James Craig Clampett v. Agency for Health Care Administration , 669 F. App'x 963 ( 2016 )

Case: 15-14997 Date Filed: 10/18/2016 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-14997
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:14-cv-00564-RH-CAS
JAMES CRAIG CLAMPETT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(October 18, 2016)
Before HULL, MARCUS and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-14997 Date Filed: 10/18/2016 Page: 2 of 4
James Clampett appeals the summary judgment in favor of his former
employer, the Agency for Health Care Administration, and against his complaint
of retaliation for engaging in a protected activity, in violation of Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 2000e-3, and the Florida Civil Rights
Act, Fla. Stat. § 760.10. Clampett complained that his supervisor, Mercedes
Bosque, forced him to resign in retaliation for reporting that she was unfairly
critical of his work. The district court ruled that Clampett failed to establish a
prima facie case of retaliation and, in the alternative, that the Agency provided a
legitimate, nonretaliatory reason for Clampett’s termination. We affirm.
We review a summary judgment de novo and view the evidence in the light
most favorable to the nonmoving party. Crawford v. City of Fairburn, Ga., 482
F.3d 1305, 1308 (11th Cir. 2007). Summary judgment is appropriate “if the
movant shows that 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). We can
affirm on any ground supported by the record. United States v. Fort, 638 F.3d
1334, 1337 (11th Cir. 2011).
Clampett failed to prove that he engaged in a statutorily protected activity.
Clampett never reported that he was a victim of gender discrimination. See Coutu
v. Martin Cty. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs, 47 F.3d 1068, 1074 (11th Cir. 1995) (“Unfair
treatment, absent discrimination based on race, sex, or national origin, is not an
2
Case: 15-14997 Date Filed: 10/18/2016 Page: 3 of 4
unlawful employment practice under Title VII.”). Karen Chang testified that
Clampett did not mention gender when complaining about being “written up too
much” and that Clampett never stated that other employees were being treated
more favorably than him. And Clampett acknowledged that he never told Chang
that he thought that he was being treated differently because he was a man.
Even if Clampett had engaged in a statutorily protected activity, he failed to
prove that the legitimate reason given for his termination was a pretext for
retaliation. The Agency hired Clampett for a one-year probationary period to audit
its providers’ Medicaid cost reports. Bosque testified that she terminated Clampett
because he “was not improving” and required constant supervision. And the
Agency supplemented Bosque’s testimony with copies of emails documenting
Clampett’s repetitious mistakes and insolence to supervisors, his corrected audit
papers, and his six-month written evaluation in which he scored low for inter-
departmental communications. Clampett fails to “meet the reason proffered [for his
discharge] head on and rebut it.” Crawford, 482 F.3d at 1308. Clampett argues that
Bosque attempted to “dig up dirt” on him, but Bosque’s decision to inquire if
another government agency had problems with Clampett does not establish that the
reason proffered by the Agency lacks any basis in fact or was not the actual
motivation for his termination. Clampett failed to provide any evidence to establish
that the Agency terminated him for a reason other than his poor job performance.
3
Case: 15-14997 Date Filed: 10/18/2016 Page: 4 of 4
We AFFIRM the summary judgment in favor of the Agency.
4