Filed: Dec. 30, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Case: 14-11049 Date Filed: 12/30/2015 Page: 1 of 20 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 14-11049 _ D.C. Docket No. 3:12-cv-00728-HLA-JRK MICHELLE CORBETT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RICK BESELER, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Clay County, Defendant - Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _ (December 30, 2015) Before ROSENBAUM and FAY, Circuit Judges, and MIDDLEBROOKS, * District Co
Summary: Case: 14-11049 Date Filed: 12/30/2015 Page: 1 of 20 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 14-11049 _ D.C. Docket No. 3:12-cv-00728-HLA-JRK MICHELLE CORBETT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RICK BESELER, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Clay County, Defendant - Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _ (December 30, 2015) Before ROSENBAUM and FAY, Circuit Judges, and MIDDLEBROOKS, * District Cou..
More
Case: 14-11049 Date Filed: 12/30/2015 Page: 1 of 20
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-11049
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:12-cv-00728-HLA-JRK
MICHELLE CORBETT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
RICK BESELER,
in his official capacity as Sheriff of Clay County,
Defendant - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(December 30, 2015)
Before ROSENBAUM and FAY, Circuit Judges, and MIDDLEBROOKS, ∗
District Court Judge.
∗
The Honorable Donald M. Middlebrooks, United States District Court Judge for the Southern District of
Florida, sitting by designation.
Case: 14-11049 Date Filed: 12/30/2015 Page: 2 of 20
PER CURIAM:
Michelle Corbett appeals partial summary judgment and judgment as a
matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) for Rick Beseler, Sheriff
of Clay County, Florida, 1 in her employment discrimination action concerning the
Clay County Sheriff’s Office (“CCSO”). We affirm.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. Corbett’s CCSO Employment History
Corbett was hired in August 2003 as a CCSO Deputy Sheriff. In July 2004,
Corbett applied for and obtained the position of Youth Resource Officer, where she
worked for approximately three years. In 2007, Corbett applied for an open
detective position in Narcotics, a division of CCSO Organized Crime Unit. 2
Following her application, Corbett was interviewed and selected by
Lieutenant Barry Abramowitz to transfer to Narcotics, a lateral position, on May
14, 2007. 3 While meeting the requirements for detective, Corbett, the only
woman in the Narcotics division, had strained relationships with the male
1
Corbett sued Sheriff Beseler in his official capacity; her claims do not concern Sheriff Beseler
directly.
2
The Organized Crime Unit is comprised of various subdivisions, including Street Crimes and
Narcotics. Within the Narcotics division are subsections with individuals who specialize in
certain areas, such as pharmaceuticals, methamphetamine (“meth”) labs, or marijuana-grow
houses. Narcotics detectives can be assigned to assist with other Narcotics operations.
3
As a detective, Corbett received $50 incentive pay every two weeks for a clothing allowance,
since Narcotics detectives wear their personal clothes rather than a uniform.
2
Case: 14-11049 Date Filed: 12/30/2015 Page: 3 of 20
detectives. She admitted the male detectives considered her to be demeaning and
critical of their job performance. Consequently, they did not like working with
her. From October 2007 until his transfer in October 2009, Sergeant Wayne
McKinney directly oversaw Corbett and the Narcotics division. He generally gave
Corbett positive evaluations, although his evaluations noted she could be abrupt
and rude toward others.
Detectives in Narcotics are assigned partners with whom they work,
including backing up each other. Corbett’s first two partners were Detectives
David Vaughn and Greg Michon. Throughout her tenure in Narcotics, Corbett and
Michon were partnered from time to time. While it was rumored they were having
an affair, Corbett testified they did not have an affair, but they had a friendly
relationship.
On September 6, 2009, Lieutenant Abramowitz, who oversaw the Organized
Crimes Unit, including changing partners, reassigned Michon and Corbett with
new partners. Because Corbett and Michon were more experienced detectives,
Lieutenant Abramowitz determined they should work in a training role by
providing guidance to inexperienced detectives. In addition, Lieutenant
Abramowitz thought Corbett needed to demonstrate she could handle cases
without relying on Michon, since there was a perception he handled the majority of
their case work.
