Plaintiff nowhere mentions ex-
        pressing to Battle a concern that he was being discriminated against
        on the basis of sex. A reading of the concerns described by Plaintiff
        in his Complaint instead suggests that the conversation between
        Plaintiff and Battle involved Plaintiff’s denial of accusations made
        by multiple students that Plaintiff had been unresponsive to their
        questions and needs. Further, the only employment action that
        occurred after the June 17 Human Resources meeting was taken
        not by Fort Valley, but by Plaintiff when he tendered his resigna-
        tion on August 9.
USCA11 Case: 22-13278      Document: 23-1      Date Filed: 03/26/2024     Page: 17 of 17

        22-13278               Opinion of the Court                         17

               In short, Plaintiff does not allege in his Complaint that he
        ever complained to his supervisors or to Human Resources about
        conduct that potentially violated Title VII or, more specifically,
        that he complained about discrimination based on his sex. Absent
        such allegations, Plaintiff’s complaint lacks sufficient factual matter
        to plausibly state a claim that he opposed unlawful discrimination
        in the workplace. See 42 U.S.C. s. 2000e-3(a) (prohibiting retaliation
        against an employee who “has opposed any practice made an un-
        lawful employment practice” under Title VII) (emphasis added); cf.
        Furcron v. Mail Ctrs. Plus, LLC, 843 F.3d 1295, 1311 (11th Cir. 2016)
        (“[A] plaintiff is required to show that she had a good faith, reason-
        able belief that the employer was engaged in unlawful employment
        practices.” (quotation marks omitted)).
                Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Plain-
        tiff’s Title VII retaliation claim.
                                  CONCLUSION
               For the above reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s order
        dismissing Plaintiff’s Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims
        under Federal Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which
        relief may be granted.