Jessica Guasto v. The City of Miami Beach, Florida

── Jessica Guasto v. The City of Miami Beach, Florida ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: June 01, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 25-10987 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 06/01/2026 Page: 1 of 7 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-10987 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ JESSICA GUASTO, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, a Florida municipality, RICHARD M. CLEMENTS, in his individual capacity, STEVEN COSNER, in his individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cv-21004-MD ____________________ Before ABUDU, ANDERSON, and WILSON, Circuit Judges. USCA11 Case: 25-10987 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 06/01/2026 Page: 2 of 7 2 Opinion of the Court 25-10987 PER CURIAM: Plaintiff-Appellant Jessica Guasto 1 appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendant-Appellee City of Miami Beach, Florida (the City) on her retaliation claims brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (FCRA), Fla. Stat. §§ 509.092, 760.01 et seq. On appeal, she contends that the district court erred in granting summary judgment in the City’s favor be- cause she established that the City’s reasons for terminating her were pretextual and because she established a convincing mosaic of retaliatory animus motivated her termination. After careful re- view, we affirm. I. We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Ismael v. Roundtree, 161 F.4th 752, 758 (11th Cir. 2025). A court may grant summary judgment “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). When reviewing the record, we view all evidence and factual infer- ences reasonably drawn from the evidence in the light most favor- able to the non-moving party. Ismael, 161 F.4th at 758. But a “mere 1 On appeal, Guasto notes that her last name is now Salabarria. But because her appeal is filed under Guasto and the documents presented to the district court use Guasto and Salabarria interchangeably, we will use Guasto. USCA11 Case: 25-10987 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 06/01/2026 Page: 3 of 7 25-10987 Opinion of the Court 3 scintilla of evidence” will not prevent the moving party from suc- ceeding at summary judgment. Id. (quotation marks omitted). Parties cannot rely on “mere allegations or denials,” and must sup- port their responses with “specific facts.” Walker v. Darby, 911 F.2d 1573, 1576–77 (11th Cir. 1990). Inferences must “be based only on evidence—not on speculation.” Berry v. Crestwood Healthcare LP, 84 F.4th 1300, 1311 (11th Cir. 2023) (quotation marks omitted). II. To bring a Title VII and FCRA2 retaliation claim, a plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case, which requires a showing that (1) she e