3
Case: 14-11049 Date Filed: 12/30/2015 Page: 4 of 20
Although giving Corbett and Michon new partners was a decision from their
chain of command, Corbett and Michon openly questioned their reassignment with
coworkers. When Corbett’s complaining continued, Lieutenant Abramowitz met
her one evening in front of a Winn-Dixie to discuss the separation in partners.
Lieutenant Abramowitz explained he had separated them so Corbett could become
a leader in the division and enhance her career. She did not think that would be the
result, because she is a woman, and she perceived no one would listen to her.
Lieutenant Abramowitz counseled her the likely reason others would not listen was
because she could be overbearing, but he believed she could be successful in the
detective role, despite potential difficulties encountered by women in law
enforcement.
Nonetheless, Corbett continued to complain to Lieutenant Abramowitz
concerning her displeasure with the repartnering; she further went up the chain of
command and complained directly to Captain Senters in 2009. She told Captain
Senters she was unhappy with the move of Michon back to Patrol and being told
she could not work directly with Michon without permission. Captain Senters
explained he thought Michon should have been moved to Patrol a year before,
because he had spent too much time in Narcotics. At this December 2009 meeting
with Captain Senters, Corbett did not complain of lacking training, not getting
4
Case: 14-11049 Date Filed: 12/30/2015 Page: 5 of 20
overtime, or gender discrimination; her complaint was limited to moving Michon
to Patrol.
Corbett then was assigned as a Field Training Officer to Detective Hanlin,
who had moved into Narcotics from Street Crimes. Corbett and Hanlin had
personality conflicts. Hanlin complained to his supervisors Corbett was bossy and
condescending toward him. Thereafter, Sergeant McKinney addressed the
problem with Corbett and informed her she came across as “bitchy and
demeaning.” He suggested the other detectives would be more receptive if she
used a more welcoming, less demeaning tone. In October 2009, Sergeant
McKinney left Narcotics and was replaced by Shawn Gordon. Corbett represents
Sergeant Gordon also told her she was bossy and abrasive; other detectives did not
like her attitude, and she needed to change her behavior.
Although Corbett and Michon were no longer partners, they were assigned
to work together in dismantling meth labs. They also continued working together
without their supervisors’ approval, which left Detectives Lavaron and Hanlin
without partners, requiring them to work together. Following Detective Hanlin’s
complaints, Sergeant Gordon explained to Corbett she needed to partner with
Detective Hanlin rather than returning to Michon.
Corbett also had issues with Detective Lavaron, with whom she had
performed multiple trash pulls to look for evidence of a crime. In the course of one
5
Case: 14-11049 Date Filed: 12/30/2015 Page: 6 of 20
trash pull, Corbett drove the vehicle away when the suspect came out of the house,
which left Detective Lavaron stranded in the suspect’s yard. In addition, Corbett
spoke condescendingly to Detective Lavaron. From his work experiences with
Corbett, Detective Lavaron preferred not to work with her, because she constantly
was condescending toward him and had put him in an unsafe situation during a
trash pull, which caused him not to trust her with his life.
Corbett had received extensive training during her tenure in Narcotics,
including becoming certified to dismantle a meth lab. She contends she requested
to attend a tracking training in Tampa in September 2009, but she was not
permitted to attend. Sergeant McKinney does not recall denying Corbett this
training opportunity. She also claims she requested to attend gambling training in
2009 but was denied. No one attended the gambling training, because money was
not in the CCSO budget to finance it, and the instructor was not considered an
expert by the State Attorney’s Office.
While Corbett complains she was not given the same overtime opportunities
as the male detectives, overtime largely was voluntary. A whiteboard with
overtime assignments, primarily trash pulls, was in the Narcotics office, and
interested detectives placed their names on the board. Assignments were on a first-
come-first-served basis. Corbett received substantial overtime in Narcotics.
