Temporal Proximity Does Not Prove Retaliation Causation When Discipline Was Already Underway

Introduction

In Wanda Jean-Baptiste v. City of Miami (11th Cir. July 2, 2026) (unpublished), the Eleventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the City of Miami on a police officer’s claims of (1) retaliation under the Florida Whistleblower’s Act, (2) retaliation under Title VII, and (3) race discrimination under Title VII.

The dispute arose from an Internal Affairs investigation led by Wanda Jean-Baptiste, a Black detective/officer, that culminated in a reprimand recommending termination of Deputy Chief Ronald Papier. After Papier complained that Jean-Baptiste had violated Florida’s Officer Bill of Rights by treating him as a witness rather than the subject, Internal Affairs investigated Jean-Baptiste. During and after that investigation, she was transferred out of Internal Affairs (first temporarily, then permanently) and received a 40-hour suspension.

The central appellate issues were evidentiary and causal: what evidence could be considered on appeal (given the district court’s striking of some materials), whether Jean-Baptiste preserved and supported her arguments with record citations, and whether she could show causation for retaliation or adequate comparator evidence for discrimination.

Summary of the Opinion

The Eleventh Circuit held that Jean-Baptiste failed to present sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact on any claim. Key holdings included:

  • The court would not consider evidence stricken by the district court because appellate review is limited to what was before the district court, and Jean-Baptiste abandoned any challenge to the striking order.
  • The Florida Whistleblower’s Act retaliation claim was deemed abandoned on appeal because her causation/pretext arguments lacked record citations.
  • The Title VII retaliation claim failed on causation because the disciplinary process and recommendation predated her alleged protected activity; temporal proximity could not establish causation where discipline was already contemplated.
  • The Title VII race discrimination claim failed because she did not provide sufficient comparator evidence showing similarly situated employees outside her protected class received systematically better treatment.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

1) Standards of review and summary judgment

  • Oakes Farms Food & Distrib. Servs., LLC v. Adkins, 154 F.4th 1338 (11th Cir. 2025): Cited for de novo review and viewing evidence in the nonmovant’s favor. This frames the appellate posture: even with favorable inferences, the nonmovant must have admissible evidence creating a triable issue.
  • McCreight v. AuburnBank, 117 F.4th 1322 (11th Cir. 2024): Cited for what constitutes a “genuine issue” (whether a reasonable jury could find for the nonmovant). The panel used this to measure whether Jean-Baptiste’s evidence crossed the threshold required to defeat summary judgment.

2) The appellate record and abandonment

  • Welch v. Celotex Corp., 951 F.2d 1235 (11th Cir. 1992): Cited for the rule that the appellate court may examine only evidence that was before the district court at summary judgment. This was dispositive because Jean-Baptiste’s briefing repeatedly relied on stricken materials.
  • Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678 (11th Cir. 2014): Used twice: (i) to treat Jean-Baptiste’s failure to challenge the motion-to-strike ruling as abandonment, and (ii) to reinforce that arguments must be properly presented (including developed argumentation and support) rather than merely referenced.
  • Chavez v. Sec'y Fla. Dep't of Corr., 647 F.3d 1057 (11th Cir. 2011): Cited for the principle that appellate courts are not required to “mine the record” for supporting facts. This supported the holding that Jean-Baptiste abandoned her state retaliation claim by failing to cite record evidence for causation/pretext.

3) Retaliation elements and causation

  • Fla. Dep't of Child. & Fams. v. Shapiro, 68 So. 3d 298 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011): Cited for the elements of retaliation under the Florida Whistleblower’s Act (protected activity, adverse action, causal connection). The opinion applies these elements, but resolves the claim on appellate abandonment due to inadequate briefing.
  • Goldsmith v. Bagby Elevator Co., 513 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir. 2008): Cited for the elements of Title VII retaliation. The panel assumed arguendo that Jean-Baptiste’s email was protected and that discipline was adverse, but held she failed the causal-connection element.
  • Drago v. Jenne, 453 F.3d 1301 (11th Cir. 2006): The critical causation precedent. The court relied on Drago’s rule that when an employer contemplates an adverse action before the protected activity, temporal proximity between protected activity and later finalization/implementation does not establish causation. Because the Disciplinary Review Panel recommended the suspension and permanent transfer months before the October 3, 2022 email, the causal chain was severed.

4) Discrimination proof and comparators

  • Tynes v. Fla. Dep't of Juv. Just., 88 F.4th 939 (11th Cir. 2023): Cited for the “ultimate question” in discrimination cases—whether there is enough evidence that the adverse action was because of illegal discrimination. This allowed the panel to focus on evidentiary sufficiency rather than formalistic prima facie debates.
  • Lewis v. City of Union City, 934 F.3d 1169 (11th Cir. 2019): Cited for comparator-based circumstantial proof—showing systematically better treatment of similarly situated employees. The panel used Lewis to reject Jean-Baptiste’s comparator showing as too underdeveloped (missing key similarity facts and disciplinary outcomes).

