Court Opinion

ID: 9882304
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-05 18:00:59.867475+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:59.180508
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13171    Document: 26-1     Date Filed: 10/05/2023   Page: 1 of 7

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-13171
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       CINDY NARAINE,
                                                     Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       CITY OF HOLLYWOOD,

                                                   Defendant-Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket No. 0:21-cv-60313-RAR
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-13171       Document: 26-1      Date Filed: 10/05/2023      Page: 2 of 7

       2                       Opinion of the Court                   22-13171

       Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and LAGOA and BRASHER, Cir-
       cuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Cindy Naraine appeals the summary judgment in favor of
       her former employer, the City of Hollywood, and against her com-
       plaint of employment discrimination and retaliation based on race
       and sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
       U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; the Florida Civil Rights Act, Fla. Sta. § 760.10;
       and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court ruled that Naraine failed to
       establish that the city’s proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory,
       and nonretaliatory reasons for terminating her were a pretext for
       discrimination. We affirm.
              On January 27, 2019, after working for three years as an ad-
       ministrative assistant with the information technology depart-
       ment, Naraine began a one-year probationary term as a firefighter.
       In a recruit class of six, she was the only black female firefighter, as
       well as the oldest. She was assigned to the Fire Prevention Bureau,
       and the other members—four white males and one Hispanic fe-
       male—were assigned to operations. During her first few months,
       Naraine received an “excellent” rating on her performance re-
       views, and her supervisor, Fire Marshal Chris Del Campo, rated
       her performance as “outstanding.”
               On November 7, 2019, Naraine was on duty when she asked
       a field training officer if she could take a work break. On that break,
       she and her domestic partner, Nicholas Gasbarro, a city employee
USCA11 Case: 22-13171      Document: 26-1     Date Filed: 10/05/2023     Page: 3 of 7

       22-13171               Opinion of the Court                         3

       in a different department, met with the city manager, who was Na-
       raine’s personal acquaintance. According to Naraine, the purpose
       of the meeting was for Gasbarro to request a work schedule change
       to allow him more flexibility to care for their children. Naraine
       later attested that she could not request a different work schedule
       as a first responder, so she attended the meeting only as Gasbarro’s
       supporter and “sat quietly.” After the meeting, Gasbarro emailed
       the city manager thanking him for “giving us the opportunity to
       discuss the hardship” that they were facing as a family. The city
       manager later attested that he “recall[ed] both [Naraine] and [Gas-
       barro] asking to meet with” him, and his impression was that both
       of them “were asking for help during the meeting.” The city man-
       ager also attested that, after the meeting, he asked the deputy city
       manager to follow up with Fire Chief Rudolfo Jurado to “see if
       there’s anything that could be done” for Naraine.
               When Chief Jurado learned that Naraine might have met
       with the city manager without prior approval, it “caused [him]
       great concern.” He explained that the meeting would be an “un-
       precedented violation of the chain of command, a probationary
       [f]irefighter skipping all intervening levels of supervisory personnel
       to meet with the Chief Administrative Officer of the entire City.”
       Chief Jurado asked Deputy Chief Analdy Garcia to investigate.
             During his investigation, Deputy Chief Garcia and the Dep-
       uty Fire Marshal met with Naraine and her supervisor. Deputy
       Chief Garcia’s notes from the meeting reflected that Naraine de-
       nied contacting the city manager and clarified that Gasbarro had
USCA11 Case: 22-13171     Document: 26-1      Date Filed: 10/05/2023    Page: 4 of 7

       4                      Opinion of the Court                22-13171

       arranged the meeting. Naraine later asserted that she never denied
       attending the meeting and that she did not tell Deputy Chief Garcia
       whether she attended the meeting because he never asked.
              On January 8, 2020, Deputy Chief Garcia recommended ter-
       minating Naraine before the end of her probationary year because
       she had breached the chain of command and falsely denied having
       “any contact” with the city manager. Chief Jurado met with the
       city manager and four other city officials about his decision to ter-
       minate Naraine based on Garcia’s recommendation. In discussing
       the chain-of-command issues, Chief Jurado also mentioned prob-
       lems relating to Naraine’s continued inquiries about some fringe
       benefits that did not transfer to her new position and her refusal to
       accept the department’s decision about the benefits, which had be-
       come “burdensome” to him.
               A week later, Chief Jurado and Del Campo told Naraine that
       “it did not serve the city’s best interest to continue her employ-
       ment” and that Chief Jurado determined that she was “not a good
       fit for the agency.” Naraine resigned in lieu of termination. The
       next month, she reapplied for the same position. She filed a charge
       of discrimination two months later. The city deemed Naraine inel-
       igible for rehire and interviewed other candidates before hiring a
       white male.
              Naraine filed a complaint against the city in the district
       court. The city moved for summary judgment, which the district
       court granted. Because the city conceded for the purposes of sum-
       mary judgment that Naraine had established a prima facie case of
USCA11 Case: 22-13171      Document: 26-1       Date Filed: 10/05/2023     Page: 5 of 7

