RAMIREZ_Appendix_Writ_Certiorari_2_6_2017
Case: 12-14679 Date Filed: 10/22/2013 Page: 2 of 8 after reporting various violations of B&L’s standard operating procedures (“SOPs”) and applicable federal regulations issued by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Ramirez, a quality control inspector for B&L, alleged a number of different incidents that occurred from March to July 2008 as protected activity. Ramirez took leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) in August and returned to work on November 3, 2008. On that date, he had a meeting with his direct supervisor and a representative from human resources, in which Ramirez complained both of various perceived SOP and regulatory violations and that he had been placed on a black list for whistleblowers. On November 4, 2008, Ramirez refused to start a manufacturing line because he had not been retrained on the applicable SOPs, as he believed the SOPs and regulations required. B&L fired him for insubordination based on this incident. Ramirez sued, and the district court granted B&L’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that Ramirez had not established a prima facie case of retaliation. On appeal, Ramirez argues that the district court erred by granting summary judgment to B&L because: (1) he had presented other evidence to establish a causal connection -- that he was on FMLA leave during the relevant three months -- and had not relied solely on the temporal proximity between his protected activity and his termination; (2) he had engaged in protected activity under the FWA; and (3) the district court erroneously relied on 2 A. 19
Case: 12-14679 Date Filed: 10/22/2013 Page: 3 of 8 an affidavit submitted by B&L’s Director of Quality Assurance. After thorough review, we vacate and remand for further consideration in light of this opinion. We review de novo a grant of summary judgment 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). We can affirm on any ground supported by the record. Cuddeback v. Fla. Bd. of Educ., 381 F.3d 1230, 1235-36 (11th Cir. 2004). Summary judgment is proper where there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Crawford, 482 F.3d at 1308; Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). We apply the state’s substantive law in cases involving diversity jurisdiction. Sierminski v. Transouth Fin. Corp., 216 F.3d 945, 950 (11th Cir. 2000). Nevertheless, where there is no controlling state law, FWA claims are analyzed under the Title VII retaliation framework. See id. For retaliation claims based on circumstantial evidence, we apply the burden-shifting analysis established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Brown v. Ala. Dep’t of Transp., 597 F.3d 1160, 1181 (11th Cir. 2010). Under Title VII, a plaintiff can make out a prima facie case of retaliation by showing that (1) he engaged in statutorily protected expression; (2) he suffered an adverse employment action; and (3) the adverse action was causally related to the protected expression. Crawford 3 A. 20
- Page 1 and 2: № ____________________ IN THE SUP
- Page 3 and 4: Case: 15-11914 Date (1075 Filed: of
- Page 5 and 6: Case 8:10-cv-02003-MSS-TGW Document
- Page 7 and 8: Case 8:10-cv-02003-MSS-TGW Document
- Page 9 and 10: Case 8:10-cv-02003-MSS-TGW Document
- Page 11 and 12: Case 8:10-cv-02003-MSS-TGW Document
- Page 13 and 14: Case 8:10-cv-02003-MSS-TGW Document
- Page 15 and 16: Case 8:10-cv-02003-MSS-TGW Document
- Page 17 and 18: Case 8:10-cv-02003-MSS-TGW Document
- Page 19: Case: 12-14679 Date Filed: 10/22/20
- Page 23 and 24: Case: 12-14679 Date Filed: 10/22/20
- Page 25 and 26: Case: 12-14679 Date Filed: 10/22/20
- Page 27 and 28: Case: 15-11914 Date (649 Filed: of
- Page 29 and 30: § 610. Courts defined, 28 USCA §
- Page 31 and 32: § 956. Powers and duties of clerks
- Page 33 and 34: § 1254. Courts of appeals; certior
- Page 35 and 36: Case: 15-11914 Date (751 Filed: of
- Page 37 and 38: Case: 15-11914 Date (753 Filed: of
- Page 39 and 40: Case: 15-11914 Date (755 Filed: of
- Page 41 and 42: Case: 15-11914 Date (757 Filed: of
- Page 43 and 44: Case: 15-11914 Date (759 Filed: of
- Page 45 and 46: Case: 15-11914 Date (788 Filed: of
- Page 47 and 48: Case: 15-11914 Date (790 Filed: of
- Page 49 and 50: Selected docket entries for case 15
- Page 51 and 52: 11/18/2015 ORDER: Appellee’s moti
- Page 53 and 54: 04/20/2016 DIS−2CIV Notice to Cou
- Page 55 and 56: Case 8:10-cv-02003-MSS-TGW Document
- Page 57 and 58: Case: 8:10-cv-2003 As of: 09/03/201
- Page 59 and 60: Case: 8:10-cv-2003 As of: 09/03/201
- Page 61 and 62: Case: 8:10-cv-2003 As of: 09/03/201
- Page 63 and 64: Case: 8:10-cv-2003 As of: 09/03/201
- Page 65 and 66: Case: 8:10-cv-2003 As of: 09/03/201
- Page 67 and 68: Case: 8:10-cv-2003 As of: 09/03/201
- Page 69 and 70: Case: 8:10-cv-2003 As of: 09/03/201
Case: 12-14679 Date Filed: 10/22/2013 Page: 2 of 8<br />
after reporting various violations of B&L’s standard operating procedures<br />
(“SOPs”) and applicable federal regulations issued by the U.S. Food and Drug<br />
Administration. Ramirez, a quality control inspector for B&L, alleged a number of<br />
different incidents that occurred from March to July 2008 as protected activity.<br />
Ramirez took leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) in August and<br />
returned to work on November 3, 2008. On that date, he had a meeting with his<br />
direct supervisor and a representative from human resources, in which Ramirez<br />
complained both of various perceived SOP and regulatory violations and that he<br />
had been placed on a black list for whistleblowers. On November 4, 2008,<br />
Ramirez refused to start a manufacturing line because he had not been retrained on<br />
the applicable SOPs, as he believed the SOPs and regulations required. B&L fired<br />
him for insubordination based on this incident. Ramirez sued, and the district court<br />
granted B&L’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that Ramirez had not<br />
established a prima facie case of retaliation. On appeal, Ramirez argues that the<br />
district court erred by granting summary judgment to B&L because: (1) he had<br />
presented other evidence to establish a causal connection -- that he was on FMLA<br />
leave during the relevant three months -- and had not relied solely on the temporal<br />
proximity between his protected activity and his termination; (2) he had engaged in<br />
protected activity under the FWA; and (3) the district court erroneously relied on<br />
2<br />
A. 19
Change language