David W. CORBITT, Alexander J. Raya, Jr., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., Defendant-Appellee, 589 F.3d 1136

WILSON, Circuit Judge: We vacate the opinion cited at Corbitt v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 573 F.3d 1223 (11th Cir.2009), and substitute the following in its place. The plaintiffs, David Corbitt and Alexander Raya (collectively, “Appellants”), appeal the entry of

summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (“Home Depot”), on their sexual harassment and retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2000e-17, and their state law claims of assault and battery, outrage, and invasion of privacy. This action arose from the Appellants’ employment with and termination from Home Depot.

The Appellants asserted claims of sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of Title VII, claiming that Home Depot’s regional human resources manager, Leonard Cavaluzzi, sexually harassed them and subjected them to a hostile work environment from approximately March of 2005 until mid-November of 2005, and that they were terminated on December 13, 2005 in retaliation for reporting the alleged sexual harassment.

Home Depot denied their sexual harassment claim and stated that even if the alleged conduct occurred, the allegations did not rise to the level of sexual harassment under Title VII and did not constitute the intentional torts of assault and battery, outrage, or invasion of privacy. According to Home Depot, the Appellants were lawfully terminated for repeated violations of Home Depot’s policies.

In granting Home Depot’s motion in part, the district court concluded that the Appellants did not demonstrate that they were subjected to objectively severe dr pervasive harassment so as to constitute a hostile work environment. In the alternative, the district court found that Home Depot exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct any sexually harassing behavior and that the Appellants unreasonably failed to take advantage of these corrective measures or to avoid any harm.

In addition, the Appellants challenge the district court’s conclusion that they did not demonstrate retaliation because they failed to provide sufficient evidence of a causal connection between their complaints of sexual harassment and their eventual terminations. They also contend that the district court erred in finding that they did not provide evidence showing that Home Depot’s asserted reasons for terminating their employment were merely pretext for retaliation.

Finally, the Appellants assert that the district court erroneously found that they failed to demonstrate conduct sufficient to constitute the state law torts of outrage or invasion of privacy and that they had failed to show a proper basis for Home Depot’s liability for the intentional torts of one of its employees. After reviewing the record and hearing the arguments of the parties, we affirm

summary judgment on the claims of hostile work environment sexual harassment, assault and battery, invasion of privacy, and outrage, and reverse on the claim of retaliation. I. BACKGROUND A detailed recitation of the facts is necessary to properly analyze the various issues. 1. Cavaluzzi’s Transfer to Corbitt and Raya’s Region In March of 2005, Leonard “Lenny” Ca-valuzzi, a regional human resources manager for Home Depot, was transferred to a new region of Home Depot.

At the time of this transfer, Cavaluzzi reported directly to Lisa Keglovitz, the regional human resources director, who remained his direct supervisor throughout the events material to this case. Cavaluzzi acted as a business partner to the district managers in his new region, including district manager Leon McLaughlin. Cavaluzzi was based in Jacksonville, Florida during this time.

Within the month of his transfer, Cava-luzzi purportedly began making inappropriate sexual overtures to two store managers at Home Depot locations within his region in Mobile, Alabama and Pensacola, Florida: David “Dave” Corbitt and Alexander “Alex” Raya. Cavaluzzi allegedly made repeated telephone calls of a sexual nature and inappropriately touched Cor-bitt and Raya. The calls ranged from two to three times a week to twelve times a week from March to November of 2005. 2. Allegations of Harassment a. Telephone Calls Corbitt was the store manager for a Home Depot location in Mobile, Alabama.

Raya was the store manager for a Home Depot location in Pensacola, Florida. Cor-bitt and Raya assert that both Cavaluzzi and McLaughlin were their supervisors. Cavaluzzi’s initial telephone call to Cor-bitt occurred around the third week of March when Corbitt was in his store manager’s office with two employees. Cava-luzzi called, and Corbitt answered on the speaker phone. Cavaluzzi invited Corbitt to be with him at his hotel, while Cavaluzzi was in Mobile the next week. Corbitt alleges that telephone calls occurred every week for approximately nine months from March until after the middle of November.

