Parnell, Jr. v. Florida Department of Corrections

Filing 53

ORDER Granting 42 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and Order Denying All Pending Motions as Moot. Signed by Judge Federico A. Moreno on 3/12/2025. See attached document for full details. (mvz)

UN ITED STA TES DISTR ICT CO URT FOR TH E
SO UTHERN D ISTRICT OF FLOR IDA
M iam iDivision
Case N um ber:23-24008-ClV -M O ltEN O
M ARION PA RN ELL JR .,

Plaintiff,

FLO RIDA D EPA RTM EN T OF
C ORRECTION S

D efendant.
O R D ER G IG N TIN G D EFEN DA N T'S M O TIO N FO R SUM M A RY JU D G M EN T AN D
O RD ER D EN Y ING A LL PEND IN G M O TIO N S A S M O O T

TH IS CA U SE cam e before the Courtupon Defendant's M otion for Sum m ary Judgm ent.
M arion ParnellJr.sued his em ployer,the Florida D epartm entof Corrections,alleging retaliation

and disability discrim ination retaliation in violation ofTitle V1Iofthe CivilRightsActof 1964

andtheAmericanswithDisabilitiesActof1990.TheCourtgrantssummaryjudgmentinfavorof
D efendant,holding thatM r.Parnellhas failed to m ake a prim a facie show ing ofretaliation.The
Court also finds that even if M r. Parnell had m ade such a show ing, D efendant has offered
legitim ate, non-discrim inatoly reasons for his dem otion and term ination. Finally, the Court

detelnninesthatM r.Parnelldoesnotdemonstratethatany ofthoseprofferedreasonsarepretextual.
FactualBackaround
M r.Pam ellw asem ployed by D efendantas a StaffD/velopm entTraining Coordinatorand

Corrections O fficer,responsible for teaching corrections officer recruits at the Everglades and

Dade Correctionallnstitutions (tçthe academy'').He allegesthatthe discrimination began in
D ecem ber2020 w hen theFloridaD epartm entofCorrectionsOffce oftheInspectorG eneralbegan

investigatinghisim properconductin theworkplace.TheallegationsagainstM r.Parnellwerethat
he solicited orpressured recruitsin hisacadem y classto participatein Edm oney circles,''orpyrnm id
schem es.H e w as also accused of receiving m oney from recruits for these tsm oney circles.M r.
Parnelldenies those allegations.W hile the investigation w aspending,M r.Pnrnellw as placed on
a ûsno recruitcontact''restriction.H e w asnotallow ed to interactw ith recruits withoutsupervision
untilM arch 2021. H e w as required to be underthe observation of a RegionalTraining Specialist

at a11tim es when interacting with recruits.M r.Palmell'spersonnel file did not contain any
disciplinary action priorto thisinvestigation and the eventsthatfollowed.
O n M ay 20,2021,the investigatorfound thatthe allegations againstM r.Parnellregarding

money circles were (Cnotsustained,''meaning that(sgtqhepreponderance ofevidence dgidlnot
reasonably establish gMr.Parnell'sjbehaviororaction eithercomplied with orviolated orwas

contrarytoDepaMmentprocedure,nzle,orotherauthority.''D.E.43at!22.
On July 16,2021,D efendàntsentM r.Parnella pre-determ ination letternotifying him that
disciplinary action w ould be taken against him in the form of a dem otion due to his alleged
violation of severaldepartm entpoliciesrelated to the allegationsagainsthim in the Oftice ofthe
Inspector G eneral investigation.The notice specifically alleged that although M r.Parnellw as
lçinstructed not to socialize, associate or form friendships w ith A cadem y recruits,including in

personandonsocialmedia,''throughout2020,CçlheqinteractedwithAcademyrecnzitsthroughthe
use ofappsand/ortextmessages.''D.E.16 at! 16. Theletterf'ul'therindicated thatûsmultiple
AcademyrecruitsstatedthatghelspokewiththeAcademyclassaboutjoiningamoneycircle.''Id
M r.Parnellw as inform ed thatthe new alleged rule violations w ere added because he socialized
w ith recruitsvia G roupM e,a m essaging app.

