William Jorge Castillo vv. Roche Laboratories, Inc.
467 F. App'x 859
11th Cir.2012Background
- Castillo sued Roche Laboratories in Florida state court alleging sexual orientation discrimination and retaliation under MDC § 11A-26(4) and Florida Whistleblower Act § 448.102(3).
- Roche removed the case to the Southern District of Florida after discovery and moved for summary judgment.
- District court concluded Castillo failed to prove a prima facie case and that Roche’s reason for termination was not pretextual.
- Castillo’s termination arose from falsifying an expense report (a $23 breakfast charge for his partner); Roche asserted zero-tolerance policy applied.
- Castillo appeals arguing misapplication of summary judgment, insufficient prima facie showing, causation evidence, and pretext evidence; court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was proper for Roche | Castillo argues disputed facts and inferences favored him | Roche argues no genuine issues and evidence supports decision | Affirmed; no misapplication found |
| Prima facie discrimination established by Castillo | Castillo claims similarly situated heterosexuals were treated differently | Roche argues no evidence of similarly situated comparators | Insufficient evidence of a valid comparator; no prima facie case |
| Prima facie retaliation established by Castillo | Castillo asserts temporal/non-temporal link to termination | Roche contends post-initiation of termination negates causation | No adequate causation shown; temporal proximity alone insufficient |
| Pretext evidence for discrimination/retaliation | Castillo argues proffered reasons are pretextual | Roche's reasons are legitimate and not pretextual | No substantial pretext shown; reasons not contradicted by evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination)
- Alvarez v. Royal Atlantic Developers, Inc., 610 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2010) (applies McDonnell Douglas framework in discrimination)
- Weeks v. Harden Manufacturing Corp., 291 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2002) (causation in retaliation requires protected activity connection)
- Burke-Fowler v. Orange County, 447 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir. 2006) (similarly situated analysis requires nearly identical conduct)
- Cotton v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., 434 F.3d 1227 (11th Cir. 2006) (temporal proximity alone may be insufficient to show causation)
- Brooks v. Cnty. Comm’n of Jefferson Cnty., 446 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. 2006) ( ultimate burden rests with plaintiff; pretext must be shown)
- Sierminski v. Transouth Financial Corp., 216 F.3d 945 (11th Cir. 2000) (diversity case; Florida law applied with federal interpretation)
- O’Loughlin v. Pinchback, 579 So.2d 788 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991) (state law patterned after federal law interpreted similarly)
- Ross v. Rhodes Furniture, Inc., 146 F.3d 1286 (11th Cir. 1998) (remarks may show discrimination but require corroborating evidence)
- Scott v. Suncoast Beverage Sales, Ltd., 295 F.3d 1223 (11th Cir. 2002) (pretext requires more than unrelated comments)