During the time she was not certified to dismantle meth labs, Corbett nonetheless
6
Case: 14-11049 Date Filed: 12/30/2015 Page: 7 of 20
was given overtime dismantling meth labs throughout 2008 and 2009. She also
admitted she received some overtime and never was denied any overtime
opportunity she requested on the whiteboard.
After being certified to dismantle meth labs in 2009, Corbett acquired
significant hours of overtime from November 2009 through January 2010.4
During a six-month period, Corbett received more overtime than Detective Seeley,
a male Narcotics coworker. She also had more overtime hours than Detective
Michon during the six-month time prior to his leaving Narcotics. Corbett took a
significant amount of leave time during that six-month period, at least 90 hours.
Neither Sergeant McKinney nor Sergeant Gordon purposefully excluded Corbett
from overtime opportunities; Corbett never complained to them she wanted more
overtime. 5
4
Although Corbett claims she repeatedly was denied training opportunities for methamphetamine
school, the ability to attend the trainings depended on when they were offered. When Sergeant
McKinney got approval, Corbett and Detective Lavaron were the first employees sent to the
school to receive certification to disassemble meth labs. Corbett also had a three-day
recertification course in February 2010 and a Leadership Privacy Seminar in March 2010. She
was called eleven times from November 2009 to February 2010 to dismantle meth labs. Corbett
was offered the chance to attend a DEA-sponsored school relating to site safety, but she was
unable to attend, because of a prearranged family vacation. Consequently, the DEA did not give
CCSO the opportunity to send other employees to the class. Corbett requested and was
permitted to attend a stress-management-incentive school. Upon completion, the state paid
Corbett additional money for attending. Although Corbett claims she repeatedly was denied
training opportunities, she told her doctor she was well trained and knew her job well.
5
Corbett claims she was denied overtime on one occasion, when CCSO did not send her to
dismantle a marijuana-grow operation and meth lab. Instead, Detectives Lavaron and Hanlin,
who was uncertified, were sent on this job. Based on the small size of the meth lab, Sergeant
7
Case: 14-11049 Date Filed: 12/30/2015 Page: 8 of 20
Believing she could no longer do her job with the male detectives in
Narcotics, who allegedly would not work with her, Corbett requested a transfer to
Warrants, which she did not receive. Thereafter, Lieutenant Abramowitz
counseled Corbett concerning the struggles and success of females in law
enforcement. He viewed himself as a mentor to Corbett and gave her the example
of his wife, who had been successful in twenty-five years of law enforcement.
Prior to his leaving Narcotics to work in Pharmaceutical Investigations in
October 2009, Sergeant McKinney spoke to Corbett about the possibility of her
moving to Pharmaceutical Investigations. He believed it presented a growth
opportunity for her, and she could be successful there. Although Corbett initially
turned down the offer to move to Pharmaceutical Investigations, a management
decision was made in May 2010 to assign her there. Since Pharmaceutical
Investigations received federal funding and participated in the state High Intensity
Drug Trafficking task force, it provided Corbett with many opportunities to earn
overtime. She additionally was sent for training for a week in May 2010 for
Pharmaceutical Investigations.
On May 27, 2010, the Narcotics and Street Crimes divisions executed a
search warrant in which Corbett participated. Later that day, Sergeant Gordon
Gordon decided certified Detective Lavaron could disassemble it, while uncertified Detective
Hanlin interviewed witnesses at the crime scene.
8
Case: 14-11049 Date Filed: 12/30/2015 Page: 9 of 20
conducted routine debriefing, during which Corbett became defensive and accused
Sergeant Gordon of blaming her for mishandling evidence. When the discussion
became heated, Lieutenant Abramowitz took Corbett and Sergeant Gordon into his
office. He was concerned with Corbett’s reaction to Sergeant Gordon’s inquiry
about the evidence; she represents Lieutenant Abramowitz and Sergeant Gordon
had yelled at her during the debriefing. Corbett became upset and yelled at
Sergeant Gordon. Because tempers continued to flare, Lieutenant Abramowitz
ended the meeting and told Corbett they would speak again the next day.