       22-13171                Opinion of the Court                          5

       discrimination, the district court considered the city’s proffered
       reasons for its actions and determined that the two reasons were
       legitimate, nondiscriminatory, and nonretaliatory.
              The district court also ruled that Naraine failed to establish
       that the proffered reasons were a pretext for discrimination. It de-
       termined that the record established that Naraine violated the
       chain of command by meeting with the city manager to discuss
       childcare accommodations without her supervisor’s permission
       and that Chief Jurado’s belief that she lied during the investigation
       was honest, even if mistaken. The district court also ruled that Na-
       raine failed to identify a suitable comparator who engaged in simi-
       lar misconduct and was treated more favorably.
              We review a summary judgment de novo and view the evi-
       dence in Naraine’s favor. Tonkyro v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Veterans Affs., 995
       F.3d 828, 832 (11th Cir. 2021). Summary judgment is appropriate
       when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
       movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
       56(a). The “summary judgment rule applies in job discrimination
       cases just as in other cases. No thumb is to be placed on either side
       of the scale.” Chapman v. Al Transport, 229 F.3d 1012, 1026 (11th Cir.
       2000) (en banc).
              The district court correctly ruled that Naraine failed to es-
       tablish that the proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for
       deciding to terminate her were a pretext for discrimination. Na-
       raine argues that she did not violate any workplace policies because
       she did not initiate or “participate” in the meeting with the city
USCA11 Case: 22-13171      Document: 26-1       Date Filed: 10/05/2023     Page: 6 of 7

       6                       Opinion of the Court                  22-13171

       manager, and she did not falsely deny attending the meeting during
       Deputy Chief Garcia’s investigation. But our scope of review is lim-
       ited. See Elrod v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 939 F.2d 1466, 1470 (11th Cir.
       1991) (“[We] do not sit as a super-personnel department that reex-
       amines an entity’s business decisions.” (quotation marks omitted)).
       We ask only whether Chief Jurado, in deciding to terminate Na-
       raine, honestly believed that she had violated the department’s pol-
       icies. See id. (explaining that our inquiry turns not on whether the
       employee was guilty of the alleged misconduct but whether the
       decisionmaker believed so in good faith and whether this belief was
       the reason for termination); Owens v. Governor’s Off. of Student
       Achievement, 52 F.4th 1327, 1338 (11th Cir. 2022) (“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.” (quotation marks omitted, em-
       phasis added)).
              Naraine argues that Chief Jurado did not honestly believe
       that she had violated the chain of command. She contends that
       Deputy Chief Garcia attested that Chief Jurado told him that she
       had requested an accommodation from the city manager, which
       she contends is false and is evidence that Chief Jurado was the
       source of the “false representation.” This argument fails.
              If Chief Jurado expressed to Deputy Chief Garcia before the
       investigation that he believed Naraine had met with the city man-
       ager about an accommodation request—whether on behalf of her-
       self, Gasbarro, or both—that statement would support the city’s
USCA11 Case: 22-13171     Document: 26-1      Date Filed: 10/05/2023    Page: 7 of 7

       22-13171               Opinion of the Court                        7

       position that Chief Jurado honestly believed that Naraine had vio-
       lated the chain of command. The evidence is undisputed that Chief
       Jurado consulted with the city manager about his decision to ter-
       minate Naraine. The city manager’s recollection was that both Na-
       raine and Gasbarro requested the meeting and “were asking for
       help.” Naraine failed to present any evidence that Chief Jurado did
       not honestly believe she had violated workplace policies. Because
       the undisputed evidence also establishes that Chief Jurado decided
       to terminate Naraine based on his belief that she was uncoopera-
       tive during the investigation, we need not address her argument
       that the district court should have disregarded Deputy Chief Gar-
       cia’s deposition, which contained a purported transcription error
       regarding his, but not Chief Jurado’s, impression of Naraine’s truth-
       fulness during the investigation.
             We AFFIRM the summary judgment in favor of the city.