Maryann Silvestri v. Jupiter Inlet Colony, Florida , 614 F. App'x 983 ( 2015 )

Case: 14-15077 Date Filed: 06/11/2015 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-15077
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 9:14-cv-80018-RLR
MARYANN SILVESTRI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JUPITER INLET COLONY, FLORIDA,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(June 11, 2015)
Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Maryann Silvestri appeals from the district court’s grant of summary
judgment in favor of the town of Jupiter Inlet Colony (the “Town”) in her
employment discrimination suit alleging gender discrimination, raised pursuant to
Case: 14-15077 Date Filed: 06/11/2015 Page: 2 of 6
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Silvestri essentially argues that (1) the district court applied the
incorrect standard for a prima facie case of discrimination, and its finding
regarding pretext was not factually and legally supported in any event, and (2) she
adequately presented evidence giving rise to an inference that the Town terminated
her because of her gender. After thorough review, we affirm.
We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Rojas v.
Florida, 285 F.3d 1339, 1341 (11th Cir. 2002). Additionally, we may affirm on
any legal ground, regardless of the grounds relied on by the district court.
Cuddeback v. Florida Bd. of Educ., 381 F.3d 1230, 1235 (11th Cir. 2004).
When a plaintiff attempts to prove intentional discrimination using
circumstantial evidence, we apply the burden shifting framework from McDonnell
Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Schoenfeld v. Babbitt, 168 F.3d
1257, 1267 (11th Cir. 1999). Under McDonnell Douglas, the plaintiff has the
initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination. McDonnell
Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802. If the plaintiff does so and the employer articulates a
legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its action, then the plaintiff must show
that the proffered reason is really a pretext for unlawful discrimination. Texas
Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). The ultimate burden
of persuasion remains with the plaintiff at all times. Id.
2
Case: 14-15077 Date Filed: 06/11/2015 Page: 3 of 6
Pursuant to the third step of McDonnell Douglas, if the employee does not
proffer sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding
whether the employer’s stated reasons are pretextual, then the employer is entitled
to summary judgment on the employee’s claim. Chapman v. AI Transp., 229 F.3d
1012, 1024-25 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc). In order for the employee to prove that
a reason is a pretext for discrimination, the employee must show that the
employer’s asserted reason is false, and that discrimination was the real reason. St.
Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 515 (1993).
Provided that a proffered reason is one that might motivate a reasonable
employer, an employee must meet that reason “head on” and rebut it. Chapman,
229 F.3d at 1030. The employee cannot succeed by simply quarreling with the
wisdom of that reason. Id. Rather, the employee must show such weaknesses,
implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions in the employer’s
proffered legitimate reasons for its action that a reasonable factfinder could find
them unworthy of credence. Combs v. Plantation Patterns, 106 F.3d 1519, 1538
(11th Cir. 1997). The court should, however, be careful not to allow plaintiffs to
simply litigate whether they are, in fact, good employees. Rojas, 285 F.3d at 1342.
Moreover, a stray remark, isolated and unrelated to the challenged employment
decision, standing alone, is insufficient to establish a material fact on pretext. See
id. at 1342-43.
3
Case: 14-15077 Date Filed: 06/11/2015 Page: 4 of 6
Establishing the elements of the McDonnell Douglas framework is not an
essential requirement for a plaintiff to survive summary judgment. See Smith v.
Lockheed-Martin Corp., 644 F.3d 1321, 1328 (11th Cir. 2011). Rather, the
plaintiff will always survive summary judgment if she presents circumstantial
evidence that creates a triable issue concerning the employer’s discriminatory
intent. Id. However, a mere scintilla of evidence in support of the nonmoving
party will not suffice to overcome a motion for summary judgment. Young v. City
of Palm Bay, Fla., 358 F.3d 859, 860 (11th Cir. 2004); see also Wilson v. B/E
Aerospace, Inc., 376 F.3d 1079, 1092 (11th Cir. 2004).
Here, even if we render it unnecessary to identify a particular prima facie
formulation -- by assuming arguendo that Silvestri made out her prima facie case --
we conclude that she failed to show that the Town’s reasons for her termination
were pretextual. An employee must take the employer’s stated reasons “head on”
and rebut them. Chapman, 229 F.3d at 1030. Rather than disputing the evidence
or the reasons given by the Town, Silvestri instead argued that the Town gave
changing reasons for her termination. However, the record reveals that the Town
provided consistent reasons for her termination -- both initially and in her
termination letter. Further, Silvestri failed to rebut the Town’s evidence supporting
its reasons for termination, or the mayor’s personnel investigation report. In
considering Silvestri’s argument that she was a good officer, we do not allow
4
Case: 14-15077 Date Filed: 06/11/2015 Page: 5 of 6
plaintiffs to simply litigate whether they are, in fact, good employees. Rojas, 285
F.3d at 1342.
As for Silvestri’s reliance on an alleged pre-hiring comment by the mayor
which referenced gender, that comment, standing alone, is insufficient to establish
pretext. See id. at 1342-43 (holding that supervisor’s statement to another
employee, not the plaintiff, that the other employee did not deserve her job because
she was a woman was insufficient to show pretext for the plaintiff). As the record
here shows, the mayor made his alleged comment before the Town hired Silvestri,
and the comment was not about Silvestri in particular. As a result, Silvestri did not
demonstrate that the Town’s basis for termination was pretextual.
Finally, independent of any burden-shifting framework, Silvestri failed to
present evidence giving rise to an inference that the Town intentionally fired her
due to her gender. As we’ve noted above, the Town did not provide changing
reasons for her termination. Moreover, Silvestri did not dispute many key
statements of material fact relevant to the mayor’s decision to terminate her on
non-discriminatory grounds. And once again, the mayor’s pre-hiring statement,
even if true, was a “stray remark” and too attenuated to defeat summary
judgement. See Young, 358 F.3d at 860 (“A mere scintilla of evidence in support
of the nonmoving party will not suffice to overcome a motion for summary
judgment.”).
5
Case: 14-15077 Date Filed: 06/11/2015 Page: 6 of 6
AFFIRMED.
6