On Septem ber 16, 2021,the Chief of the Office of the Inspector G eneral issued a
Supplem ehtalRepol'tsustaining the allegations againstM r.Parnelland concluded that,based on
the facts and testim ony docum ented in the investigation,therew assufficientevidence to sustain a
finding that M r.Parnell violated severalFlorida D epartm ent of Corrections rules and policies.
Thereafter,M r.Parnellw as notified tw ice m ore thathe w ould be dem oted due to the allegations

thatheviolated severalpolicies,which were sustained by theOffice oftheInspectorGeneral.
M r.Parnellthen took m edicalleave on October 15,2021,underthe Fnm ily and M edical
Leave Actforalleged m entalhealth conditionscaused by the em otionalharm and suffering he w as
enduring atthattim e.On N ovem ber29,2021,M r.Parnellfiled an EqualEm ploym entOpportunity
Com m ission Charge of D iscrim ination,w herein he alleged discrim ination on the bases of race,
colorand harassm ent.
O n January 19,2022,D avid Arthm ann,D irector ofH um an Resources,senta letterto M r.
Parnellstating thathe had been absentfrom w ork since January 14,2022.The letter advised M r.
Parnellthathis Fnm ily M edicalLeave entitlem entw as exhausted effective January 13,2022,and
he w as noteligible foradditionalleave benefits.The letter further stated thathe w as expected to
eitherreturn to w ork no laterthan February 3,2022,w ith a releaseto çsfullduty''from M r.Parnell's

physician or(lprovidemedicaldoctlmentation indicating ghejcan no longerperform dutiesofa
StaffDevelopmentTraining Consultant.''1d.at!(24.Thisletterf'
urtherstated,
Y our absences since January 14, 2022,are excessive and have interfered w ith
m anagem ent's ability to adequately staff the academ y. Your absences as of

February 3,2022,willbe considered unauthorized leave.Any additionalmedical
notes placing you out ofw ork are no longer approved due to you exhausting a11

3

FM LA entitlem ents.lfyou failto follow these instnzctionsfollow ing receiptofthis
letter,itw illbe necessary to seek action up to and including yourdism issal.

On February 1,2022,M r.Parnellresponded to M r.Arthmann'sletter,inform ing him that
he w as stillunder his doctor's care and on m edication and requested an extension of sick leave
underthe A m ericansw ith D isabilities A ctafterhisFam ily and M edicalLeave A ctleave expired.
ln a M arch 3,2022,letter,the Florida D epartm entof Correctionsadvised M r.Parnellthat
he w as being dem oted effective M arch 18,2022,from hisposition asStaffD evelopm entTraining
Coordinatorto CorrectionalOfficerw ith a salary decrease.The dem otion w asallegedly dueto M r.
Parnellviolating various D epartm entregulations. M r.Parnelldenies the allegations againsthim
and upon w hich the dem otion waspurportedly based.
On M arch 8,2022,M r.Parnellagain requested an extended leave of absence from w ork.

Heprovided anotefrom hismedicalprovidersupportinghisrequest,claimingthatheGsneedgedj
outpatienttreatm ent since he was exhibiting sym ptom s of an em otionaldisorder that interferes

withday-to-dayf'
unctioningandgcouldnotlalleviatethesesymptomsonhisom '
1.''f#.at!27.The
m edicalprovideradded thatheneeded lsm edication m anagem entand follow -up appointm entsuntil

f'
urthernotice.''Id Thatmonth,M r.Parnellwasdiagnosedwithmajordepressivedisorder,anxiety
disorder,and insom nia.

On M arch 23,2022,Patricia Ann Linn,Hum an Resource Analyst,responded to M r.
Parnell's request for accom m odation,inform ing him that his request for additional leave w as
granted thzough M arch 10,2022.M r.Parnell did not provide D efendantw ith a retum -to-w ork
date.O n M arch 30,2022,Jason H oskins,W arden,sent a letler to M r.Parnellrequiring him to
com plete a Sslkelease oflnform ation''form and return itno laterthan April 13,2022.In response,

4

&Ir.Parnellauthorized therelease ofm edicalinformation and completed the form on April11,
2022.

