Timothy R. Juback v. Michaels Stores, Inc.

Case: 16-10331 Date Filed: 06/15/2017 Page: 1 of 8
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-10331 & 16-10917
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:14-cv-00913-JDW-EAJ
TIMOTHY R. JUBACK,
an individual,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MICHAELS STORES, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(June 15, 2017)
Before JORDAN and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges, and VINSON, * District
Judge.
*
The Honorable C. Roger Vinson, United States District Judge for the Northern District
of Florida, sitting by designation.
Case: 16-10331 Date Filed: 06/15/2017 Page: 2 of 8
PER CURIAM:
Timothy Juback sued his former employer, Michaels Stores, Inc., claiming
that Michaels terminated him because he filed a workers’ compensation claim.
Mr. Juback asserted claims under the Florida Workers’ Compensation Law, Fla.
Stat. § 440.01, et seq., the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2601, et
seq., the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., and the
Florida Civil Rights Act, Fla. Stat. § 760.10, et seq., as well as under state common
law. Mr. Juback now appeals the district court’s order granting in part Michaels’
motion for summary judgment and order denying his motion for reconsideration.
Upon review of the parties’ briefs, the record, and with the benefit of oral
argument, we affirm. Because we write for the parties, we assume their familiarity
with the underlying record and recite only what is necessary to resolve this appeal. 1
We review an order granting summary judgment de novo and apply the same
legal standards as the district court. See Drago v. Jenne, 453 F.3d 1301, 1305
(11th Cir. 2006). Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a
matter of law. See id. “In examining the record, we view the evidence in the light
1
We address only Mr. Juback’s retaliation claim under the Florida Workers’ Compensation Law.
As to all other issues on appeal, we affirm without further discussion.
2
Case: 16-10331 Date Filed: 06/15/2017 Page: 3 of 8
most favorable to the non-moving party.” Thomas v. Cooper Lighting, Inc., 506
F.3d 1361, 1363 (11th Cir. 2007).
Florida law prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee for
filing or attempting to file a valid workers’ compensation claim, see Fla. Stat.
§ 440.205, and provides a statutory cause of action for employees who claim
unlawful termination. See Smith v. Piezo Tech. & Prof’l Adm’rs, 427 So. 2d 182,
183 (Fla. 1983). To establish a claim under § 440.205, the employee must prove
that (1) he or she engaged in statutorily protected activity, (2) an adverse
employment action occurred, and (3) the adverse action and the protected activity
were causally related. See, e.g., Hornfischer v. Manatee Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 136
So. 3d 703, 706 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014); Andrews v. Direct Mail Exp., Inc., 1 So. 3d
1192, 1193 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). Once a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case,
the burden shifts to the defendant to present a legitimate reason for its conduct.
See Hornfischer, 136 So. 3d at 706. If the employer does so, the plaintiff then
bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the
defendant’s proffered reason was merely a pretext for the prohibited, retaliatory
decision. See Andrews, 1 So. 3d at 1193–94.
Mr. Juback first argues that the district court applied the wrong standard by
requiring him to “demonstrate that Michaels did not truly rely on the proffered
non-discriminatory reasons.” See D.E. 99 at 17. Mr. Juback says that he only
3
Case: 16-10331 Date Filed: 06/15/2017 Page: 4 of 8
needed to show that his attempt at obtaining workers’ compensation benefits was a
“substantial factor” in Michaels’ termination decision. See Appellant’s Br. at 26.
It appears, however, that the district court, rather than stating the applicable
standard, was intending to explain that attacking the fairness of Michaels’ decision
would be insufficient to show pretext. The district court cited and quoted a portion
of Damon v. Fleming Supermarkets of Fla., Inc., 196 F.3d 1354 (11th Cir. 1999),
suggesting as much.
We agree, nevertheless, that § 440.205 does not require a plaintiff to
ultimately prove that his pursuit of workers’ compensation was the employer’s
only basis for termination. See Hornfischer, 136 So. 3d at 706; Allan v. SWF Gulf
Coast, Inc., 535 So. 2d 638, 639 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). The district court
recognized this as well. Although some Florida courts suggest that the plaintiff
must only prove that his pursuit of workers’ compensation was one of its bases for
termination, see Hornfischer, 136 So. 3d at 706, others have suggested that the
plaintiff must show that his filing of a workers’ compensation claim was a
“substantial factor” in the employer’s termination decision. See Ortega v. Eng’g
Sys. Tech., Inc., 30 So. 3d 525, 529–30 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (stating that
“[u]ltimately, the plaintiff bears the burden that a violation of the statute occurred
and that such violation was a substantial factor in the employer’s decision . . . .”).
