Marie Jean Charles v. The GEO Group Inc

2 Opinion of the Court 25-13080 The Geo Group, Inc. and B.I. Incorporated (collectively, "Defend- ants"), on her Title VII retaliation claim. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). After careful review, we affirm.

I.

Defendants contracted with the Department of Homeland Security ("Department") to help operate the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program ("Program") in Orlando, Florida. The Pro- gram is an alternative to immigration detention involving elec- tronic monitoring.

Jean Charles began working for Defendants in 2008 as a case specialist. In that role, she was tasked with monitoring program participants as they awaited immigration court proceedings, in- cluding installing or removing electronic monitoring devices. The removal of these devices generally required prior approval from the Department.

Jean Charles was the only Black, Haitian individual in her office. In 2011, she stopped receiving raises, and management in- dicated she had reached the salary cap. Jean Charles began receiv- ing annual "lump sum" payments based on "market value." She questioned management about the pay structure and suggested she was being singled out. Still, as of 2020, she was the highest paid case specialist in the Orlando office.

In 2016 or 2017, Jean Charles interviewed for a senior case specialist position along with four other candidates. She was not selected. On November 18, 2020, Jean Charles filed a charge of

2

25-13080 Opinion of the Court 3 discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commis- sion ("EEOC"), alleging race, color, and national-origin discrimina- tion regarding the pay issues and denial of promotion. In April 2021, Department Officer Irene Jenkins reported to Defendants that Jean Charles had removed several monitoring de- vices from participants without first receiving the Department's ap- proval. The issue came to light when Jean Charles requested back- dated Department forms from Jenkins approving the removal of the devices. Jenkins also expressed concern that Jean Charles had inaccurately indicated in the case notes that she had received prior approval from Jenkins for the device removals, when she had not. Amber McMahon, a regional manager for Defendants, spoke to Jean Charles about the concerns raised by Jenkins. Jean Charles asserted that her role allowed her to remove the monitor- ing devices without the Department's prior authorization, and that she was acting consistent with standard office protocol since 2008. McMahon spoke again with Jenkins, who stated that she had lost confidence in Jean Charles and no longer wanted to work with her. Jean Charles was terminated on May 20, 2021. The termi- nation notice stated that the failure to receive approval from the Department before removing an electronic monitoring device was a "significant failure to follow policy and procedure," and that she

"mispresented" she "had received a request to remove the monitor from a specific [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] officer when in fact that had not occurred." Because of Jean Charles's

"lack of candor," and the Department's "loss o[f] confidence" in

3

4 Opinion of the Court 25-13080 her, Defendants terminated her employment, without progressive discipline.

Jean Charles filed another EEOC charge, alleging that her termination was retaliatory. Then she filed this action alleging claims of discrimination and retaliation under Title VII. After pro- ceedings not relevant to this appeal, Defendants moved for sum- mary judgment. In her response opposing summary judgment, Jean Charles conceded that her failure-to-promote claim was out- side the statute of limitations, and she abandoned her discrimina- tion claim based on salary cap and pay issues, leaving only her re- taliation claim. The district court granted summary judgment to Defendants. Jean Charles now appeals.

II.

We review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Ismael v. Roundtree, 161 F.4th 752, 758 (11th Cir. 2025). In doing so, we view all evidence and factual inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to the non- moving party. Id. A court may grant summary judgment "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)).

III.

Jean Charles appeals the grant of summary judgment on her Title VII retaliation claim. Title VII prohibits an employer from

4

25-13080 Opinion of the Court 5 retaliating against any employee for engaging in statutorily pro- tected activity. Vincent v. Jefferson Cty. Bd. of Educ., 152 F.4th 1339, 1352 (11th Cir. 2025); see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). A plaintiff can set forth a Title VII retaliation claim under a burden-shifting framework or by showing a convincing mosaic of circumstantial evidence. Berry v. Crestwood Healthcare LP, 84 F.4th 1300, 1307, 1310 (11th Cir. 2023). Under the burden-shifting frame- work, "the employee must establish a prima facie case of retaliation by proving that she engaged in statutorily protected conduct; she suffered an adverse employment action; and a causal relation exists between the two events." Id. at 1307. The employer may then

"proffer a legitimate, nonretaliatory reason for the adverse action,"

and if it does so, "the employee must prove that the employer's proffered reason was a pretext for retaliation." Id. (quotation marks omitted). Instead of proceeding under this framework, the plaintiff can simply present "enough circumstantial evidence" for

"a reasonable jury to infer that the employer engaged in intentional retaliation." Id. at 1310.

