Jose Trigo, et al v. City of Doral, et al

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellants Jose Trigo and Olivia Trigo. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 15-14657

Date Filed: 10/21/2016

Page: 1 of 10

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-14657
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-24086-MGC
MR. JOSE TRIGO,
OLIVIA TRIGO,
Plaintiff -Appellants,
versus
CITY OF DORAL,
MERRETT STIERHEIM,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(October 21, 2016)
Before MARCUS, JORDAN and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jose Trigo and his wife, Olivia Trigo, (individually, “J. Trigo” and “O.
Trigo” and collectively, “the Trigos”) appeal from the district court’s grant of

Case: 15-14657

Date Filed: 10/21/2016

Page: 2 of 10

summary judgment in favor of the City of Doral (“Doral”) on their employment
discrimination and retaliation suit under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a), 2000e3, and the Florida Whistle-blower’s Act (“FWA”), Fla. Stat. § 112.3187. Among
other things, the Trigos alleged that Doral retaliated against J. Trigo, a Lieutenant
who worked in the Doral Police Department, because he had filed a charge with
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and because his wife
had made public records requests about certain police officers. On appeal, the
Trigos argue that: (1) the district court erred in granting summary judgment on
their Title VII and FWA retaliation claims; (2) the district court erred by granting
summary judgment on their First Amendment retaliation claims; and (3) if remand
is appropriate on their federal claims, their state law claim, over which the district
court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction without the federal claims,
would be properly before the district court. After careful review, we affirm.
We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Kernel Records Oy v.
Mosley, 694 F.3d 1294, 1300 (11th Cir. 2012). Summary judgment is appropriate
when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A factual dispute exists where
a reasonable fact-finder could find by a preponderance of the evidence that the
non-moving party is entitled to a verdict. Kernel Records, 694 F.3d at 1300. In
determining whether evidence creates a factual dispute, a court should draw
2

Case: 15-14657

Date Filed: 10/21/2016

Page: 3 of 10

reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmovant, but “inferences based upon
speculation are not reasonable.” Id. at 1301 (quotation omitted). A district court
does not abuse its discretion by dismissing remaining state law claims when the
federal claims have been disposed of prior to trial. Faucher v. Rodziewicz, 891
F.2d 864, 871-72 (11th Cir. 1990).
First, we are unpersuaded by the Trigos’ claim that the district court erred in
granting summary judgment on the Title VII and FWA retaliation claims because
the district court incorrectly used the date J. Trigo was suspended rather than the
date he was terminated for purposes of assessing the adverse employment action,
and because Doral’s shifting and inconsistent reasons for J. Trigo’s termination
show that the reasons were pretextual. Title VII makes it illegal for “an employer
to discriminate against any of his employees . . . because he has opposed any
practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter, or because he
has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an
investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this subchapter.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e3(a). The FWA is generally equivalent to Title VII, and we have approved of the
application of the Title VII burden-shifting standard to claims brought under the
FWA. See Sierminski v. Transouth Fin. Corp., 216 F.3d 945, 950 (11th Cir. 2000).
To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under Title VII, plaintiffs must
prove that: (1) they engaged in statutorily protected conduct; (2) they suffered an
3

Case: 15-14657

Date Filed: 10/21/2016

Page: 4 of 10

adverse employment action; and (3) the adverse action was causally related to the
protected expression. Trask v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 822 F.3d 1179,
1193-94 (11th Cir. 2016). To prove adverse employment action, an employee
must show a serious and material change in the terms, conditions, or privileges of
employment. Id. at 1195. The employee’s subjective view of the significance and
adversity of the employer’s action is not controlling; the employment action must
be materially adverse as viewed by a reasonable person in the circumstances. Id.
The burden of causation can be met by showing close temporal proximity between
the statutorily protected activity and the adverse employment action. Thomas v.
Cooper Lighting, Inc., 506 F.3d 1361, 1364 (11th Cir. 2007). But mere temporal
proximity, without more, must be “very close.”

Id.