According to Corbitt, at first Cavaluzzi’s telephone calls began as business-related and then would devolve into statements of a sexual nature, but the calls soon became entirely personal.

For instance, Cavaluzzi stated that Corbitt was not Cavaluzzi’s “usual type,” but he “could not stop thinking about” Corbitt; that Ca-valuzzi knew Corbitt was not gay, but Ca-valuzzi could show Corbitt how, and he would “like it;” that Cavaluzzi liked Cor-bitt’s “baby face;” and that Corbitt was “small and cute.” In addition, Cavaluzzi said he liked how small Corbitt was and the way he dressed, that he liked Corbitt’s dark tan, and asked if Corbitt “wore boxers or briefs or nothing.” He asked if Corbitt colored his hair and remarked that it must be Corbitt’s “natural color down there too.” He asked whether Corbitt shaved his full body, stating that it looked as though Corbitt shaved his arms.

He repeatedly asked Corbitt if he “wasn’t bored with the same woman,” referring to Corbitt’s wife, asked if Corbitt and his wife “swing,” and told Corbitt to visit specified gay websites, saying Corbitt “should look at them” so Corbitt “could see what he is talking about.” At the same time, Cavaluzzi was allegedly engaging in similar behavior to Raya. Cavaluzzi’s telephone calls to Raya also began in the third week of March. The telephone calls occurred several times a week from March until November of 2005.

Cavaluzzi called Raya several times a week, asking such things as what Raya was wearing and if he was wearing the pants that Cavaluzzi liked. Cavaluzzi stated that Raya “always dressed so nice” and “was cute.” Cavaluzzi would tell Raya that he was going to be in town and asked when Raya was working and getting off work. He asked whether Raya was happily married, remarked that Raya’s hair was beautiful, and stated that he liked Raya’s green eyes.

He told Raya, “I like the rough look,” and “I like your temper.” He also told Raya, “you’re the Italian heifer that I like.” He repeatedly asked Raya to meet him for drinks. b. Physical Contact Corbitt and Raya stated that they were subjected to unwanted physical touchings by Cavaluzzi. Around the fourth week of March, there was a round table Home Depot meeting at the Hampton Inn in Pensacola of all store managers and human resources managers in the district. Store human resources manager Donna Calhoun saw Cavaluzzi touch both Corbitt and Raya, going from one to the other.

Cavaluzzi walked into the room and massaged their necks and shoulders, made comments about their hair, played with their hair, and hugged Corbitt and Raya in front of the store managers and human resources managers of the district. Both men moved away from Cavaluzzi. According to Corbitt, McLaughlin and others observed this incident. That evening, Cavaluzzi called Corbitt at home and asked Corbitt to bring assistant manager files to Cavaluzzi at the Pensacola Home Depot. When Corbitt pulled into the parking lot, Cavaluzzi reached into Corbitt’s car and began massaging Cor-bitt’s neck and shoulders.

Cavaluzzi invited Corbitt to join him at his hotel for a couple of drinks. Corbitt refused. Cavaluzzi’s behavior offended and humiliated Corbitt, but he acquiesced because Cavaluzzi was his boss, and Cavaluzzi had a reputation for being vindictive. Corbitt did not feel that he had to specifically tell Cavaluzzi to stop touching him because Cavaluzzi was his superior and should have known that this was wrong. Around the same time, Raya was in the training room at the Daphne, Alabama store seated at a table with another employee, when Cavaluzzi came into the room.

Cavaluzzi sat down next to Raya, put his arm on Raya’s shoulder “like [Ca-valuzzi] was [Raya’s] best friend in the world” and put his hand on Raya’s thigh under the table. Raya moved his chair away from Cavaluzzi and stood up. Cava-luzzi then stood for a few seconds and stated, “I just wanted to let you know I’m here” and walked out of the room. Within a month after this incident, Raya attended a training meeting at the Pensacola Hampton Inn. In front of nine or ten store managers, Cavaluzzi came up behind Raya and began running his fingers through Raya’s hair.