Legal Reasoning

1) Evidentiary gatekeeping: stricken materials and the appellate record

A substantial portion of Jean-Baptiste’s appellate presentation depended on record excerpts that the district court had stricken. Applying Welch v. Celotex Corp., the Eleventh Circuit confined itself to the evidence the district court actually considered at summary judgment. Applying Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., the panel treated Jean-Baptiste’s silence about the motion-to-strike ruling as abandonment of any challenge—making the exclusion effectively final for appellate purposes.

2) Florida Whistleblower’s Act retaliation: abandonment through inadequate briefing

The panel did not reach a granular causation analysis under Fla. Dep't of Child. & Fams. v. Shapiro because Jean-Baptiste’s appellate argument on causation and pretext contained no record citations. Under Chavez v. Sec'y Fla. Dep't of Corr., the court refused to search the record on her behalf, and under Sapuppo, treated the claim as abandoned.

Practically, this reflects an important litigation reality: even potentially viable theories can fail at the appellate stage if not tethered to admissible record evidence and properly cited.

3) Title VII retaliation: pre-contemplated discipline defeats temporal-proximity causation

Jean-Baptiste identified an October 3, 2022 email complaining about race-based discriminatory discipline as her protected activity, and pointed to her permanent transfer and 40-hour suspension as retaliation. The court accepted the timeline that (i) the underlying complaint triggering the investigation was filed in December 2021, and (ii) the Disciplinary Review Panel recommended the transfer and suspension in July 2022—months before the email.

Relying on Drago v. Jenne, the court held that later formal approval and later implementation do not revive causation where the adverse action was already contemplated or in motion before the protected activity. In other words, timing alone cannot support an inference of retaliation if the employer’s disciplinary train had already left the station.

4) Title VII race discrimination: comparator proof required meaningful similarity

For discrimination, the panel emphasized Tynes v. Fla. Dep't of Juv. Just.: the core question is whether the evidence permits an inference that the adverse actions occurred because of race. Jean-Baptiste primarily argued she had “comparators beyond dispute,” invoking Lewis v. City of Union City.

The court found her comparator showing deficient because the record (as properly considered) did not establish essential comparability facts—such as similar disciplinary histories, the precise nature of misconduct, and the discipline imposed on the proposed comparators. The panel also noted a potentially salient distinction: Jean-Baptiste’s conduct “seems to have resulted in someone being wrongfully terminated,” which (if true and unrebutted) would make other employees’ misconduct materially different for comparator purposes.

Impact

  • Retaliation causation in preexisting disciplinary processes: The decision reinforces that employees cannot establish retaliation causation solely by pointing to close timing between a complaint and the finalization of discipline where the discipline was already recommended or underway before the complaint (Drago v. Jenne principle).
  • Appellate practice and preservation: The opinion is a cautionary example that failure to (i) challenge evidentiary strike orders and (ii) support arguments with record citations can be outcome-determinative (Welch, Sapuppo, Chavez).
  • Comparator rigor in discrimination claims: The panel’s application of Lewis underscores that conclusory comparator assertions, especially via generalized affidavit allegations without discipline details, are unlikely to survive summary judgment.
  • Practical effect despite “NOT FOR PUBLICATION”: While nonprecedential, the opinion is a persuasive, fact-pattern-driven application of entrenched Eleventh Circuit doctrines that employers and litigants may cite for their reasoning in similar scenarios (subject to local citation rules for unpublished decisions).

Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Summary judgment (Rule 56): A case-ending ruling before trial when no reasonable jury could find for the nonmoving party based on admissible evidence.
  • Protected activity: Conduct the law protects from retaliation (e.g., complaining about discrimination).
  • Adverse employment action: A materially negative job action (e.g., suspension, transfer).
  • Causal connection: Proof that the protected activity caused the adverse action. Timing can sometimes suggest causation, but not if the employer had already decided or set the adverse action in motion before the protected activity (the Drago rule applied here).
  • Comparator evidence: Using similarly situated coworkers outside the plaintiff’s protected class who were treated better to infer discrimination. The “similarly situated” requirement is demanding: material differences in misconduct seriousness or consequences can defeat comparator status.
  • Abandonment (on appeal): When a party fails to properly argue an issue—by not raising it, not supporting it, or not citing the record—an appellate court may treat the issue as forfeited and decline to review it.

Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit’s decision affirms summary judgment across retaliation and discrimination theories by applying rigorous evidentiary and causation standards. The most consequential legal takeaway is its reaffirmation of a practical rule of retaliation litigation: when discipline was contemplated or recommended before the employee’s protected activity, temporal proximity to later final approval or implementation cannot establish causation (Drago v. Jenne). Equally significant is the opinion’s procedural message—appellate success depends on preserved issues, admissible record evidence, and precise record citations.