Quintaurus L. Johnson v. Department of Juvenile Justice, Andrew Correa, Matthew Clark, Rosa Ardito, Paul Sheffer and Sean Skillern

Summary

This order addresses multiple defendants’ motions for summary judgment in a pro se employment-retaliation action brought by a Florida Department of Juvenile Justice employee. The plaintiff asserted Title VII retaliation, retaliatory hostile work environment, retaliatory failure to promote, preliminary injunctive relief, a Florida Whistleblower Act claim, and First Amendment retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment, after considering the parties’ evidence, discovery disputes, and briefing.

Holdings

1. DJJ was entitled to summary judgment on the Title VII retaliation claim because, even assuming that some protected activity and materially adverse actions were shown, Johnson failed to establish causation beyond conclusory temporal-proximity assertions and failed to show that DJJ’s legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons were pretextual.
2. DJJ was entitled to summary judgment on the retaliatory hostile-work-environment claim because, even considering the totality of alleged events, Johnson failed to provide evidence that the conduct was unjustified or retaliatory, and DJJ articulated legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for the challenged interactions.
3. Johnson failed to exhaust administrative remedies for his Title VII retaliatory failure-to-promote claim because his 2022 EEOC charge did not allege facts concerning DJJ hiring practices or failures to promote.
4. DJJ was entitled to summary judgment on Johnson’s Florida Whistleblower Act claim because, even assuming protected activity and adverse actions, Johnson failed to establish causation or refute DJJ’s legitimate, non-retaliatory explanations.
5. The individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on Johnson’s First Amendment retaliation claim because Johnson failed to show that their conduct was causally connected to protected speech and therefore failed to establish a constitutional violation.
6. Johnson’s request for preliminary injunctive relief was moot because summary judgment resolved all claims and no live controversy remained for prospective interim relief.

Questions Presented

1. Whether DJJ was entitled to summary judgment on Johnson’s Title VII retaliation claim.
2. Whether DJJ was entitled to summary judgment on Johnson’s Title VII retaliatory hostile-work-environment claim.
3. Whether Johnson exhausted administrative remedies for his Title VII retaliatory failure-to-promote claim.
4. Whether DJJ was entitled to summary judgment on Johnson’s Florida Whistleblower Act retaliation claim.
5. Whether the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on Johnson’s First Amendment retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
6. Whether Johnson’s request for preliminary injunctive relief remained justiciable after summary judgment resolved all merits claims.

Disposition

other