Robert Worley v. City of Lilburn, 408 F. App'x 248

Worley, a lieutenant with Lilburn PD, Georgia, sues the City and its former police chief Houck for Title VII and §1981/§1983 retaliation.
The district court granted summary judgment for the City and Houck on Worley’s retaliation claims.
Worley alleged adverse actions included a negative performance evaluation and his reassignment to work on the DOM.
The court applied McDonnell Douglas framework to analyze circumstantial retaliation evidence.
The court held Worley failed to show pretext and that Houck’s actions were not clearly established as adverse actions for retaliation.
The court also held Houck entitled to qualified immunity on the §1983 First Amendment retaliation claim, and declined to consider new arguments raised in Worley’s objections to the R&R.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Worley’s evaluation and reassignment were materially adverse actions	Worley suffered adverse actions sufficient for retaliation	Actions were not materially adverse under standard	Adverse actions not clearly established; dispute resolved on pretext/qualified immunity grounds
Whether Worley established a prima facie retaliation case under McDonnell Douglas	Protected activity plus adverse action and causation	Reasons for the actions were legitimate and non-retaliatory	Worley failed to show the reasons were pretexts for retaliation
Whether Houck was entitled to qualified immunity on the §1983 First Amendment claim	Houck violated clearly established rights	Actions were permissible and motivated by lawful considerations	Qualified immunity applied; no clearly established right violated by these actions
Whether the district court abused its discretion by not considering new arguments from Worley	New overtime-pay argument should be considered	Arguments not presented to the magistrate may be declined	No abuse of discretion; discretion to exclude new arguments affirmed

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (established three-part retaliation framework; prima facie case; pretext)
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (materially adverse standard; not all actions qualify as adverse)
Crawford v. Carroll, 529 F.3d 961 (11th Cir. 2008) (applies McDonnell Douglas framework to retaliation claims)
St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993) (pretext standard; ultimate decision for employer)
Akins v. Fulton Cnty., 420 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2005) (adverse action standards in First Amendment retaliation)
Foy v. Holston, 94 F.3d 1528 (11th Cir. 1996) (qualified immunity; requires lawful motivation and lack of clearly established law)
Stanley v. City of Dalton, 219 F.3d 1280 (11th Cir. 2000) (illustrates factors in qualified immunity contextual defense)
Goldsmith v. Bagby Elevator Co., 513 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir. 2008) (pretext and retaliation analysis in §1981/Title VII)
Johnson v. Booker T. Washington Broad. Serv., Inc., 234 F.3d 501 (11th Cir. 2000) (pretext and burden-shifting framework)
Weeks v. Harden Mfg. Corp., 291 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2002) (summary judgment standard and standard of review)
Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287 (11th Cir.) (magistrate-R&R argument handling; discretionary review)