Ladi March Goldwire v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 21-13871
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
LADI MARCH GOLDWIRE,
Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross Appellant,
versus
CITY OF RIVIERA BEACH, FLORIDA,
Defendant-Appellant-Cross Appellee.
____________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 9:18-cv-81285-WPD
____________________
USCA11 Case: 21-13871 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2023 Page: 1 of 17

-- 1 of 17 --

2 Opinion of the Court 21-13871
Before J ORDAN, NEWSOM , and L UCK , Circuit Judges.
PER C URIAM :
The city of Riviera Beach, Florida appeals a jury verdict in
favor of Ladi March Goldwire on her retaliation claim under Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). Goldwire
cross-appeals, challenging the denial of her motion under Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 50 and 59 for judgment notwithstanding
the verdict and a new trial as to her claims under the Equal Pay Act
of 1963, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d), and the Florida Whistleblower Act, Fla.
Stat. § 112.3187. We affirm.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The city hired Goldwire in January 2017 as a building official
whose responsibilities included administering, interpreting, and
enforcing the Florida Building Code and local ordinances. Her first
supervisor was Terrence Bailey, the city’s acting director of devel-
opment services. Initially, Goldwire was eligible for a provisional
building official license because she’d had a general contractor’s li-
cense for more than ten years. While negotiating her salary, Gold-
wire and her interviewers agreed that she’d get a raise after obtain-
ing her provisional license. Goldwire received her provisional li-
cense in April 2017 but had to take a series of five tests to qualify
for a standard license. The city provided Goldwire with a take-
home vehicle as a fringe benefit for which she was taxed.
USCA11 Case: 21-13871 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2023 Page: 2 of 17

-- 2 of 17 --

21-13871 Opinion of the Court 3
Two months into her employment, Goldwire sent a memo-
randum to the city’s legal department stating that she’d reviewed
an ongoing construction development by Palm Beach Cold Storage
and determined that the valuation of the project was understated.
Goldwire assessed additional fees on the developer stemming from
the adjusted valuation she’d calculated. The next day, under Gold-
wire’s orders, the city issued a stop work order on the project,
which was ninety percent completed, based on claims that the de-
veloper had failed to procure certain permits.
The drama resulting from Goldwire’s dealings with Palm
Beach Cold Storage generated a fair amount of media coverage.
Three weeks after the stop work order, Danny Jones, deputy city
manager, told Goldwire to pull back from the order. Jones also
informed Goldwire that she’d improperly used her assigned take-
home vehicle and subsequently revoked it.
In April 2017, Goldwire sent an email to the city’s director
of human resources, Bruce Davis, the city manager, Jonathan Ev-
ans, and Bailey, requesting a meeting to discuss what Goldwire per-
ceived to be hostile aspects of her work environment. Davis and
Eureka Young, the city’s assistant director of human resources at
the time, conducted an investigation that included interviews with
Goldwire and others in the department. No further action was
taken. Goldwire received her standard building official license in
2018. At some point, Goldwire’s base salary was raised pursuant
to a cost-of-living increase.
USCA11 Case: 21-13871 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2023 Page: 3 of 17

-- 3 of 17 --

4 Opinion of the Court 21-13871
In 2019, Goldwire approved two permits—one for a floating
dock and one for a fence. Both were opposed by Karen Hoskins,
then city manager, and Goldwire’s new supervisor Jeff Gagnon,
whom the city had hired as development services director. Before
approving the permits, Goldwire sent a memorandum to Hoskins
and Gagnon stating her opinion that there was no legal basis for
denying the dock permit. When Gagnon revoked both permits,
Goldwire sent an email to the city manager and city attorney pro-
testing Gagnon’s actions. On April 19, 2019, Goldwire sent a simi-
lar letter to acting city manager Dierdre Jacobs and was fired later
that day.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In her operative complaint, Goldwire raised claims of dis-
crimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation pursuant to
Title VII; violation of her equal protection rights pursuant to 42
U.S.C. section 1983; and violations of the Equal Pay Act and Florida
Whistleblower Act. Goldwire sought compensatory damages
among other relief. She asserted that the city paid her less than her
male comparators, retaliated against her for filing an internal com-
plaint, posted her unredacted personnel file to Facebook, illegally
revoked permits she issued, and fired her after she objected to the
revocations. The city moved for summary judgment, which the
district court granted as to Goldwire’s hostile work environment
and section 1983 claims. The case proceeded to a jury trial on the
remaining claims. Neither party moved for a directed verdict or
USCA11 Case: 21-13871 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2023 Page: 4 of 17

