Victor Brisk v. Shoreline Foundation, Inc. , 654 F. App'x 415 ( 2016 )

Case: 15-13028 Date Filed: 05/25/2016 Page: 1 of 7
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-13028
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:14-cv-62059-DMM
VICTOR BRISK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SHORELINE FOUNDATION, INC.,
a Florida profit corporation,
JAMES ROYO,
individually,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(May 25, 2016)
Before TJOFLAT, JILL PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-13028 Date Filed: 05/25/2016 Page: 2 of 7
Victor Brisk appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in
favor of his former employer, Shoreline Foundation, Inc., and James Royo
(collectively “Shoreline”) in an action brought pursuant to the Family and Medical
Leave Act (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. § 2615. On appeal, Brisk argues that the district
court erred by granting summary judgment on his FMLA retaliation claims in
favor of Shoreline because there were genuine issues of material fact with regard to
his retaliation claims. Brisk also argues that the district court erred in granting
summary judgment in favor of Shoreline based on its holding that he did not plead
a FMLA interference claim. 1 We will address each point in turn.
I.
We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the evidence in
the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Wilson v. B/E Aerospace, Inc.,
376 F.3d 1079, 1085 (11th Cir. 2004). Summary judgment is appropriate when
there is no genuine issue of material fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1). A genuine
factual dispute exists if the jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party.
Wilson, 376 F.3d at 1085.
1
In Brisk’s complaint, he alleged that Shoreline retaliated against him for seeking
worker’s compensation benefits under Florida’s Workers’ Compensation Law Fla. Stat. §
448.205. The district court declined to exercise jurisdiction over this supplemental state law
claim because no federal claims remained after granting summary judgment in favor of Shoreline
as to the FMLA claim. On appeal, Brisk does not challenge this dismissal. Accordingly, any
issue in that respect is abandoned. See Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324,
1330 (11th Cir. 2004).
2
Case: 15-13028 Date Filed: 05/25/2016 Page: 3 of 7
An employee has the right to be restored to his original position or an
equivalent position following FMLA leave. 29 U.S.C. § 2614(a)(1). The FMLA
creates two types of claims to preserve and enforce the rights it creates:
“interference claims, in which an employee asserts that his employer denied or
otherwise interfered with [his] substantive rights under the Act, and retaliation
claims, in which an employee asserts that his employer discriminated against him
because he engaged in activity protected by the Act.” Strickland v. Water Works &
Sewer Bd. of Birmingham, 239 F.3d 1199, 1206 (11th Cir. 2001) (citations
omitted).
To establish a claim of FMLA retaliation, an employee must demonstrate
that his employer intentionally discriminated against him for exercising a right
guaranteed under the FMLA. Martin v. Brevard Cnty. Pub. Sch., 543 F.3d 1261,
1267 (11th Cir. 2008). “Unlike an interference claim, an employee bringing a
retaliation claim faces the increased burden of showing that his employer’s actions
were motivated by an impermissible retaliatory or discriminatory animus.” Id. at
1267-68 (quotations omitted). Absent direct evidence of retaliatory intent, we
apply the burden-shifting framework articulated in McDonnell Douglas. Id. at
1268. To establish a prima facie case of FMLA retaliation, an employee may
show that (1) he engaged in statutorily protected activity, (2) he suffered an
3
Case: 15-13028 Date Filed: 05/25/2016 Page: 4 of 7
adverse decision, and (3) the decision was causally related to the protected activity.
Id.
Close temporal proximity between an employee’s protected conduct and the
adverse action is generally sufficient to create a genuine issue as to whether there
is a causal connection. Hurlbert v. St. Mary’s Health Care Sys., Inc., 439 F.3d
1286, 1298 (11th Cir. 2006). The Supreme Court has indicated that the temporal
proximity between an employer’s knowledge of protected activity and an adverse
action must be very close. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268, 273,
121 S. Ct. 1508, 1511, 149 L. Ed. 2d 509 (2001) (citations and quotations omitted).
In Breeden, the Supreme Court cited cases with approval that held a three to four
month disparity was insufficient to show a causal connection. See id. (citations
omitted). “If there is a substantial delay between the protected expression and the
adverse action in the absence of other evidence tending to show causation, the
complaint of retaliation fails as a matter of law.” See Higdon v. Jackson, 393 F.3d
1211, 1221 (11th Cir. 2004). Moreover, there is no causal connection between a
protected act and an adverse action, where the adverse action was caused by
intervening act of misconduct. See Fleming v. Boeing, 120 F.3d 242, 248 (11th
Cir. 1997).
If the employee successfully demonstrates a prima facie case of FMLA
retaliation, the burden then shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate reason
4
Case: 15-13028 Date Filed: 05/25/2016 Page: 5 of 7
for the adverse action. See Strickland, 239 F.3d at 1297. An employer’s reason for
an employment decision can be “a good reason, a bad reason, a reason based on
erroneous facts, or . . . no reason at all, as long as its action is not for a
discriminatory reason.” Nix v. WLCY Radio/Rahall Comms., 738 F.2d 1181, 1187
(11th Cir. 1984) (citations omitted).
Once an employer articulates a legitimate non-discriminatory reason, the
employee then must show that the employer’s proffered reason was pretextual.
Strickland, 239 F.3d at 1297. Pretext is only proven if it is shown both that the
reason was false, and that discrimination or retaliation was the real reason behind
the challenged action. St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 515, 113 S.
Ct. 2742, 2752, 125 L. Ed. 2d 407 (1993).
With regard to Brisk’s retaliation claim based on his demotion, the district
court correctly granted summary judgment because Shoreline established that it
had a non-discriminatory reason-- that Brisk had refused to give the company its
own bank account password--for changing Brisk’s job following his return from
FMLA leave. With regard to Brisk’s retaliation claim based on his termination, the
district court correctly granted summary judgment because there was no causal
connection between the protected conduct--Brisk taking FMLA leave--and the
adverse event, termination, when the temporal proximity of four months was
tenuous and there was an intervening cause of poor work performance.
5
Case: 15-13028 Date Filed: 05/25/2016 Page: 6 of 7
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s granting of summary judgment in favor
of Shoreline in this respect.
II.
A complaint should contain a “short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Pleadings
must be construed “so as to do justice.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e). A complaint need
not specify in detail the precise theory giving rise to recovery, and all that is
required is that the defendant be on notice as to the claim being asserted against
him and the grounds on which it rests. Sams v. United Food & Commercial
Workers Int’l Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, 866 F.2d 1380, 1384 (11th Cir. 1989).
Although Rule 8’s pleading standard is to be applied liberally, a defendant is
not required to infer all possible claims that could arise out of the facts set forth in
the complaint at the summary judgment stage. Gilmour v. Gates, McDonald &
Co., 382 F.3d 1312, 1315 (11th Cir. 2004). At the summary judgment stage, the
proper procedure for a plaintiff to assert a new claim is to amend the complaint in
accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Id. A plaintiff may not amend a complaint
through argument in a brief opposing summary judgment. Id. (quotation omitted).
FMLA’s interference provision makes it “unlawful for any employer to
interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise of or the attempt to exercise,” any
substantive FMLA right. 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(1). An FMLA interference claim
6
Case: 15-13028 Date Filed: 05/25/2016 Page: 7 of 7
requires the plaintiff to show that he was entitled to a benefit denied by the
defendant. Strickland, 239 F.3d at 1206-07.
Because Brisk did not raise an interference claim in his complaint and did
not seek to amend his complaint to add the additional claim, we affirm the district
court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of Shoreline in this respect.
Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
7