On M ay 18,2022,D efendantadvised M r.Parnellthétheviolated severalrulesbecause he

had notreturned towork afterexhausting hism edicalleaveand failedto providearetulw to-work
date.This letter also explained that Defendant intended to term inate M r.Parnell's em ploym ent
and granted him the rightto apredeterm ination hearing.M r.Parnellnever availed him selfof such
a hearing.Plaintiff s em ploym entw as eventually term inated on August 11,2022,atw hich tim e
he had 925 hours ofsick leave available and accnled.
l1.

ProceduralH istoa

M r.Parnell's Com plaint brings claim s against D efendant under Title V II of the Civil
R ightsActof1964 and the A m ericansw ith D isabilitiesA ctcif1990.The six countsare asfollows:
Count 1, discrim ination based on race; Count 1I, discrim ination based on color; Cotm t 111,
retaliation for M r.Parnell's filing an EqualEm ploym ent Opportunity Com m ission com plaint;
CountlV ,disability discrim ination - failure to accom m odate'
,CountV ,disability discrim ination;
and CountV l,retaliation forM r.Parnell's requestfor areaso
'nable accom m odation.
D efendantm oved to dism iss Counts1,1I,1V ,and V ofthe Com plaintforfailureto state a
.

claim upon which relief could be granted.The Courtgranted the m otion.D efendantnow m oves

forsummaryjudgmenton CountslI1andVI.
111.

LeaalStandard

Fed.R.Civ.P.56provides,disummaryjudgmentisappropriatewherethereCisnogenuine
issueastoany materialfact'and themovingpal'ty isdentitledtojudgmentasamatterof1aw.'''
SeeAlabamav.N Carolina,130S.Ct.2295,2308(2010)(quotingFed.R.Civ.P.56(a)).Thus,
thebasicissue before the Coul'
ton a motion forsummaryjudgmentis(twhethertheevidence
presentsasufficientdisagreementtorequiresubmissiontoajuryorwhetheritissoone-sidedthat
5

oneparty mustprevailasamatteroflaw.''Anderson v.Lfàcrly Lobby,Inc.,477U.S.242,251

(1986).The moving party hasthebtlrden ofshowing theabsenceofagenuineissue asto any
m aterialfact,and in deciding w hetherthe m ovant has m etthis burden,the Courtm ustview the

m ovant's evidence and al1factualinferences arising from itin the lightm ostfavorable to the

nonmovingparty.Allenv.TysonFoods,Inc.,121F.3d 642,646(11th Cir.1997).
The party opposing themotion forsummaryjudgmentmay notsimply restupon mere
allegations or denials ofthe pleadings;the non-m oving party m ustestablish the essentialelem ents
ofitscase on which itw illbearthe burden ofproofattrial. Celotex Corp.v,Catrett,477 U .S.317

(1986),
.MatsushitaElec.Indus.Co.v.ZenithRadioCorp.,475U.S.574(1986).Thenon-movant
mustpresentmorethan ascintillaofevidencein suppol'tofthenon-movant'sposition.'A jury
m ustbe able reasonably to find forthe non-m ovant.Anderson,477 U .S.at254.

Cclfreasonablem indscould differon the inferencesarising from undisputed facts,then a

coul'tshould deny summaryjudgment.''M iranda v.B drB Cash Grocery Store,Inc.,975 F.2d
1518,1534 (11th Cir.1992).However,theexistenceofsomefactualdisputesbetween litigants
willnotdefeatan otherwiseproperly groundmotion forsummaryjudgment;tstherequirementis
thattherebenogenuineissueofmaterialfact.''-dntlrytpn,477U.S.at248(emphasisadded).M ere
Cdm etaphysicaldoubtasto the m aterialfacts''w illnotsuffice.M atsushita,475 U .S.at587.
IV .