-- 4 of 17 --

21-13871 Opinion of the Court 5
judgment as a matter of law before the case was submitted to the
jury on the claims they now challenge on appeal.
A. Equal Pay Act Claim
At trial, Goldwire testified that she was hired at a base salary
of $75,839.00 per year. She claimed that, despite the assurances of
her interviewers, she received no pay raise after earning either her
provisional or her standard building official license. Consequently,
she was paid less than her male predecessors and successor. The
jury was presented with evidence that, adjusted for inflation, Peter
Ringle (Goldwire’s predecessor) earned a base salary of $90,027.12,
Gilbert Vetter (Ringle’s predecessor) earned $93,127.98, and Ken-
neth Loihle (Vetter’s predecessor) earned $101,546.10. Goldwire’s
replacement, Michael Grimm, was hired at an annual salary of
$92,000.00.
Ringle testified that he didn’t receive the benefit of using a
take-home vehicle during his tenure as building official. Gagnon
testified that he revoked Goldwire’s use of a take-home vehicle be-
cause he believed that she’d mistreated the car by taking it outside
the authorized area.
Randy Sherman, the city’s director of finance and adminis-
trative services, testified that Goldwire’s starting pay was
$75,839.37. Sherman said that she did receive a pay raise to
$82,031.04 to reflect cost-of-living increases. Without providing
numbers, Sherman testified that the city paid for Goldwire’s travel
expenses, hotels, and tests to get her license, and sent her to
USCA11 Case: 21-13871 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2023 Page: 5 of 17

-- 5 of 17 --

6 Opinion of the Court 21-13871
conferences, but acknowledged that the city paid for all manage-
ment to attend conferences and training events.
After being instructed that they should consider all forms of
compensation, the jury found that Goldwire’s predecessors and
successor held a job requiring similar skills under similar conditions
but that Goldwire wasn’t paid any less than they were.
B. Title VII Retaliation Claim
Goldwire testified that after she filed a complaint alleging a
hostile work environment in April 2017, the developers of the Palm
Beach Cold Storage project began submitting public records re-
quests for her personnel file. Goldwire testified that her unre-
dacted file subsequently was released on a Facebook group page,
containing her social security card, driver’s license, and other infor-
mation. She asserted that her file was posted to Facebook shortly
after she refused to give a release-of-power to Palm Beach Cold
Storage, but she didn’t remember the exact date she’d seen it, nor
could she identify who posted it. She didn’t enter into evidence a
screenshot of the alleged posting or anything linking the city to the
Facebook group the file was allegedly posted to. She claimed that
she brought the file to the city’s attention in an email dated Febru-
ary 2018—ten months after her initial complaint—but that the city
ignored it. The jury was presented with the email in question, in
which Goldwire stated that she’d received password reset notifica-
tions but not that her file had been released online.
USCA11 Case: 21-13871 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2023 Page: 6 of 17

-- 6 of 17 --

21-13871 Opinion of the Court 7
Goldwire testified that she received the password reset noti-
fications from the websites of the Department of Business and Pro-
fessional Regulation and International Code Council, agencies that
govern her various licensures, even though she hadn’t reset her
password. She testified that whoever submitted those requests
would’ve been required to enter her social security number, date
of birth, and other information she claimed was released via Face-
book. She claimed that news outlets subsequently reported on her
performance on her qualifying exams for her standard building of-
ficial license, which could’ve been obtained only from those web-
sites.
Goldwire further testified that she filed a charge of discrimi-
nation with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, but
she didn’t mention when she did so. She claimed that she started
getting videos saying that her time was up, as well as horror-
themed video clips. She testified that she reported to the FBI that
she was being cyberstalked and physically stalked, which fright-
ened her. She said that she received letters stating that she needed
to go and that her feelings were so hurt that she had to move.
Young testified that the city’s personnel files were kept in a
locked room that could be accessed only by human resources em-
ployees. She said that the city’s department heads maintained files
that often mimicked the official files. She said that the public didn’t
have access to human resources files but could request access to
redacted documents. She claimed that she didn’t know how Gold-
wire’s file was released and never investigated the issue. She also
USCA11 Case: 21-13871 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2023 Page: 7 of 17