On the morning of May 28, 2010, Corbett again met with Lieutenant
Abramowitz and Sergeant Gordon. She testified she was told to “sit down, be
quiet, [and] don’t speak until spoken to”; she was required to listen to Sergeant
Gordon’s orders. Corbett claims Sergeant Gordon firmly told her she was not to
speak of him; she was to do exactly as she was told; he reminded her he was in
charge; and he informed her she would handle the pill cases he assigned to her or
those she generated herself. At that time, Corbett already was working in
Pharmaceutical Investigations.
B. Internal Investigation
Following the May 28, 2010, meeting with Lieutenant Abramowitz and
Sergeant Gordon, Corbett was emotional and went to Human Resources Director,
Leigh Corley, to complain. At the conclusion of their meeting, Corley asked
9
Case: 14-11049 Date Filed: 12/30/2015 Page: 10 of 20
Corbett to submit a written complaint and sent her home on paid administrative
leave for that purpose. Corbett’s complaint, delivered to Corley on June 3, 2010,
was dated May 31, 2010, and contained a number of complaints against her chain
of command and coworkers. Corley prepared a letter dated June 4, 2010, which
detailed the dates for incidents referenced in Corbett’s initial complaint. Corbett
temporarily was reassigned to the Intelligence Unit during the investigation, so she
did not have to report to the chain of command against whom she had complained.
Prior to May 28, 2010, Corbett had not complained to anyone at CCSO
regarding gender discrimination. Corley investigated Corbett’s allegations that she
was not receiving overtime fairly because of her gender. Since Corbett’s internal
complaint did not claim that she lacked training, that issue was not investigated.
While the internal investigation was being conducted, Corbett filed an
EEOC charge. Captain Virgil Lee Harris was assigned to investigate Corbett’s
additional allegations in her EEOC charge. After reviewing Corbett’s complaint,
Corley listed employees to interview and prepared questions and notes to reference
those interviews.
Corbett first was interviewed by Corley on July 16, 2010. During the
interview, Corbett stated she had 500 pages of notes relating to her allegations.
Corley and Captain Harris requested Corbett to provide copies of her notes and
10
Case: 14-11049 Date Filed: 12/30/2015 Page: 11 of 20
gave her 27 hours of paid administrative leave to make copies. Corbett produced
only 13 pages of notes; the earliest was dated January 26, 2010.6
Corley prepared a report summarizing the internal investigation and
submitted it to Sheriff Beseler on October 15, 2010. Both Corley and Captain
Harris concluded Corbett had not been subjected to discrimination based on her
gender, and she had received an equal opportunity for overtime as the male
detectives. After concluding her internal investigation, Corley met with Captain
Bucci and Captain Senters and provided them with the finalized investigative
report. Given the result of the internal investigation, no further CCSO action was
taken. In October 2010, Corbett was returned to Narcotics and remained there
until she requested a transfer a few months later.
In December 2010, Corbett received a formal counseling for her violation of
CCSO Code of Conduct General Order No. 1000.2 for approaching Detective
Seeley, one of the interviewed witnesses in the internal investigation, and telling
him “thanks for being so honest.” Since Detective Seeley perceived the comment
to be intimidating and stated in a sarcastic manner, he considered it to be a
personal attack against him. Because Detective Seeley had not been treated this
way in twenty years of service, he reported it to his supervisor, Sergeant Gordon.
6
Under CCSO disciplinary policies, employees who are untruthful during an internal
investigation are subject to discipline.
11
Case: 14-11049 Date Filed: 12/30/2015 Page: 12 of 20
The counseling form was not placed in Corbett’s personnel file.7 She lost no
pay, benefits or promotional opportunities because of the counseling. Corbett
testified the formal counseling did not impact her job in any way.
