RAMIREZ_Appendix_Writ_Certiorari_2_6_2017
- TAGS
- pharmaceutical
- plsrtmyqcbandlstory
- ophthalmology
- opthalmicpharmaceutical
- bauschlomb
- eye-products
- eyenews
- carlos-ramirez
- standard-operating-procedures
- good-manufacturing-practices
- code-of-federal-regulations
- joseph-papa
- ophthalmologycare
- scotus
- chile
- retaliation
- whistleblower
- quality-control
- tampa
- bauschandlomb
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Case 8:10-cv-02003-MSS-TGW Document 189 Filed 04/02/15 Page 3 of 12 PageID 2954<br />
Motors Corp., 770 F.2d 984, 986 (11th Cir. 1985) (“conclusory allegations without specific<br />
supporting facts have no probative value@).<br />
III.<br />
DISCUSSION<br />
The Circuit Court set forth the legal standard applicable to Ramirez’s FWA claim<br />
in its Opinion:<br />
We apply the state’s substantive law in cases involving diversity<br />
jurisdiction. Sierminski v. Transouth Fin. Corp., 216 F.3d 945, 950 (11th<br />
Cir. 2000). Nevertheless, where there is no controlling state law, FWA<br />
claims are analyzed under the Title VII retaliation framework. See id. For<br />
retaliation claims based on circumstantial evidence, we apply the burdenshifting<br />
analysis established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S.<br />
792 (1973). Brown v. Ala. Dep’t of Transp., 597 F.3d 1160, 1181 (11th Cir.<br />
2010). Under Title VII, a plaintiff can make out a prima facie case of<br />
retaliation by showing that (1) he engaged in statutorily protected<br />
expression; (2) he suffered an adverse employment action; and (3) the<br />
adverse action was causally related to the protected expression. Crawford<br />
v. Carroll, 529 F.3d 961, 970 (11th Cir. 2008). Once a plaintiff establishes<br />
a prima facie case of retaliation, the employer has an opportunity to<br />
articulate a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for the challenged<br />
employment action. Id. At that point, the plaintiff then has the ultimate<br />
burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the<br />
employer’s proffered explanation is pretext. Perryman, 698 F.2d at 1142.<br />
To prove pretext, the plaintiff must show that the employer’s proffered<br />
reasons were “a coverup for a . . . discriminatory decision.” Rojas v.<br />
Florida, 285 F.3d 1339, 1342 (11th Cir. 2002) (quotation omitted).<br />
Ramirez v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc., 546 F. App’x 829, 831-32 (11th Cir. 2013).<br />
The Circuit Court vacated this Court’s Order granting B&L’s Motion for Summary<br />
Judgment and remanded this case stating that the Court had failed to consider all of the<br />
evidence offered by Ramirez to establish a causal connection between his allegedly<br />
protected activity and his termination. First, the Circuit Court directed this Court to<br />
consider evidence of the November 3, 2008 meeting that Ramirez attended at which he<br />
complained about perceived violations of Standard Operating Procedures (“SOP’s”) and<br />
A. 7<br />
3