-- 7 of 17 --

8 Opinion of the Court 21-13871
claimed that she didn’t know whether Goldwire’s personal infor-
mation was placed on Facebook and that Goldwire had never com-
plained to her about it but that she’d heard talk of it.
Hoskins testified that she didn’t recall Goldwire’s file being
placed on Facebook, although she recalled Goldwire complaining
that people had access to her files through public records requests.
She said that she didn’t investigate but told the human resources
department to make sure to redact public records when processing
records requests. Evans testified that he wasn’t aware that Gold-
wire’s file was posted on Facebook.
At the conclusion of the case, the district court instructed the
jury that they’d have to find that the city took an adverse employ-
ment action against Goldwire and that the city took that action be-
cause of her protected activity in order to find in her favor. The
district court explained that the jury would have to decide whether
Goldwire had proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that her
internal complaint of sex discrimination was the main reason for
the city’s decision or that the city wouldn’t have taken the action if
Goldwire hadn’t engaged in the protected activity but everything
else had been the same.
The jury found that Goldwire engaged in protected activity
and that the city retaliated against her by releasing her file online.
Goldwire was awarded $60,000 in compensatory damages for emo-
tional pain and mental anguish.
USCA11 Case: 21-13871 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2023 Page: 8 of 17

-- 8 of 17 --

21-13871 Opinion of the Court 9
C. Florida Whistleblower Act Claim
Goldwire testified that Gagnon wasn’t authorized to block
or revoke building permits that she approved. She implied that city
leaders were invested in ensuring that the floating dock and fence
Goldwire approved would be denied because the parties seeking
those permits had long histories of legal battles with the city. The
jury also was presented with testimony from those parties regard-
ing their litigation with the city. Goldwire testified that, as a result
of her protected act of notifying the city manager and city attorney
as to Gagnon’s “illegal” activity, she was fired from her position.
During his testimony, Gagnon acknowledged that the build-
ing official had sole authority to revoke or approve building per-
mits, but he believed that he had authority to void a dock permit.
He testified that, when he’d asked about the fencing permit, Gold-
wire told him that it had been submitted but not yet issued. He
said that he voided the fencing permit and based his authority to
do so on previous discussions with an attorney. He claimed that
he recommended firing Goldwire because she told him that a per-
mit had not been issued, but he learned that a permit had been is-
sued and thus believed that she’d lied to him. He acknowledged
that, technically, someone could say that a permit wasn’t issued
until it was printed from the system.
Jacobs testified that Gagnon stated that Goldwire lied to him
about whether she’d issued the permits and that she fired Goldwire
pursuant to that recommendation.
USCA11 Case: 21-13871 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2023 Page: 9 of 17

-- 9 of 17 --

10 Opinion of the Court 21-13871
The jury found that Goldwire engaged in protected activity
but that the city didn’t fire her for that reason.
D. Post-Verdict Motions and Appeal
Goldwire moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict
or, alternatively, for a new trial, arguing that the verdict on her
claims under the Equal Protection Act and Florida Whistleblower
Act was contrary to the great weight of the evidence. She argued
that the evidence showed that she was paid less than male building
officials and that she was fired because she refused to illegally re-
voke two permits.
The district court denied Goldwire’s motion, finding that
she’d failed to move for judgment as a matter of law before the case
was submitted to the jury. The district court ruled that the grounds
raised in Goldwire’s motion didn’t rise to the level of plain error
because the jury’s findings were supported by the evidence. The
district court noted that the jury was instructed to consider all
forms of compensation and could’ve found that Goldwire failed to
meet her burden in light of evidence that she’d received a company
car and fringe benefits. The district court pointed out that the jury
was free to believe Gagnon’s testimony that Goldwire lied to him.
Finally, as to Goldwire’s motion for a new trial, the district court
ruled that the verdict wasn’t against the great weight of the evi-
dence.
The city timely appealed, and Goldwire timely cross-ap-
pealed.
USCA11 Case: 21-13871 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2023 Page: 10 of 17

-- 10 of 17 --

21-13871 Opinion of the Court 11
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The sufficiency of the evidence supporting a jury’s findings
isn’t reviewable on appeal unless the party seeking review moved
for a directed verdict in the trial court, challenging the issue the
party now seeks to raise.
Wilson v. Attaway, 757 F.2d 1227, 1237
(11th Cir. 1985). Without that motion, we may inquire solely
whether there was
any evidence supporting the verdict or whether
there was plain error, which—if not noticed—would result in a
manifest miscarriage of justice.
Id. In civil cases, generally, we do
not notice plain error unless it involves a pure question of law.
Burch v. P.J. Cheese, Inc., 861 F.3d 1338, 1352 (11th Cir. 2017).
Similarly, if a party failed to move for judgment as a matter
of law pursuant to Rule 50(a) before the case was submitted to the
jury, a subsequent motion for judgment notwithstanding the ver-
dict can be granted only if the movant can demonstrate plain error.
McGinnis v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc., 817 F.3d 1241, 1260
n.13 (11th Cir. 2016). Our review is limited to whether there’s
any
evidence to support the jury’s verdict or whether there was plain
error.
Sims’ Crane Serv., Inc. v. Ideal Steel Prods., Inc., 800 F.2d
1553, 1557 (11th Cir. 1986).
Finally, we review a district court’s denial of a motion for a
new trial for an abuse of discretion.
Rixey v. West Paces Ferry
Hosp., Inc., 916 F.2d 608, 611–12 (11th Cir. 1990). The motion
shouldn’t be granted on evidentiary grounds unless, at a minimum,
the verdict is against the great weight of the evidence.
Id. at 611.
USCA11 Case: 21-13871 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2023 Page: 11 of 17