D iscussion

A. Count111:Violation ofthe CivilRiahtsActof1964 (Retaliation)
ln Count111,M r.Palmellbringsa claim tm derTitle V l1ofthe CivilltightsA ctof 1964,42

U.S.C.j 2000e etseq.,againstDefendantforretaliation.TitleVll's anti-retaliation provision
prohibitsretaliationby anemployerwhenanemployeettopposgesqanypracticemadeanunlawful

enaployrnentpractice by g'ritle V111,''or participates in an EqualEmployment Opportunity
investigation orproceeding.42U.S.C.j2000e-3(a).
6

ToestablishaprimafaciecaseofretaliationunderTitleV11,aplaintiffmustshow that(6(1)
heengagedin astatutorily protectedactivity;(2)hesuffered anadverseemploymentaction;and

(3)heestablished acausallirlkbetween theprotectedactivity andtheadverseaction.''Byrantv.
Jones,575 F.3d 1281,1308 (11th Cir.2009).Ifaplaintiffmakesthisshowing,çttheburden of
production shifts to the defendant to rebut the presllm ption by articulating a legitim ate, nondiscrim inatory reason forthe adverse em ploym entaction.''f#.Ifthe defendantcarriesthis burden

ofproduction,(Cthe plaintiffhas a fulland fairopportunity to dem onstrate thatthe defendant's
proffered reason wasm erely a pretextto m ask discrim inatory actions.''Id
D efendant concedes that M r.Parnell has m et the first prong, engaging in a statutorily

protected activity,asM r.Parnellfiled an EqualEmploym entOpportunity Comm ission Chargeof

Discrimination against Defendant.42 U.S.C.j 2000e-2(a);j 2000e-3(a).Defendant further
concedesthatM r.Parnellhasm etthe second prong,ashew asdem oted and ultim ately tenninated.

SeeHoward v.Walgreen Co.,605 F.3d 1239,1244 (11th Cir.2010)(holding thattermination
constitmesadverseaction);Howard v.Stmniland Corp.,281F.supp.3d 1253,1257(holdingthat
demotingan employeeconstitutesadverseaction).Thus,thepartiesonlycontestthethirdprongcausation.
1.Causation

Title V Ilretaliation claim s require the plaintiffto prove thatthe Stprotected activity was a

but-forcauseoftheallegedadverseactionbytheemployer.''Univ.oflnex.Sw.Med Ctr.v.Nassar,
570 U.S.338,362 (2013).is-l-hus,to survivesummaryjudgment,aplaintiffmustshow thatthe
com plained ofadverse decision w asbecause ofhisprotected activity,and hisem ployerw ould not
have m ade the decision but for his engagem ent in thatprotected activity.''Fitzgibbon v.Fulton
Cn/.)t,842 Fed.
Appx.385,389 (11th Cir.2021).A plaintiff can demonstrate causation (iby

7

showing a'(very close' temporal proxim ity between the statutorily protected activity and the

adverse action.''Id (quoting Thomasv.CooperLighting,Inc.,506 F.3d 1361,1364 (11th Cir.
2007)(percuriaml).However,lsin aretaliationcase,whenan employercontemplatesanadverse
employmentactionbeforeanemployeeengagesinprotectedactivity,temporalproximitybetween
the protected activity and the subsequent adverse em ploym ent action does not suffice to show

causation.''Dragov.Jenne,453F.3d 1301,1308(11thCir.2006)(emphasisadded).
D efendantarguesthatbecause M r.Parnell's dem otion occurred alm ostfourm onths after
he filed his Equal Em ploym ent Opportunity Com m ission charge,the Court should not infer
causation based on tim ing.Further,D efendantarguesthatregardless of the tim ing of events,the
C oul'
tcannotrely on tem poralproxim ity to establish causation because adverse em ploym entaction
w as contem plated before M r. Parnell engaged in protected activity.M r. Parnell, in response,
argues that he participated in ongoing protected activity during the pendency of the Equal
Em ploym ent Opportunity Com m ission investigation,w hich began when he filed his charge of
discrim ination in N ovem ber 2021 and did not end until2023,w hen the Com m ission issued its
dism issalletters.Further,M r.Parnellarguesthatadverse em ploym entaction could nothave been

