Plaintiff Failed To Show Causal Connection Between Filing Complaint And Termination Three Months Later
Cecilia Thomas worked at Cooper Lighting, Inc. on a full time basis from February 2004 until July 2005 under the supervision of Eddie Cain. On the evening of April 8, 2005, Thomas accused Cain of sexual harassment. On April 11, 2005, Thomas presented the Human Resource Manager of the facility, James Davis, with a written complaint of sexual harassment. That complaint outlined two specific sexually-tinged comments and stated that Cain's communication was “sexually nasty.”
Thomas's employment with Cooper was terminated effective July 7, 2005. The reason given by Cooper for the separation was excessive absenteeism consistent with the company's “no fault” Absentee Policy and Procedure.
Thomas subsequently commenced this employment discrimination action against Cooper, alleging retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The district court granted summary judgment for Cooper, finding that Thomas's allegations did not come close to the threshold of a hostile work environment required by Title VII, and therefore Thomas did not have an objectively reasonable belief that the complained-of conduct violated Title VII. On appeal, the 11th Circuit affirmed, holding that Thomas failed to present evidence from which a reasonable jury could find any causal connection between filing her complaint and the termination of her employment three months later.
To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under Title VII, “the plaintiff must show (1) that she engaged in statutorily protected expression; (2) that she suffered an adverse employment action; and (3) that there is some causal relation between the two events.” The parties hotly contest whether Thomas held an objectively reasonable belief that the complained-of conduct constituted an unlawful employment practice and thus, necessarily, whether Thomas established the first element of her prima facie case for the retaliation claim. However, this court need not decide whether Thomas held such a “good faith, reasonable belief” because the record reveals that Thomas has failed to produce evidence from which a reasonable jury could find a causal connection between the April 8 and 11, 2005 complaints and the July 7, 2005 termination.
The burden of causation can be met by showing close temporal proximity between the statutorily protected activity and the adverse employment action. But mere temporal proximity, without more, must be “very close.” A three to four month disparity between the statutorily protected expression and the adverse employment action is not enough. Thus, in the absence of other evidence tending to show causation, if there is a substantial delay between the protected expression and the adverse action, the complaint of retaliation fails as a matter of law.
In opposing summary judgment, Thomas failed to present evidence from which a reasonable jury could find any causal connection between her April 2005 complaint(s) of sexual harassment and the termination of her employment three months later in July 2005. That three month period, without more, does not rise to the level of “very close.” Accordingly, we AFFIRM the decision of the district court.
Thomas v. Cooper Lighting, Inc.
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals’ jurisdiction includes Alabama, Georgia and Florida.