In June, Home Depot held a grand opening at the new Pensacola store, at which Raya made a presentation in front of approximately 200 contractors. After completing his speech, as Raya walked down from the podium, McLaughlin extended his hand to congratulate Raya. Before Raya could shake McLaughlin’s hand, Cavaluzzi moved in front of McLaughlin and told Raya that he was proud of him. Cavaluzzi then gave Raya a hug and massaged Raya’s back. Raya testified that Cavaluzzi pressed his whole body against Raya, such that Cavaluzzi’s body was touching Raya’s “privates” during the hug.

In August, Corbitt was working alone in the training room of the Montlimar store when Cavaluzzi “snuck up” behind him, put one of his hands on Corbitt’s shoulder, and rubbed Corbitt’s stomach with the other. Corbitt pulled away. At an August meeting, Cavaluzzi massaged Raya’s neck and shoulders while commenting that Raya was in good shape and felt muscular and trim. He complimented Raya’s physical build and asked Raya if he worked out. Raya walked out. This was the last physical contact between Cavaluzzi and Raya.

At a November meeting, when Corbitt entered the room, he stuck out his hand to shake hands with Cavaluzzi, but Cavaluzzi pushed Corbitt’s hand to the side and instead gave Corbitt a hug. Before Corbitt could pull away, Cavaluzzi started rubbing Corbitt’s back, neck, head, and shoulders. When Corbitt pulled away from Cavaluzzi, Cavaluzzi asked, “How are you doing?” Corbitt responded that he was cold, and Cavaluzzi said, “Maybe we should cuddle later.” This was the last physical contact between Cavaluzzi and Corbitt. 3.

Home Depot’s Harassment and Non-Discrimination Policy Home Depot has a harassment and nondiscrimination policy which provides the following: Introduction Every Home Depot associate should be able to work in an environment that is free of discrimination and harassment. In order for such an environment to exist, each of us must play a role. Management must take a proactive role in setting and enforcing appropriate standards of behavior, and all associates must behave in accordance with those standards.

Policy Home Depot is committed to ensuring that associates work in an environment of mutual respect that is free of harassment and discrimination. Home Depot does not tolerate harassment of any kind of the basis of race, color, sex (gender), age, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, protected veteran status, or any other basis prohibited under applicable law. Home Depot defines sexual harassment as any unwelcome or unsolicited behavior of a sexual nature that denies an associate the right to a non-offensive, work atmosphere.

The policy establishes the following procedures for reporting harassment: If an associate ... then the associate should ... • [b]elieves he or she is the victim of discrimination or is being harassed or exposed to conduct that is offensive!,]_ • [t]ell the person to stop the conduct immediately and contact a member of management. • [d]oes not feel comfortable discussing the problem with a particular manager[,] • [c]ontact the Store Manager, District Manager, Store Human Resouree[s] Manager, Division Human Resources Manager, Employment Practices Manager, _or HR Vice President._ • [w]ants to report harassment or discrimination but wants to remain anonymous[,3 • [e]all the Aware Line at 1-800-286-4909 to report harassment and discrimination.

If a manager receives a complaint, becomes aware of or even suspects a violation of the Company’s harassment and non-discrimination policy, that manager has a responsibility to consult promptly with a member of Human Resources Management for a proposed course of action. Anyone who condones or fails to take appropriate action is violating Home Depot’s harassment and non-discrimination policy. When Managers/Supervisors Fail to Comply with These Requirements These requirements must be followed. Managers/supervisors who deviate from the requirements are subject to discipline up to and including termination.

Exceptions to this SOP must be approved by the Human Resources Vice President (or equivalent) of the business unit. The record reflects that both Corbitt and Raya were familiar with this policy. Because Cavaluzzi was the regional human resources manager, the person in charge of enforcing Home Depot’s policies at the regional level, we infer that he was familiar with this policy as well. 4. Reports of Harassment Raya first discussed Cavaluzzi’s conduct with Donna Calhoun in April.

Calhoun was a store human resources manager, one of the persons listed in the Home Depot policy to be contacted in a case of sexual harassment when an employee does not feel comfortable discussing it with other managers. In June, Corbitt also contacted Calhoun about Cavaluzzi’s conduct. Corbitt testified that he feared for his job and did not want Calhoun to make a formal complaint about Cavaluzzi’s conduct. Corbitt hoped Calhoun would be able to do something about Cavaluzzi’s harassment without Cor-bitt losing his job. He did not want Calhoun to anger Cavaluzzi, but he wanted the inappropriate behavior to stop.

