Thomas v. Cooper Lighting, Inc.
Decision Date | 09 November 2007 |
Docket Number | No. 07-10233.,07-10233. |
Citation | 506 F.3d 1361 |
Parties | Cecilia THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COOPER LIGHTING, INC., Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Jerry D. Roberson, Roberson & Roberson, Birmingham, AL, for Thomas.
Emily S. Blumenthal, Matthew Alexander Freeman, Jackson Lewis, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Elizabeth E. Theran, EEOC, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.
Before MARCUS and PRYOR, Circuit Judges, and HANCOCK,* District Judge.
Cecilia Thomas appeals the decision of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama dismissing her Title VII retaliation claim on summary judgment. After review and oral argument, we affirm.
Cecilia Thomas worked at Cooper Lighting, Inc. ("Cooper") on a full time basis as an assembler and floater from February 2004 until July 2005 under the supervision of Eddie Cain. On the evening of April 8, 2005, Thomas accused Cain of sexual harassment. On April 11, 2005, Thomas presented the Human Resource Manager of the facility, James Davis, with a written complaint of sexual harassment. That complaint outlined two specific sexually-tinged comments and stated that Cain's communication was "sexually nasty."
Thomas's employment with Cooper was terminated effective July 7, 2005. The reason given by Cooper for the separation was excessive absenteeism consistent with the company's "no fault" Absentee Policy and Procedure.
On March 1, 2006, Thomas commenced this employment discrimination action against Cooper, alleging hostile work environment sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. sections 2000e et seq. In her October 24, 2006 Response to Defendant's Motion to Compel Discovery of Plaintiff's Health Records and Rule 35 Examination, Thomas voluntarily dismissed the sexual harassment cause of action, leaving only the retaliation claim. She contends that Cooper retaliated against her by terminating her employment on July 7, 2005.
At the close of discovery, Cooper filed a motion for summary judgment on the remaining claim. The district court granted that motion, finding that Thomas's allegations did not come close to the threshold of a hostile work environment required by Title VII, and therefore Thomas did not have an objectively reasonable belief that the complained-of conduct violated Title VII.
We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. See Damon v. Fleming Supermarkets of Fla., Inc., 196 F.3d 1354, 1357 (11th Cir.1999). Summary judgment is appropriate when "there is no genuine issue of material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). A genuine factual dispute exists "if the jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party." Damon, 196 F.3d at 1358 (quoting United States v. Four Parcels of Real Property, 941 F.2d 1428, 1437 (11th Cir. 1991) (en banc)). In examining the record, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Damon, 196 F.3d at 1358.
To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under Title VII, "the plaintiff must show (1) that she engaged in statutorily protected expression; (2) that she suffered an adverse employment action; and (3) that there is some causal relation between the two events." Meeks v. Computer Assocs. Int'l, 15 F.3d 1013, 1021 (11th Cir.1994) (internal citations omitted). The parties hotly contest whether Thomas held an objectively reasonable belief that the complained-of conduct constituted an unlawful employment practice and thus, necessarily, whether Thomas established the first element of her prima facie case for the retaliation claim. See Berman v. Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc., 160 F.3d 697, 702 (11th Cir.1998) (); see also Lipphardt v. Durango Steakhouse of Brandon, Inc., 267 F.3d 1183, 1187 (11th Cir.2001) ( ). However, this court need not decide whether Thomas held such a "good faith, reasonable belief" because the record reveals that Thomas has failed to produce evidence from which a reasonable jury could find a causal connection between the April 8 and 11, 2005 complaints and the July 7, 2005 termination. The causation issue was expressly raised in Cooper's Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, and the parties had the opportunity to thoroughly brief this issue. We may affirm the district court's judgment on any ground that appears in the record, whether or not that ground was relied upon or even considered by the court below. See Powers v. United States, 996 F.2d 1121, 1123-24 (11th Cir.1993).
The burden of causation can be met by showing close temporal proximity between the statutorily protected activity and the adverse employment action. See Brungart v. BellSouth Telecomm., Inc., 231 F.3d 791, 798-99 (11th Cir.2000). But mere temporal proximity, without more, must be "very close." Clark County Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gray v. Koch Foods, Inc.
...Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden , 532 U.S. 268, 273, 121 S.Ct. 1508, 149 L.Ed.2d 509 (2001) ; see also Thomas v. Cooper Lighting, Inc. , 506 F.3d 1361, 1364 (11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (holding three months to be too distant a period between protected activity and adverse action to warrant an......
-
Gogel v. KIA Motors Mfg. of Ga., Inc., No. 16-16850
...of summary judgment de novo , "view[ing] the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party." Thomas v. Cooper Lighting, Inc. , 506 F.3d 1361, 1363 (11th Cir. 2007). Although "questions of fact in job discrimination cases are ‘both sensitive and difficult’ and ‘[t]here will se......
-
Hicks v. City of Tuscaloosa
...does not support that assertion, however. The underlying Eleventh Circuit case regarding temporal proximity is Thomas v. Cooper Lighting, Inc., 506 F.3d 1361 (11th Cir. 2007), in which the Eleventh Circuit states as follows: The burden of causation can be met by showing close temporal proxi......
-
Mahone v. BBG Specialty Foods, Inc.
...the only consideration, his claim would be due to fail, as a matter of law."). The court agrees. See, e.g., Thomas v. Cooper Lighting, Inc., 506 F.3d 1361, 1364 (11th Cir. 2007) (temporal proximity can be evidence of causation but "mere temporal proximity, without more, must be 'very close.......
-
Summary Judgment
...v. Interactive College Of Technology/Interactive Learning Systems, Inc ., 743 Fed.Appx. 269, citing Thomas v. Cooper Lighting, Inc ., 506 F.3d 1361, 1364 (11th Cir. 2007) (holding that a three- to four-month disparity between the statutorily protected expression and the adverse employment a......
-
Sex Discrimination Claims Under Title Vii of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
...“[a]ction taken (as here) 20 months later suggests, by itself, no causality at all.”). 92. See, e.g., Thomas v. Cooper Lighting Inc., 506 F.3d 1361, 1364 (11th Cir. 2007) (holding that a period of three to four months is insufficient to establish close temporal proximity). 93. Burlington N......
-
Georgia's Public Whistleblower Statute
...App. at 431, 750 S.E.2d at 743 (quoting Clark County School Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U. S. 268, 273 (2001); Thomas v. Cooper Lighting, Inc., 506 F.3d 1361, 1364 (11th Cir. 2007); Higdon, 393 F.3d at 1220; O'Neal v. Ferguson Constr. Co., 237 F.3d 1248, 1253 (10th Cir. 2001); and citing Richmond......
-
Employment Discrimination - Peter Reed Corbin and John E. Duvall
...2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 495 (2007). 54. Id. at 1307. 55. Id. 56. Id. at 1308. 57. Id. at 1308-09. 58. Id. at 1309. 59. Id. 60. 506 F.3d 1361 (11th Cir. 2007). 61. Id. at 1363. 62. Id. at 1363-64 (quoting Meeks v. Computer Assocs. Int'l, 15 F.3d 1013, 1021 (11th Cir. 1994)). 63. Id. ......