When an employer

contemplates an adverse employment action before an employee engages in
protected activity, temporal proximity between the protected activity and the
subsequent adverse employment action does not suffice to show causation. Drago
v. Jenne, 453 F.3d 1301, 1308 (11th Cir. 2006).
Once a plaintiff has made a prima facie case, it is the employer’s burden to
articulate a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for the challenged employment
action. Trask, 822 F.3d at 1194. The ultimate burden is on the plaintiff to prove
by a preponderance of the evidence that the reason provided by the employer is a
pretext for prohibited, retaliatory conduct. Id. To show pretext, a plaintiff cannot
4

Case: 15-14657

Date Filed: 10/21/2016

Page: 5 of 10

recast the reason but must meet it head on and rebut it. Holland v. Gee, 677 F.3d
1047, 1055 (11th Cir. 2012).

The plaintiff must show “weaknesses,

implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions in the employer’s
rationale.” Id. at 1055-56 (quotation omitted). But, we do not judge whether an
employer’s decisions are “prudent or fair,” and the sole concern is whether
unlawful discriminatory animus motivated an employment decision. Damon v.
Fleming Supermarkets of Fla., Inc., 196 F.3d 1354, 1361 (11th Cir. 1999). The
inquiry into pretext centers on the employer’s beliefs, not the employee’s beliefs or
“reality as it exists outside of the decision maker’s head.” Alvarez v. Royal
Atlantic Developers, 610 F.3d 1253, 1266 (11th Cir. 2010). If the reason is one
that might motivate a reasonable employer, the plaintiff cannot succeed by simply
quarrelling with the wisdom of the reason.

Id. at 1265-66.

Additional, but

undisclosed, non-discriminatory reasons for the employment action which are not
inconsistent do not necessarily demonstrate pretext. Tidwell v. Carter Prod., 135
F.3d 1422, 1428 (11th Cir. 1998).

Similarly, differing reasons that are not

necessarily inconsistent do not show pretext. Zaben v. Air Prod. & Chemicals,
Inc., 129 F.3d 1453, 1458-59 (11th Cir. 1997).
In this case, the district court did not err by granting summary judgment on
the Trigos’ Title VII and FWA retaliation claims. Even assuming the Trigos
established a prima facie case, they failed to demonstrate that Doral’s legitimate
5

Case: 15-14657

Date Filed: 10/21/2016

Page: 6 of 10

non-discriminatory reasons for J. Trigo’s termination were pretextual. According
to the City Manager, he terminated J. Trigo: (1) based on a December 17, 2011,
memorandum from the Interim Police Chief, recommending that J. Trigo be
terminated; (2) based on the City Manager’s review of statements made by
witnesses during a 2011 investigation into allegations of favoritism and corruption
in Doral’s Police Department; (3) because J. Trigo’s tenure had been marked by
unprofessional administrative practices; and (4) because J. Trigo’s tenure had a
great cost in terms of department morale and efficiency. In order to show pretext,
the Trigos argue that the City Manager’s reasons for the termination varied.
As the record reveals, when the City Manager initially met with J. Trigo and
his attorney, he affirmed his decision to terminate J. Trigo based on the sources
mentioned in the December 17, 2011, memorandum. In his later deposition, the
City Manager later testified that the Interim Police Chief’s recommendation had
great influence in the decision, and also said that he was concerned about the
morale within the department, the preferential treatment shown J. Trigo previously,
and the attitudes of witnesses involved in the 2011 investigation. He added that he
had discounted parts of the 2011 report that J. Trigo had previously been punished
for. He also admitted that he was concerned about “the dichotomy that existed
within the department in terms of the ‘cli[que].’”