See also Hubbard v. City of Boca Raton, 839 So. 2d 747, 748 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
4
Case: 16-10331 Date Filed: 06/15/2017 Page: 5 of 8
(reversing the trial court’s grant of an employer’s motion for summary judgment
because the employer failed to conclusively demonstrate that the plaintiff’s
workers’ compensation claims “were not a substantial factor” in the company’s
termination decision); Allan, 535 So. 2d at 639 (approving of jury instruction that
required the jury to determine whether the desire to retaliate was a substantial
factor in the employer’s decision to terminate the plaintiff).
Based on the record before us, and assuming that Mr. Juback established a
prima facie case of retaliatory discharge, he failed to provide sufficient evidence to
allow a jury to find that the reasons articulated by Michaels for terminating him
were pretextual. The evidence shows that Michaels came to its decision to
terminate Mr. Juback after a series of disciplinary actions resulting from his pattern
of “questionable judgment calls” and violations of company policies.
Specifically, Michaels decided to terminate Mr. Juback after determining the
extent of his involvement in selling nutritional supplements for Zija International
and recruiting Michaels employees for that endeavor, and learning that Mr. Juback
had established his own consulting firm and attempted to establish a business
relationship with one of Michaels’ third-party vendors for that venture.
Mr. Juback argues that the reasons for his termination were discovered
before his injury, and because Michaels decided to terminate him only after he
filed his workers’ compensation claim, there is evidence that Michaels’ proffered
5
Case: 16-10331 Date Filed: 06/15/2017 Page: 6 of 8
reasons are pretextual. Mr. Juback is correct that Michaels did not terminate him
before his injury even though it had contemplated his termination because of
concerns about his performance. Before Mr. Juback’s injury, Michaels was
concerned about his management skills, use of company funds, and failure to
follow company policies. This resulted in Michaels issuing its first Final Written
Warning to Mr. Juback. Not long after, Michaels decided to issue a second Final
Written Warning because it was troubled by Mr. Juback’s preoccupation with
marketing Zija products while at work and the complaints it was receiving about
the pressure other employees were feeling to purchase Zija products from
Mr. Juback. So, when Mr. Juback suffered his injury in September of 2013, he
already had two strikes against him.
Mr. Juback fails to recognize that it was the additional information Michaels
obtained after his injury, in conjunction with the prior concerns, that prompted his
termination. While discussing his second Final Written Warning, Mr. Juback’s
direct supervisor found out that Mr. Juback had recruited “10+ [Michaels]
associates” as customers or distributors for Zija. And, a short time after Michaels
informed Mr. Juback that his job was in jeopardy, he reached out to a third-party
vendor to solicit business for his personal venture and seek job opportunities.
Michaels received notice of the meeting between Mr. Juback and the vendor
6
Case: 16-10331 Date Filed: 06/15/2017 Page: 7 of 8
through an unsolicited call from the vendor, who reached out because he felt
“uncomfortable” and thought there could be a “conflict of interest.”
Mr. Juback’s efforts to show pretext are unpersuasive. Mr. Juback contests
the sources Michaels relied upon for finding that his Zija marketing was affecting
other employees and his performance, and suggests that Michaels’ prior knowledge
of his involvement with Zija calls into doubt this basis for his termination. As for
the establishment of his company and efforts to create a business relationship with
one of Michaels’ vendors, he denies that he prompted the vendor for business and
does not recall asking for a job. He also suggests that other employees similarly
had side jobs but were not terminated and that his supervisor investigated him in an
unusual way.
All of Mr. Juback’s arguments essentially question whether Michaels’
rationales for terminating him were fair rather than pretextual. Mr. Juback has not
sufficiently contested the validity of Michaels’ evidence of his policy violations,
and we are not in the position to second-guess a company’s personnel choices. See
E.E.O.C. v. Total Sys. Servs., Inc., 221 F.3d 1171, 1176 (11th Cir. 2000). See also
Damon, 196 F.3d at 1361 (“We are not in the business of adjudging whether
employment decisions are prudent or fair. Instead, our sole concern is whether
unlawful discriminatory animus motivates a challenged employment decision.”).
Michaels had a good-faith basis to rely on its employees and a third-party vendor
7
Case: 16-10331 Date Filed: 06/15/2017 Page: 8 of 8
to question Mr. Juback’s dedication to his job, cf. E.E.O.C., 221 F.3d at 1176, and
to terminate Mr. Juback after issuing multiple formal warnings. See Elrod v.
Sears, Roebuck & Co., 939 F.2d 1466, 1470 (11th Cir. 1991) (“The inquiry . . . is
limited to whether [the supervisors] believed that Elrod was guilty of harassment,
and if so, whether this belief was the reason behind Elrod’s discharge.”).
Overall, Mr. Juback has not offered a sufficient evidentiary basis to create a
jury issue on pretext. As a result, we affirm the district court’s grant of Michaels’
summary judgment motion and denial of Mr. Juback’s motion for reconsideration. 2
AFFIRMED.
2
Mr. Juback has not briefed any claim of error with respect to the bill of costs in No. 16-10917,
so we deem any challenges to the bill of costs abandoned.
8