contem plated beforeheengagedinprotectedactivityashewasclearedviaitnotsustained''findings
and that any overtunung of these undings w as illegitim ate. D efendant responds that
notw ithstanding the initialoutcom e of the investigation,D efendantnotified M r.Parnellon July
16,2021,O ctober 7,2021,and N ovem ber 10,2021 al1prior to the initiation of his protected
activity thatitintended to take adverse em ploym entaction againsthim in the form ofa dem otion.
H ere,the CourtfindsthatM r.Parnellcalm otrely on tem poralproxim ity to show causation
because D efendant contem plated adverse em ploym ent action before M r. Parnell engaged in
protected activity.M r.Parnellinitiated his protected activity on N ovem ber 29,2021,when he

pm icipated in EqualEm ploym ent Opportunity Com m ission proceedings.W hile M r.Parnell is
correctthathe w as advised on M ay 20,2021,thatthe investigation findingsw ere (Gnotsustained,''
D efendantneverthelessnotified M r.Parnellon severaloccasionsthatitw ascontem plating adverse
em ploym entaction by w ay of dem otion.On July 16,2021,D efendantnotified M r.Parnellthatit

Gûintendged)totakedisciplinary action against(him)in theform ofademotion.''D.E.42-3at1.
D efendantdid the sam e on O ctober7,2021 and again on N ovem ber 10,2021.D .E.42-7 at 1,
'D .E.
42-8 at 1.M r.Parnellargues thatbecause the adverse action wasonly contem plated,butnotacted
on,that D efendant's argum ent calm ot stand.H owever,the standard articulated by the Eleventh
Circuit only requires that the em ployer Cûcontem plates an adverse em ploym entaction before an
em ployee engages in protected activity.''D rago,453 F.3d at 1308.H ere,the undisputed factual
record reflects thatM r.Parnell's dem otion w as tdalready contem plated and in m otion prior to his

participation in gqprotectedactivity.''Fitzgibbon,842Fed.Appx.at389.Thus,becauseDefendant
contem plated dem otion four m onths prior to M r. Parnell engaged in protected activity, the
subsequentadverse action tçdoes not suffice to show causation,''and M r.Parnell cannotrely on
tem poralproxim ity.Id
In his response in opposition to D efendant's m otion, M r. Parnell refm es D efendant's
argum ents above regarding tim ing.H ow ever,M r.Paznell does not attem ptto provide the Court
w ith any other evidence thatdem onstratesthatthere is a causallink between the protected activity
and the adverse em ploym ent action. A ccordingly, the Court finds that M r. Parnell has not
established a prim a facie case ofretaliation underTitle VI1.
J.Pretext

Even assum ing arguendo thatM r.Parnellestablished a prim a facie case of discrim ination,

Defendanthasarticulated Cslegitimate,non-discriminatory reasongsqfortheadverseemployment

9

action.''Bryant,575 F.3d at 1308.Defendant articulated that M r.Parnellviolated severalof
D efendant's rulesand policies,including Florida D epartm entofCorrectionsrules and the Florida

Adlninistrative Code governing employee conduct.SeeECP No.42-3 at 1,
'ECF No.42-7 at 1,
'
ECF N o.42-8 at 1.Further,D efendantw as excessively absentw ithoutthe required authorization
and failed to return to w ork after exhausting his m edicalleave.ECF N o.42-13;ECF N o.42-1,
60:22-24,61:1-4;ECF N o.42-10 at 1.Further,D efendantpoints to the Supplem entalReportto
the originalinvestigation thatultim ately sustained the allegations against M r.Parnell.Thus,the

btlrden shiftsto M r.Parnellto demonstrate thatthesereasonswere (lmerely gjpretextto mask
discrim inatory actions.''Bryant,575 F.3d at1308.
In response,M r.Parnell argues thathe w as cleared ofany w rongdoing.Fu/her he notes

thatatthetim e ofterm ination,he had over900 hoursofsick leave remaining asa resultofhis
having over20 years ofservice and m inim um utilization ofsick leave during his em ploym ent,and
thatD efendanthas a policy of allow ing em ployees up to tw elve m onths of unpaid leave due to

m edicalreasons.M r.Parnellalso assertsthatwhile hedid notprovidea return-to-work date,his
physician's letter offered to answ er any questions regarding his m edicalcondition and that M r.
Parnellsigned a m edicalrelease allow ing D efendantto contacthistreating physician.Finally,M r.
Parnelldisputesthe Supplem entalR epol'
tbecause itwasnotissued w ithin 180 days ofD efendant
first receiving notice of the allegations against M r.Parnell,and because the Reportis undated,
unsigned, and thus does not indicate who or w hen the docuinent w as generated. The Court
addresses each argum entin turn.