-- 11 of 17 --

12 Opinion of the Court 21-13871
Normally, we won’t reverse a decision denying a motion for a new
trial unless there’s no evidence to support the verdict.
Hercaire
Int’l, Inc. v. Argentina, 821 F.2d 559, 562 (11th Cir. 1987).
DISCUSSION
A. The City’s Appeal
The city argues, first, that the jury’s verdict against the city
on Goldwire’s Title VII retaliation claim should be set aside be-
cause there’s no evidence that the city released her personnel file
online. Second, it contends that the same verdict should be set
aside because there’s no evidence that it released Goldwire’s file in
retaliation for her protected activity. Third, it asserts that the jury
erred by awarding Goldwire’s emotional distress and mental an-
guish damages because she failed to articulate the character or de-
gree of her distress.
Because the city didn’t move for judgment as a matter of law
on Goldwire’s Title VII retaliation claim, our review is limited to
whether there’s
any evidence supporting the jury’s finding that the
city released Goldwire’s personnel file.
See Wilson, 757 F.2d at
1237.
1. Whether There’s Evidence That the City Released
Goldwire’s Personnel File
The city argues that Goldwire introduced no evidence at
trial from which the jury could’ve inferred that the city released her
file on Facebook. Specifically, the city points out that the email
USCA11 Case: 21-13871 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2023 Page: 12 of 17

-- 12 of 17 --

21-13871 Opinion of the Court 13
Goldwire sent in February 2018 made no mention of the incident.
The city also notes that no witness testified as to any knowledge or
recollection of Goldwire’s file being released. Finally, the city says
that there’s no link between the city and the Facebook group on
whose page Goldwire’s file allegedly was posted.
We agree with Goldwire that there was some evidence that
the city was involved in releasing the unredacted parts of her per-
sonnel file. Specifically, the city’s assistant director of human re-
sources testified that the city’s personnel files were kept in a locked
room accessible only to human resources employees and the city’s
department heads. The jury also heard that the unredacted parts
of the inaccessible file made their way onto a public Facebook page.
Because the city had the exclusive possession, custody, and control
over the unredacted parts of the personnel file, the jury could rea-
sonably conclude that the city was involved in releasing the file.
2. Whether There’s Evidence That Goldwire’s Personnel File
Was Released in Retaliation for Her Internal Complaint
To succeed on a Title VII retaliation claim, a plaintiff must
show that her protected activity was the cause of her employer’s
adverse action.
Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338,
343 (2013). Causation can be shown by establishing close temporal
proximity between the plaintiff’s protected activity and the em-
ployment action.
Thomas v. Cooper Lighting, Inc., 506 F.3d 1361,
1364 (11th Cir. 2007). Proximity of three to four months between
the protected action and the employment action generally is insuf-
ficient.
See id.
USCA11 Case: 21-13871 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2023 Page: 13 of 17

-- 13 of 17 --

14 Opinion of the Court 21-13871
The city argues that the evidence presented at trial tied the
release of Goldwire’s file to—if anything—Goldwire’s dealings
with Palm Beach Cold Storage, not to any protected activity. In-
deed, Goldwire testified that her file appeared on Facebook shortly
after the dispute with Palm Beach Cold Storage. But she also testi-
fied that all of this occurred around the same time that she filed her
internal complaint. The jury heard this testimony of close tem-
poral proximity between Goldwire’s internal complaint as to a hos-
tile work environment and the release of her file,
see Thomas, 506
F.3d at 1364, and then found that the city released her file in retali-
ation for her protected activity. This also meets the low bar re-
quired by
Wilson.
See 757 F.2d at 1237.
3. Whether There’s Evidence That Goldwire Suffered Any
Damages from the Release of Her Personnel File
Compensatory damages needn’t be proved with a high de-
gree of specificity and may be inferred from the circumstances.
Ferrill v. Parker Grp., Inc., 168 F.3d 468, 476 (11th Cir. 1999). A
plaintiff’s testimony can establish damages, and plaintiffs may re-
cover for emotional harms.
Id.
The city argues that there’s no evidence that Goldwire was
ever damaged, emotionally or otherwise, by the city’s alleged con-
duct. But Goldwire testified that, as a result of being stalked,
threatened, and receiving unwanted communications from un-
known parties, she became frightened. She testified that her feel-
ings were hurt when her poor performance on her licensing exams
was released to the media. As a result of her distress, she testified
USCA11 Case: 21-13871 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2023 Page: 14 of 17

