Full Opinion

USCA11 Case: 25-14381 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 11/05/2026 Page: 1 of 6 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-14381 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ SAUNDRA RASBERRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 3:24-cv-00458-TKW-HTC ____________________ Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and JORDAN and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 25-14381 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 11/05/2026 Page: 2 of 6 2 Opinion of the Court 25-14381 Saundra Rasberry appeals the summary judgment in favor of the Secretary of the Navy and against her complaint of retalia- tion under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(a). Because Rasberry failed to prove that retaliation played any part in an adverse employment action against her, we affirm. Rasberry filed a complaint alleging that, after working as a front desk associate for the Navy for over 30 years, she was ar- rested, suspended, banned from accessing the naval base, and ter- minated in retaliation for complaining about the breach of an ear- lier settlement agreement. The Navy moved for summary judg- ment, which the district court granted. Rasberry testified that she filed a complaint in 2022 alleging that one of the maintenance managers who worked in her building, named Williams, sexually harassed her. She reached a settlement agreement with the Navy in which she would not have to work with Williams and was moved to another building, but one of her supervisors, Gerald Feagles, moved Williams to the building next to hers in violation of the settlement agreement. She informed Fea- gles that Williams was not supposed to work with her, and Feagles became upset and retaliated against her by “letting Williams stay.” She filed a complaint in March 2023 against Feagles for breaching the settlement agreement. She testified that she received an email the next month that the Equal Employment Opportunity office had determined that the Navy breached the settlement agreement and that Williams had been moved again. USCA11 Case: 25-14381 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 11/05/2026 Page: 3 of 6 25-14381 Opinion of the Court 3 Rasberry testified that in June 2023 her night clerk informed her that two individuals, one named Simon, asked to meet with her about an issue. Rasberry told them to set up a meeting with her, but they never did. About a week later, Simone Callaghan, a super- visor, orally admonished Rasberry. Callaghan asked if Rasberry knew someone named Simon. Rasberry responded that she did not. Callaghan asked her about Simon on several other occasions and was told to speak to him, even though she did not know who Simon was. Rasberry testified that, because Callaghan kept asking her about Simon, she eventually decided to call him. She asked Si- mon if he wanted to speak with her and Simon said no, so she hung up. She testified that that was the only time she talked to Simon, and that she did not threaten Simon. She testified that Simon’s statements to the police that she had harassed him were false. Rasberry testified that, after she called Simon, she was ar- rested and suspended without pay for stalking and harassing him. Several days later, she received a letter debarring her, and in August 2023, she was terminated. She speculated that she suffered retalia- tion for complaining about Williams sexually harassing her and the breach of her settlement agreement. In an affidavit, Feagles explained that he became aware of Rasberry’s activity with the Equal Employment Opportunity office when he assumed his position in May 2022. Feagles stated that, in May 2023, management received a complaint from Simon that he had been locked out of his room and was “potentially” being stalked by front desk associates. An investigation produced video USCA11 Case: 25-14381 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 11/05/2026 Page: 4 of 6 4 Opinion of the Court 25-14381 evidence that one of the front desk associates disabled the lock on Simon’s door using a master key. He stated that Rasberry should have investigated the issue, informed management that one of her subordinates abused master key privileges, and addressed the issue, but did not. During the investigation, Simon reported that Ras- berry made several phone calls to his personal cell phone. Feagles stated that he was not present when Callaghan orally admonished Rasberry but knew that she responded by shouting, swearing, and storming out of Callaghan’s office. Feagles stated that, on the same day that Callaghan admonished Rasberry, Simon filed a complaint of harassment. Rasberry was directed not to contact Simon and warned that she could be arrested and re- moved from base if she did so. Rasberry called Simon’s personal cell phone anyway. Rasberry was then arrested and suspended. Feagles stated that he was not responsible for Rasberry’s debar- ment. He was also not involved in Rasberry’s arrest. He stated that he suspended Rasberry pending an investigation of the incident and that Rasberry was terminated because she could not comply with the terms of her employment due to her debarment and miscon- duct, not because of her activity with the Equal Employment Op- portunity office. The Navy also attached Feagles’s deposition, in which he testified to the same events described in his affidavit. In an affidavit, Callaghan stated that she orally admonished Rasberry for failing to investigate one of her residents’ complaints and that Rasberry shouted and slammed the door on her way out USCA11 Case: 25-14381 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 11/05/2026 Page: 5 of 6 25-14381 Opinion of the Court 5 of her office. She stated that she was not present for Rasberry’s ar- rest and was not involved in her debarment. The human resources director recommended that Rasberry be terminated, and when Callaghan gave Rasberry notice of her proposed termination and tried to discuss the situation with her, Rasberry raised her voice and swore at Callaghan. Callaghan was unaware of Rasberry’s prior ac- tivity with the Equal Employment Opportunity office. In a deposition, Simon testified about being locked out of his room by one of the front desk associates. After Simon complained about the incident, Rasberry threatened him by calling him when he was at work one morning and told him to come to the barracks immediately “or else.” He reported the phone call and was told to file a complaint with security if he felt unsafe, which he did. Secu- rity officers told Simon to let them know if Rasberry contacted him again. He did so, and security told him to leave the barracks so he would not be present when officers arrested Rasberry. The officers responsible for investigating Simon’s complaint and for arresting and debarring Rasberry testified that they had no knowledge of and played no role in the resolution of Rasberry’s complaints about Williams. The Navy attached several documents, including Si- mon’s police report of harassment and screenshots from his per- sonal cell phone of multiple calls from Rasberry. We review a summary judgment de novo. Ismael v. Roundtree, 161 F.4th 752, 758 (11th Cir. 2025). Summary judgment is appro- priate when the record establishes “that there is no genuine dispute USCA11 Case: 25-14381 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 11/05/2026 Page: 6 of 6 6 Opinion of the Court 25-14381 as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The district court did not err. To establish retaliation, a fed- eral employee must prove that the decisionmaker knew about her protected activity when he or she made the relevant decision. Jimenez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 146 F.4th 972, 998 (11th Cir. 2025). The officers responsible for Rasberry’s arrest and debarment were una- ware of her complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity office, so they could not have retaliated against her for filing them. Callaghan also was unaware of the complaints. And temporal prox- imity cannot establish retaliation when the employee committed “numerous acts of alleged insubordination . . . around the same time period” as the protected activity. Id. at 999 (quotation marks omitted). Despite the temporal proximity between Rasberry’s complaint about a breach of the settlement agreement in March 2023 and Rasberry’s arrest and suspension in June 2023, the undis- puted evidence establishes that Rasberry was arrested, suspended, debarred, and terminated for misconduct wholly unrelated to that activity. Her intervening misconduct negates any inference that re- taliation played a part in any adverse employment action. We AFFIRM the summary judgment against Rasberry’s complaint.