A s for the 900 hours of sick leave M r.Parnell accnzed,there is no policy thatrequires
D efendantto allow em ployees w ho have 20 years of accnled sick leave to use those days before
term inating them .M r.Parnelldoesnotdispute thathe never provided a retulm-to-w ork date after

10

Defendantcomm unicated atleastfourtim eswith M r.Panzellabouttheneed forsuch a date.See
ECF N 0.42-17 at1;ECF No.42-18 at 1-2;ECF No.42-14 at 1.M oreover,M r.Parnellasserts
thatD efendanthad chronic difficulty w ith staffing corrections officers,w hich f'urtherhighlights

how hisabsence affected Defendant'soperations.ECFN o.46!40.
.

W ithregard totheSupplem entalReport,theCourtfindsthatthereisno genuinedisputeof
materialfactastoitslegitim acy.Forfactualissuesto beGdgenuine,''they m usthavearealbasisin
therecord.M atsttshita,475 U.S.at586.W hen thezecord asawhole could notlead arationaltrier
offactto find forthenon-m ovant,thereisno Sdgenuineissuefortrial.''1d.at587.
H ere,the Reportitself indicates that it w as dated Septem ber 29,2021,and that it was
generated by Chief D an'yl Cherry.Further,M s.K atouree Jackson,a law enforcem ent inspector

supervisorforDefendant,indicated the sam e in herdeposition.ECF No.48-1,37:12-22,39:2125,40:1-24,
.ECF N o.42-5 at 1.Thus,there is no dispute thatthe allegations againstM r.Parnell

wereultim ately Gssustained,''andprovided a legitim ate,non-discrim inatory reason forthe adverse
employm entaction taken againsthim .Further,the Courtfinds thatDefendantcom plied with

FloridaStatute112.532(6)(a)asDefendantcompletedtheinvestigationTtwithin 180daysafterthe

datetheagencyreceiveldjnoticeoftheallegaticm,''andgaveEsnoticeinm itingto(M r.Parnelljof
its intentto proceed w ith disciplinary action.''1d.The Supplem entalR epol'tw as notin violation

ofthe statute asthe investigation and notice were completed before the 180-day deadline,and
because the R epol-t w as a review of the com pleted investigation - not a reopening of the
investigation northe initiation of a f'
urther investigation outside ofthe deadline.See 48-1,40:1-

24.Accordingly,thereisno genuinedisputeasto theveracity oftheSupplementalRepozt andthe
Coul'tconsidersitanotherlegitimatereason forthe adverse employmentaction taken againstM r.
Parnell.

Forthereasonsstated above,theCourtfindsthatM r.Panw ll'sresponsesdo notmeetthe
high burden required to show pretext as he has not provided any evidençe that Csreveals such
w eaknesses,im plausibilities,inconsistencies,incoherencies or contradictions in the em ployer's
proffered legitim ate reasonsfor its actionsthata reasonable factfinder could find them unw orthy

of credence.''Vessels v,Atlanta Ind Sch.Sys.,408 F.3d 763,771 (11th Cir.2005)(internal
quotation marks omitted).Further,M r.Parnellhas failed to show that there was a causal
colm ection betw een his protected activity and any adverse em ploym ent actions and has not
provided evidence creating a genuine dispute as to this issue.Thus,the Court grants sum m ary

judgmentinfavorofDefendantastoCount111.SeeHudsonv.BlueCrossBlueShieldofAla.,431
Fed.Appx.868,870 (11th Cir.2011)(grantingsummaryjudgmentfordefendantwhereplaintiff
failed to rebutevidence show ing thatplaintiff w as term inated for legitim ate,non-discrim inatory