For approximately six weeks from mid-December 2010 through January
2011, Corbett was out on requested medical leave for surgery. When she returned
to work at the beginning of February 2011, Corbett voluntarily requested a transfer
to another detective position. At the time of her request, the only available
position was in Patrol. Lieutenant Abramowitz and Sergeant Gordon approved her
transfer to Patrol. The move to Patrol was not a promotion or demotion; it was a
lateral transfer approved by her supervisors. Since her transfer to Patrol, Corbett
has not made any internal complaints of discrimination. She continues to be
employed as a CCSO Deputy Sheriff with no reduction in pay or benefits.
C. District Court Proceedings
Following the requisite administrative proceedings, Corbett filed her federal
action in the Middle District of Florida under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Florida Civil Rights Act (“FCRA”), Fla.
7
Under CCSO General Order No. 2000.2, after a formal counseling has been retained in the
supervisor’s file for a year, it is removed from the file and destroyed.
12
Case: 14-11049 Date Filed: 12/30/2015 Page: 13 of 20
Stat. § 760.01 et seq. 8 She alleged hostile work environment, gender
discrimination, and retaliation.
Counsel for Sheriff Beseler moved for summary judgment. The district
judge granted the motion in part and dismissed the hostile work environment
claim. He concluded the comments advanced by Corbett were “not sufficiently
severe or pervasive” to “support her case using a hostile environment theory”
under binding case law.
The case proceeded to trial, where Sheriff Beseler’s counsel moved for
judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b). At the
close of all evidence, the judge granted Sheriff Beseler’s renewed motion for
judgment as a matter of law. The judge concluded the facts presented by Corbett
did not constitute legally actionable gender discrimination or retaliation. On
appeal, we determine whether the decisions by the district judge regarding
Corbett’s hostile work environment, gender discrimination, and retaliation claims
were correct.9
II. DISCUSSION
8
Because FCRA analysis mirrors that of Title VII, we need not consider the statutes separately.
Harper v. Blockbuster Entm’t Corp., 139 F.3d 1385, 1387 (11th Cir. 1998).
9
Corbett’s brief includes Attachments 2a and 2b, which appear to be demonstrative exhibits
summarizing trial Exhibits 69, 70, and 135. It is well settled that the record on appeal is limited
to “(1) the original papers and exhibits filed in the district court; (2) the transcript of proceedings,
if any; and (3) a certified copy of the docket entries prepared by the district clerk.” Fed. R. App.
P. 10(a). Consequently, we will not consider these attachments to Corbett’s appellate brief.
13
Case: 14-11049 Date Filed: 12/30/2015 Page: 14 of 20
A. Summary Judgment: Hostile Work Environment
We review de novo a district judge’s granting summary judgment and
construe the evidence and draw all reasonable inferences in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party. Baloco v. Drummond Co., 767 F.3d 1229, 1246
(11th Cir. 2014). Summary judgment is appropriate only 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). Scant evidence supporting the nonmoving
party’s position is insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment; there
must be substantial evidence produced for a jury reasonably to find in Corbett’s
favor. Garczynski v. Bradshaw,
573 F.3d 1158, 1165 (11th Cir. 2009).
To establish a hostile work environment claim under Title VII, Corbett must
show discriminatory behavior “sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the
conditions of [her] employment.” Pa. State Police v. Suders, 542 U.S. 129, 133,
124 S. Ct. 2342, 2347 (2004) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). She
must prove:
(1) that [she] belongs to a protected group; (2) that [she] has been
subject to unwelcome harassment; (3) that the harassment [was] based
on a protected characteristic of the employee, such as national origin;
(4) that the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the
terms and conditions of employment and create a discriminatorily
abusive working environment; and (5) that the employer is responsible
for such environment under either a theory of vicarious or of direct
liability.