6

Case: 15-14657

Date Filed: 10/21/2016

Page: 7 of 10

Notably, none of the City Manager’s deposition testimony is directly
inconsistent with the original December 17 memorandum. And, in any event,
slightly differing reasons, or additional, undisclosed non-discriminatory reasons for
the termination, are insufficient to show pretext. Tidwell, 135 F.3d at 1428;
Zaben, 129 F.3d at 1458-59. Because the Trigos failed to establish that Doral’s
legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for the termination were pretextual, the
district court did not err in granting summary judgment on the Title VII retaliation
claim. Consequently, their FWA claim fails as well. Sierminski, 216 F.3d at 950.
We also find no merit to the Trigos’ argument that the district court erred by
granting summary judgment on their First Amendment retaliation claims because
O. Trigo’s public record requests were expressive conduct protected by the First
Amendment and because J. Trigo was terminated in retaliation for his association
with O. Trigo and her public record requests. To establish a First Amendment
retaliation claim, a plaintiff must show that (1) her speech or act was
constitutionally protected; (2) she suffered adverse conduct that would likely deter
a person of ordinary firmness from engaging in such speech; and (3) there was a
causal relationship between the adverse conduct and the protected speech. Bennett
v. Hendrix, 423 F.3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir. 2005). The Constitution guarantees the
right to engage not only in “pure speech,” but also “expressive conduct.”
Holloman ex rel. Holloman v. Harland, 370 F.3d 1252, 1270 (11th Cir. 2004). To
7

Case: 15-14657

Date Filed: 10/21/2016

Page: 8 of 10

determine whether a particular act counts as expressive conduct, a court must
determine (1) whether intent to convey a particularized message was present; and
(2) in the surrounding circumstances the likelihood was great that the message
would be understood by those who viewed it. Id. However, a narrow, succinctly
articulable message is not a condition of constitutional protection.

Id.

In

determining whether conduct is expressive, we ask whether the reasonable person
would interpret it as some sort of message, not whether an observer would
necessarily infer a specific message. Id.
The Constitution accords special protection to two different forms of
association, “intimate association” and “expressive association.”
Sharrett, 12 F.3d 1558, 1562-63 (11th Cir. 1994).

McCabe v.

The right of expressive

association -- the freedom to associate for the purpose of engaging in activities
protected by the First Amendment, such as speech, assembly, petition for the
redress of grievances, and the exercise of religion -- is protected by the First
Amendment as a necessary corollary of the rights that the amendment protects by
its terms. Id. at 1563. The state may not take a materially adverse action against
its employee in retaliation for exercising First Amendment associational rights. Id.
at 1568. A plaintiff can obtain special protection for an asserted associational right
if he can demonstrate either that the asserted association closely enough resembles
a family relationship to be protected by the right to intimate association, or that the
8

Case: 15-14657

Date Filed: 10/21/2016

Page: 9 of 10

purpose of the association is to engage in activities independently protected by the
First Amendment. Id. at 1563. There is no First Amendment right of access to
public information. Foto USA, Inc. v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Fla., 141
F.3d 1032, 1035 (11th Cir.1998).
Here, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on O.
Trigo’s First Amendment retaliation claim. As the record shows, O. Trigo lacked
intent to convey a message with her public records requests; rather, she specified
that her requests were to “obtain information to protect [her] family.” She further
admitted that she sought information to “effectively or more effectively defend
against false accusations[;] . . . [e]xpose wrongful governmental conduct[;] . . .
expose violations of law[;] . . . expose . . . violations of [the Florida’s Law
Enforcement Officer’s Bill of Rights;] . . . [a]nd[] to redress grievances with
[Doral].” None of the reasons expressed by O. Trigo demonstrate an “intent to
convey a particularized message.” Holloman, 370 F.3d at 1270. And contrary to
her argument, O. Trigo’s subjective intent in making the requests is relevant to
determine whether an intent to convey a particularized message was present. Id.
Nor did the district court err by granting summary judgment on J. Trigo’s
First Amendment associational retaliation claims. While J. Trigo argues that his
association with his wife constituted expressive association, we’ve already
concluded that O. Trigo’s public records requests were not conducted to convey a
9

Case: 15-14657

Date Filed: 10/21/2016

Page: 10 of 10

specific message, but were instead conducted to obtain information. In any event,
the act of seeking to obtain the records themselves is not inherently protected by
the First Amendment. Foto USA, 141 F.3d at 1035. Thus, on this record, the
Trigos failed to demonstrate that the purpose of J. Trigo’s expressive association
was to engage in activities independently protected by the First Amendment. See
McCabe, 12 F.3d at 1563.
In short, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on the
Trigos’ First Amendment retaliation claims. Moreover, since the Trigos were not
entitled to relief on their federal claims, the district court did not abuse its
discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their remaining
state law claim. See Raney, 370 F.3d at 1089.
AFFIRMED.

10