reasonsl;James v.City of Montgomery,823 Fed.Appx.728,735 (11th Cir.2020) (granting
summaryjudgmentfordefendantwhereplaintiffCûdidnotproduce evidence creating agenuine
issueofm aterialfactasto whethertherewasacausalconnection between herstatutorily protected

activityandadverseemploymentactions'').
B. Count1V :Violation ofthe CivilRiuhtsA ctof1964 (Disability Discrim ination
Retaliation)
M r.Parnell'sA m ended Com plaintassertsa claim forretaliation based on hisrequestfora
reasonable accom m odation under the Am ericans w ith D isabilities A ct of 1990.The A ct's antiretaliation provision prohibits em ployers from discrim inating against individuals w ho have

tsopposed any actorpracticemadeunlawf'ulby gtheActj''or(tmadeacharge gorjparticipatedin
any mannerin an investigation,proceeding,orhearingundergtheActj.''42 U.S.C.j 12203(a).
R etaliation èlaim s underthe A ct are analyzed using the sam e testdescribed above for Title V ll

retaliation claims:(1)protected activity;(2)adverseemploymentaction;and (3)causation.See
12

Stewartv.Happy Herman'
sCheshireBridge,Inc.,117 F.3d 1278,1287 (11th Cir.1997)(ADA
retaliatory dischargeclaim atissue,buttestbased onTitleV1l).Theburden-shiftinggamework
thatfollowssuch ashowing islikewise identical.Id Aswith Count111,Defendantconcedesthat
M r.Parnellhas m etthe firsttw o prongs.The paMies again solely dispute causation.
1.Causation

The Court'sanalysis astotim ing above applieshere.Theundisputed factualrecord reflects
thatM r.Parnell'sdem otion w as ççalready contem plated and in m otion priorto hisparticipation in

(jprotectedactivity.''Fitzgibbon,842Fed.Appx.at389.Thus,becauseDefendantcontemplated
dem otion fourm onthsprior to M r.Parnellengaging in protected activity,the subsequentadverse
action dçdoes not suffice to show causation,''and M r.Parnellcannotrely on tem poralproxim ity.

1d Furtherpjustasabove,Mr.ParnelldoesnotattempttoprovidetheCourtwithanyotherevidence
that dem onstrates that there is a causal link between the protected activity and the adverse

employmentaction.Accordingly,theCourtfindsthatM r.Panlellhasnotestablishedaprimafacie
case ofdisability discrim ination retaliation ashe hasnotproven thathisprotected activity w asthe
but-forcause ofthe adverse em ploym entaction taken againsthim .
J.Pretext

A gain,even assum ing arguendo thatM r.Parnellm ade a prim a facie claim ,D efendanthas

articulatedStlegitimate,non-discriminatoryreasonlsqfortheadverseemploymentaction.''Bryant,
575 F.3d at 1308.D efendanthighlights M r.Parnell's excessive absences and violation ofFlorida
D epartm entof Corrections rules.W hile referring to the sam e reasons outlined above,D efendant
also notes that after requesting accom m odations, M r. Parnell failed to com ply w ith proper
A m ericans w ith D isabilities A ct procedures by refusing to provide a retulm-to-w ork date.After
D efendantneverthelessprovided additionalsick leave to M r.Parnell,he again failed to provide a

13

return-to-work date,andthen failedtoreturntowork af4erexhaustinghism edicalleave.Defendaht
advised M r. Parnell that it intended to term inate his em ploym ent and offered him a

predeterm inationhearing.M r.Parnellwas,accordingtoDefendant,ultim atelyterminatedforthese
reasons,and those discussed above,including the supplementalreportand theviolation ofother
FloridaDepal-tmentofCorrectionsrules.TheCourtfindsthatthesereasonsarelegitim ateandnon-

discriminatory.The burden thus shifts to M r.Parnell to dem onstrate thatthese reasons were