-- 14 of 17 --

21-13871 Opinion of the Court 15
that she felt compelled to move out of the city. From Goldwire’s
testimony, the jury could find that she suffered emotional pain and
mental anguish because of the city’s retaliation.
B. Goldwire’s Cross-Appeal
Goldwire argues that the district court should’ve granted
her motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial
on her Equal Pay Act claim because the jury’s finding that she
wasn’t paid less than her male counterparts is contrary to all evi-
dence. She also contends that the district court should’ve granted
her judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial on her
Florida Whistleblower Act claim because the evidence shows that
she was fired for objecting to the illegal denial and revocation of
permits.
Because Goldwire failed to move for judgment as a matter
of law before her case was submitted to the jury, our review of the
district court’s denial of Goldwire’s motion for judgment notwith-
standing the verdict is limited to determining whether
any evi-
dence supports the verdict or whether she’s shown plain error.
See
Sims’ Crane Serv., 800 F.2d at 1557.
1. Whether There’s Evidence That Goldwire Was Paid Less
Than Her Male Comparators
A plaintiff establishes a prima facie violation of the Equal Pay
Act by showing that her employer paid different wages to employ-
ees of different sexes for equal work on jobs requiring equal skill
and performed under similar conditions.
Meeks v. Comput.
USCA11 Case: 21-13871 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2023 Page: 15 of 17

-- 15 of 17 --

16 Opinion of the Court 21-13871
Assocs. Int’l, 15 F.3d 1013, 1018 (11th Cir. 1994). The burden then
shifts to the employer to prove by a preponderance of the evidence
that the pay differential was justified by any factor other than sex.
Id. Wages include all forms of compensation. 29 C.F.R. § 1620.10.
Goldwire argues that no evidence in the record supports the
jury’s conclusion that she wasn’t paid less than the city’s male
building officials. But the jury was instructed that they should con-
sider all forms of compensation, including wages, salary, profit
sharing, expense accounts, monthly minimums, bonuses, uniform-
cleaning allowances, hotel accommodations, use of a company car,
gasoline allowances, and fringe benefits. The city’s director of fi-
nance and administrative services testified that Goldwire’s salary
was higher than she asserted. And the jury heard testimony that
Goldwire received benefits that her male counterparts didn’t—in-
cluding access to a take-home vehicle1—and that she was allowed
to work as a third-party building official while the city paid for her
to get her license, including payment for hotels.
1 Goldwire’s argument that her take-home vehicle was taxed and then later
revoked is irrelevant. The jury may have inferred that this was due to conduct,
not sex, and Goldwire provides no legal support for the proposition that a
taxed benefit doesn’t count as income for purposes of the Equal Pay Act. Sal-
ary, after all, is also taxed.
USCA11 Case: 21-13871 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2023 Page: 16 of 17

-- 16 of 17 --

21-13871 Opinion of the Court 17
2. Whether There’s Evidence That Goldwire Was Fired in
Response to Protected Activity
The Florida Whistleblower Act prohibits government enti-
ties from retaliating against employees for engaging in protected
activity. Fla. Stat. § 112.3187. Because the jury found that Gold-
wire engaged in protected activity, the only question before us is
whether there’s any evidence from which the jury may have in-
ferred that the city fired her for any other reason.
Goldwire argues that the evidence demonstrates close tem-
poral proximity between her protected activity and her firing. But
Goldwire’s supervisor testified that he recommended firing her be-
cause she lied to him and, consequently, that he could no longer
trust her. Upon hearing this testimony, the jury found that Gold-
wire wasn’t fired in retaliation for her protected activity. This also
meets the low bar required by
Sims’ Crane Service.
See 800 F.2d
at 1557. Thus, the district court didn’t plainly err by denying Gold-
wire’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or abuse
its discretion by denying her a new trial.
AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 21-13871 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2023 Page: 17 of 17

-- 17 of 17 --