Ultimately, the plaintiff "must prove that her protected ac- tivity was a but-for cause of the alleged adverse action." Vincent,

152 F.4th at 1352 (quotation marks omitted). "The burden of cau- sation can be met by showing close temporal proximity between the statutorily protected activity and the adverse employment ac- tion." Thomas v. Cooper Lighting, Inc., 506 F.3d 1361, 1364 (11th Cir. 2007). "But mere temporal proximity, without more, must be 'very close.'" Id. A "three to four month disparity . . . is not

5

6 Opinion of the Court 25-13080 enough." Id. Accordingly, "in the absence of other evidence tend- ing to show causation, if there is a substantial delay between the protected expression and the adverse action, the complaint of re- taliation fails as a matter of law." Id.

There's no dispute that Jean Charles engaged in protected activity by submitting an EEOC charge, see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a), or that she suffered an adverse employment action—namely, ter- mination. But the district court concluded that Jean Charles could not prove that her termination was causally related to her pro- tected activity. We agree.

For starters, we reject Jean Charles's argument that the dis- trict court failed to apply the proper causation standard. "A Title VII retaliation claim requires proof that the desire to retaliate was the but-for-cause of the challenged employment action." Yelling v. St. Vincent's Health Sys., 82 F.4th 1329, 1340 (11th Cir. 2023). As a result, the mixed-motive or motivating-factor framework "does not apply to Title VII retaliation claims." Id. at 1338. It's true, as Jean Charles notes, that to establish "the causa- tion prong of the prima facie test, the plaintiff must show that the protected activity and the adverse action were not wholly unre- lated." Tolar v. Bradley Arant Boult Commings, LLP, 997 F.3d 1280, 1294 (11th Cir. 2021) (quotation marks omitted). But that more lenient standard gives way "[a]t the stage of summary judgment proceedings in which the plaintiff must rebut the defendant's prof- fered nonretaliatory reason for its action." Id. At that point, "the plaintiff must meet the more demanding 'but for' test." Id.

6

25-13080 Opinion of the Court 7 Accordingly, the district court correctly applied the "but- for" test in concluding that, even assuming Jean Charles could es- tablish a prima facie case of retaliation, her retaliation claim failed for want of a causal link because she had not rebutted Defendants' legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for her termination. See id. Here, Jean Charles has not established a genuine issue of ma- terial fact as to whether "her protected activity was a but-for cause of the alleged adverse action." Vincent, 152 F.4th at 1352. Her ter- mination occurred roughly six months after her November 2020 EEOC charge, which is not close enough on its own to establish a triable issue of causation. See Thomas, 506 F.3d at 1364. And the evidence does not otherwise suggest that Defendants retaliated against her for her EEOC activity when it terminated her employ- ment in May 2021.

The record establishes that Jean Charles was terminated fol- lowing an investigation into reports from a Department officer in April 2021 that Jean Charles had violated policy by removing elec- tronic monitoring devices without prior Department approval, and that she had created case notes that falsely reflected such approval. In her deposition testimony, Jean Charles did not dispute that she had violated official policy. Rather, she asserted that her conduct was consistent with informal protocol in the Orlando office. Even so, there's no evidence that Defendants retained a case specialist despite receiving a specific complaint about the employee from the Department. In fact, Defendants presented unrebutted evidence

7

8 Opinion of the Court 25-13080 that they have terminated other case specialists outside of her pro- tected classes for similar violations.

This "intervening discovery of misconduct undercuts [any] inference" that Jean Charles's EEOC activity caused her termina- tion. See Berry, 84 F.4th at 1309. And Jean Charles has not cited evidence sufficient to undermine the legitimacy of Defendants' proffered justification or to permit a reasonable inference that her protected conduct was a but-for cause of her termination. See Yell- ing, 82 F.4th at 1341; see Martin v. Fin. Asset Mgmt. Sys., Inc., 959 F.3d 1048, 1058 (11th Cir. 2020) ("[I]nferences in favor of a plaintiff can be based only on evidence—not on speculation.").

For these reasons, we affirm the grant of summary judg- ment on Jean Charles's retaliation claim under Title VII.

AFFIRMED.

8