THOMAS L. RHYMESTINE

v.

THE DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF MIAMI DADE COLLEGE, FLORIDA

Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed March 29, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-1059 Lower Tribunal No. 20-8609

________________

Thomas L. Rhymestine,

Appellant,

vs.

The District Board of Trustees of Miami Dade College, Florida,

Appellee. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, David C. Miller, Judge. Cornell & Associates, P.A., and G. Ware Cornell, Jr. (Weston), for appellant. Wydler Law, and Oscar E. Marrero, Lourdes Espino Wydler and Lauren D. Martin; Javier A. Ley-Soto, General Counsel, for appellee. Before EMAS, SCALES and GORDO, JJ. PER CURIAM.

Thomas L. Rhymestine, appellant and plaintiff below (“Rhymestine”),

challenges a May 27, 2022 final summary judgment entered by the trial court

in favor of Rhymestine’s former employer, The District Board of Trustees of

Miami Dade College, Florida, appellee and defendant below (the “College”).

The trial court determined that summary judgment was warranted because

Rhymestine failed to provide any evidence that the College both

discriminated against him on the basis of race and retaliated against him.

Rhymestine alleged in his operative complaint that the College,

through his immediate supervisor, subjected him to race discrimination when

that supervisor conducted workplace conversations in Spanish (while

Rhymestine did not speak or understand Spanish) and favored Hispanic

employees. Then, after he received reprimands and responded by

complaining about his supervisor, Rhymestine alleged that the College

retaliated against him.¹

Applying Florida’s new summary judgment standard,² the trial court

concluded that, after the College met its initial burden of demonstrating the

absence of any record evidence to support Rhymestine’s allegations,

Rhymestine failed to come forward with any evidence establishing that he

was the victim of either race discrimination or retaliation.

Specifically, regarding Rhymestine’s claim of race discrimination, the

trial court concluded that Rhymestine did not make any showing that a

similarly situated employee had received more favorable treatment. See

Mitchell v. Young, 309 So. 3d 280, 284 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) (holding that,

among the elements of a prima facie case for race discrimination, a plaintiff

must prove that “his employer treated similarly situated employees outside

his protected class more favorably”). Regarding Rhymestine’s retaliation

claim, the trial court concluded that Rhymestine did not come forward with

any proof that he suffered an adverse employment action as a consequence

of lodging his complaints about his supervisor. See St. Louis v. Fla. Int’l

Univ., 60 So. 3d 455, 460 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding that, among the

elements of a prima facie case for retaliation, the plaintiff must prove that

“there was a causal connection between the participation in the protected

expression and the adverse action”).

We reject Rhymestine’s claim that, in entering the challenged

judgment, the trial court improperly weighed the evidence. Our de novo

review of the record,³ supports the trial court’s conclusions that (i) the

College met its initial burden of demonstrating the absence of any record

evidence to support Rhymestine’s allegations, and (ii) Rhymestine failed to

offer evidence to support the required elements of his race discrimination

and retaliation claims.

Affirmed.