14
Case: 14-11049 Date Filed: 12/30/2015 Page: 15 of 20
Miller v. Kenworth of Dothan, Inc., 277 F.3d 1269, 1275 (11th Cir. 2002)
(emphasis added); see Bryant v. CEO DeKalb Co. Jones,
575 F.3d 1281, 1296 n.
20 (11th Cir. 2009) (recognizing the “same standards of proof” apply in Title VII
and the Equal Protection Clause, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, for discrimination claims
alleging a hostile work environment).
“[T]o be actionable, this behavior must result in both an environment ‘that a
reasonable person would find hostile or abusive’ and an environment that the
victim ‘subjectively perceive[s] . . . to be abusive.’” Miller, 277 F.3d at 1276
(quoting Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc.,
510 U.S. 17, 21,
114 S. Ct. 367, 370 (1993)).
In evaluating the objective severity of the alleged hostile work environment, we
consider “(1) the frequency of the conduct; (2) the severity of the conduct; (3)
whether the conduct is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive
utterance; and (4) whether the conduct unreasonably interferes with the employee’s
job performance.” Mendoza v. Borden, Inc.,
195 F.3d 1238, 1246 (11th Cir. 1999)
(en banc). But Title VII is not a general civility code; “ordinary tribulations of the
workplace, such as sporadic use of abusive language, gender-related jokes, and
occasional teasing” cannot form the basis of a claim for actionable harassment or
hostile work environment. Faragher v. City of Boca Raton,
524 U.S. 775, 788,
118 S. Ct. 2275, 2284 (1998) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Instead, “conduct must be extreme to amount to a change in terms and conditions
15
Case: 14-11049 Date Filed: 12/30/2015 Page: 16 of 20
of employment.” Id., 118 S. Ct. at 2284 (emphasis added). Title VII “is not a
shield against harsh treatment in the workplace”; “[p]ersonal animosity is not the
equivalent of [gender] discrimination.” Succar v. Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd.,
229 F.3d
1343, 1345 (11th Cir. 2000) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Under these standards, we analyze Corbett’s allegations to determine if they
rise to the level of a hostile work environment. Corbett asserts she had humiliating
and derogatory remarks made to her by her male coworkers in Narcotics; she states
she was called “bossy,” “bitchy,” “abrasive,” “dumb,” and a “stupid fucking
bitch.” 10 These comments, however, were isolated and sporadic during the time
Corbett worked in Narcotics. She does not represent, and the record does not
show, that they were daily occurrences; therefore, they were not sufficiently
pervasive to constitute a hostile work environment. Any discord between Corbett
and the male Narcotics detectives was the result of personality conflicts, not
discriminatory animus. The record also does not support her allegations of being
deprived of overtime, training, or other conditions of her work. Significantly,
Corbett’s employment status as a CCSO Deputy Sheriff was not affected. Viewing
all Corbett’s allegations in her favor, she has failed to establish a hostile work
environment under the controlling law. The district judge correctly granted
10
Corbett also alleges she was asked by Detective Nelson if she wanted to “fuck” on a table
while on duty in 2008. This comment was brought to the attention of Lieutenant Abramowitz
and sufficiently addressed.
16
Case: 14-11049 Date Filed: 12/30/2015 Page: 17 of 20
summary judgment to Sheriff Beseler on Corbett’s claim of hostile work
environment.
B. Judgment as a Matter of Law: Gender Discrimination and Retaliation
The district judge granted the renewed motion for judgment as a matter of
law at the close of all the evidence by Sheriff Beseler’s counsel, which included
Corbett’s remaining issues of gender discrimination and retaliation. We review de
novo the granting of judgment as a matter of law and apply the same standards as
the district judge. Collins v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., 749 F.3d 951, 956-57 (11th Cir.
2014). A district judge appropriately grants judgment as a matter of law, “when
the plaintiff presents no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to
find for [her] on a material element of [her] cause of action.”