Stmerely gjpretexttomask discriminatozy actions.''Bryant,575F.3dat1308.
M r.Parnell,in response,arguesthathisfailureto return from leavewasnotaviolation of
the Family and M edicalLeave Actproceduresbecause Defendant'spoliciesallow fornum erous
other optionsto take additionalm edicalleave beyond twelve weeks.M r.Palmellreassertsthathe

had over900 hoursofsick leave rem aining.Further,M r.Parnellnotesthatwhile his physician
failedto prove areturn-to-work date,Defendantnevercontacted thephysiciannordid Defendant
engage in any interactive process or conversation w ith M r.Pam ellregarding this issue.Finally,

M r.Parnellarguesthathism edicalleavewasauthorizedthrough thedateofhistermination,ashe
wason paid approved sick leave.The Coul'
twilladdresseach argumentin turn.
The Courtisnotpersuaded by M r.Parnell'sargum entthathe wasnOtin violation ofany
rules or statutory procedures.M r.Parnell does not allege that he ever availed him self of or
requested the benetits D efendant provides to em ployees regarding taking an excess of tw elve
w eeks of leave.ln any event,the Coul'tcannotfind thatafter failing to cornm unicate a return-to-

work date,itwasDefendant'sresponsibility to allow M r.Parnellto use his20 yearsofaccrued
sick leave before term inating him .

Further, M r. Parnell is incorrect when he claim s D efendant never engaged in any
interactive processorconversation w ith him regarding hisfailtlreto provide areturn-to-w ork date.

14

1

Defendantcomm unicated atleastfourtim eswith M r.Parnellhim selfabouttheneed forareturnto-w ork date.ECF N o.42-17 at 1;ECF N o.42-18 at 1-2;ECF N o.42-14 at 1.W hat'sm ore,M r.

Parnelladmits thathe never provided a return-to-work date,but seem ingly argues thatitwas
D efendant's responsibility to contact his m edical provider to obtain such a date.M r. Parnell
provides no case 1aw to supportthis assertion and the C ourtcarm ot find any to supportsuch a

'

claim .W hiletheCourtdoesnotconcludethatMr.Parnell'sabsenceswereunjustified,itfindsthat
M r.Parnellhas not shown thatthe reasons Defendantoffers as to why he was dem oted and
term inated are untrue or ofquestionable credibility.
C'Taking adverse em ploym entaction because ofan em ployee's violation ofa work rule or

policymaybepretextualwhentheplaintiffproffersevidencet(1)thatshedidnotviolatethecited
workrule,or(2)thatifshedidviolatetherule,otheremployeesoutsidetheprotectedclass,who
engaged in similaracts,were notsimilarly treated.'''Hudson,431 Fed.Appx.at869 (quoting

Damonv.FlemingSg ermarketsofFla.,196F>3d 1354,1363(11thCir.1999)).Plaintiffhasnot
presented any such evidence in thiscase.
Thus,forthereasonsstated above,theCourtfindsthatM r.Parnell'sresponsesdo notmeet
'

the high burden required to show pretextas he has notprovided any evidence thatttrevealssuch
w eaknesses,im plausibilities,inconsistencies,incoherencies or contradictions in the em ployer's

proffered legitimatereasonsforitsactionsthatareasonable factfindercould find them unworthy

ofcredence.''Vessels,4O8F.3dat771(internalquotationmarksomitted).Accordingly,theCoul'
t
grantssummaryjudgmentin favorofDefendantastoCountV1.SeeHudson,431Fed.Appx.at
870 (grantingsummaryjudgmentfordefendantwhereplaintifffailedtorebutevidenceshowing
thatplaintiffwasterminatedforlegitimate,non-discriminatoryreasons);James,823Fed.Appx.at

735(grantingsummaryjudgmentfordefendantwhereplaintiff'sdidnotproduceevidencecreating

15

-

a genuine issue ofm aterialfactasto w hethertherew asa causalconnection betw een herstatutorily

protectedactivity andadverseemploymentactions'').
V.

C onclusion

Defendant'sM otionforSummaryJudgment(D.E.42)isGRANTED.A1lpending
m otions are D ENIED A S M O O T.The Clerk isdirected to close the case.

?-

DONEANDORDEREDinChambersatM iam i,Florida,this f.
X ofMarch2025.
,

FED ERIC O . OR EN O
UN ITED STATES DISTRICT JUD GE

Copiesfurnished to:

Cotm selofRecord

16