Id. at 957 (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted). We “consider all the evidence in the light
most favorable to the plaintiff and grant the plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable
inferences.” Bogle v. Orange Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs,
162 F.3d 653, 656
(11th Cir. 1998). We “affirm a judgment as a matter of law only if the facts and
inferences point so overwhelmingly in favor of the movant that reasonable people
could not arrive at a contrary verdict.”
Id. (citation, internal quotation marks, and
ellipsis omitted).
To establish a prima facie case of gender discrimination with circumstantial
evidence, Corbett must show (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was
17
Case: 14-11049 Date Filed: 12/30/2015 Page: 18 of 20
qualified for her job; (3) she was subjected to an adverse employment action; and
(4) her employer treated similarly situated employees outside her class more
favorably. Maynard v. Bd. of Regents of Div. of Univs. of Fla. Dep’t of Educ., 342
F.3d 1281, 1289 (11th Cir. 2003). To prove an adverse employment action,
Corbett “must show a serious and material change in the terms, conditions, or
privileges of [her] employment.” Davis v. Town of Lake Park, Fla.,
245 F.3d
1232, 1239 (11th Cir. 2001). Corbett contends she incurred adverse employment
actions when she was transferred to Pharmaceutical Investigations and was denied
training and overtime opportunities. As we explained relative to the alleged hostile
work environment, the record evidence shows Corbett had the same opportunities
as other Narcotics detectives to sign up for overtime; she also had numerous
training opportunities, including being certified to dismantle a meth lab, and a
transfer without any diminution in salary and title is not an adverse employment
opportunity. 11
Throughout her CCSO employment, Corbett has continued to receive the
same compensation, terms, conditions, and privileges of employment as all other
deputy sheriffs, commensurate with her position and level of seniority without
regard to her gender. Since she has failed to meet the threshold standard for an
11
To the extent Corbett views her separation from Detective Michon as a partner and being given
a new partner to be an adverse employment action, she admitted supervising officers have the
authority to determine partners in the Narcotics division.
18
Case: 14-11049 Date Filed: 12/30/2015 Page: 19 of 20
adverse employment action by showing a “serious and material” change in her
CCSO employment because of her gender, no jury reasonably could conclude she
has proved a prima facie case of gender discrimination. The district judge properly
granted Sheriff Beseler’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on Corbett’s
claim of gender discrimination.
To establish her claim of retaliation, Corbett must prove she “engaged in
statutorily protected activity, [she] suffered a materially adverse action, and there
was some causal relation between the two events.” Butler v. Ala. Dep’t of Transp.,
536 F.3d 1209, 1212-13 (11th Cir. 2008) (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted). Corbett’s protected activity relates to her gender discrimination
complaints with CCSO Human Resources and the EEOC. To the extent she
contends the written counseling she received was a retaliatory adverse action,
Corbett testified at trial that the counseling did not cause her to lose any pay,
benefits or promotional opportunities; it did not affect her job whatsoever.
Similarly, Corbett’s transfer to Patrol was not a retaliatory adverse action for
engaging in protected activity. 12 Corbett was out on self-requested medical leave
for surgery for six weeks prior to her transfer to Patrol. When she returned and
requested a transfer, the only transfer position available was Patrol. There is no
12
The only possible loss from transferring from Narcotics was $50 pay, which was a clothing
allowance to compensate Narcotics detectives for wearing and caring for their own clothes.
Corbett does not complain about this pay loss.
19
Case: 14-11049 Date Filed: 12/30/2015 Page: 20 of 20
evidence in the record that her transfer to Patrol was other than voluntary. A
transfer to a different position may be an adverse employment action only if it
“involves a reduction in pay, prestige, or responsibility.” Hinson v. Clinch Cnty.,
Ga. Bd. of Educ., 231 F.3d 821, 829 (11th Cir. 2000). No jury reasonably could
conclude any of these work occurrences were retaliatory. The judge correctly
granted Sheriff Beseler’s motion for judgment as a matter of law concerning
Corbett’s retaliation claim.
AFFIRMED.
20