In June, Calhoun spoke directly with Cavaluzzi, who was her boss, about his conduct. She told Cavaluzzi that Corbitt and Raya were uncomfortable with his behavior and felt that he was sexually harassing them; that Cavaluzzi should stop this behavior; and that if he did not, it was likely to become a formal issue. Between June and December 13, 2005, the date when both Corbitt and Raya were fired, Calhoun talked to Cavaluzzi on at least four separate occasions about his inappropriate behavior toward the two store managers. She testified that Cavaluzzi’s response was that her concerns were ridiculous.

Other complaints were made to managers at Home Depot concerning Cavaluzzi’s actions. In August, Raya told Rich Edge-worth, a store human resources manager, that he wanted to file a formal complaint, even though he felt that he would be fired. Edgeworth agreed to report Cavaluzzi’s actions. Although Edgeworth quit his job before making the report, Edgeworth told Calhoun that since he was no longer an employee of Home Depot, it was up to her to do what was necessary about Cavaluz-zi’s behavior. Further, after complaining to Calhoun in June, Corbitt complained directly to McLaughlin in the fall of 2005.

In addition, at some point after his complaint to Edgeworth and before he was terminated, Raya received a report from his store human resources manager, Susan Parker, about statements that Cavaluzzi had made to her, such as that Cavaluzzi was “going to get” Raya, Raya’s “days were numbered,” and Raya was “not out of the woods.” She also told Raya that “Lenny had a hard-on for him,” which she stated meant that Cavaluzzi had it in for Raya. Additionally, Parker reported that Cavaluzzi had instructed her to have Raya call Cavaluzzi directly if Raya had a problem with Cavaluzzi’s comments.

Before Raya called Cavaluzzi, however, he placed a call to McLaughlin to explain what had happened and to advise that he was going to call Cavaluzzi. Raya decided it would be wise “to partner with” his district manager to resolve the problem; therefore, he told McLaughlin of Cavaluz-zi’s sexual comments and that Cavaluzzi’s threats were being made because Raya had refused Cavaluzzi’s sexual advances. McLaughlin told Raya not to call Cavaluzzi and chastised Parker for repeating Cava-luzzi’s comments to Raya.

On November 18, 2005, Corbitt and Raya directed Calhoun to do whatever had to be done to make Cavaluzzi stop his inappropriate behavior. Calhoun later told both Corbitt and Raya that she had filed complaints on their behalf. Because Calhoun was warned by Cava-luzzi never to go over his head, Calhoun reported his inappropriate behavior to one of Cavaluzzi’s “business partners” in the region, McLaughlin, who was on a level equal to Cavaluzzi.

When all her efforts to get Cavaluzzi to stop harassing Corbitt and Raya failed, including reporting the harassment to McLaughlin, she called the Aware Line, as specified in Home Depot’s policy, and reported Cavaluzzi’s sexual harassment. After the Aware Line complaint was made in late November, Cava-luzzi ceased harassing both Corbitt and Raya. 5. Terminations of Corbitt and Raya Less than one month after a formal complaint had been made to McLaughlin and Calhoun reported the sexual harassment on Home Depot’s Aware Line, Cor-bitt and Raya were terminated as employees of Home Depot.

The terminations occurred at two different meetings attended by Cavaluzzi and McLaughlin separately with Corbitt and Raya. Right after these terminations occurred, Cavaluzzi called Calhoun, about which Calhoun testified as follows: A: I got a call from Lenny, it was mid morning, he was quite happy, he was calling to let me know that he had gotten Dave and that Dave and Alex had both been fired, and he went into detail about they had been called to a store, the Pensacola store, and they had been brought in there separately and they had been terminated.

And their wives were in the pa[r]king lot or somebody’s wife was in the parking lot, and he thought that was hilarious. I mean, he just — he went into a lot of detail that — definitely he received pleasure from what he was doing and almost was happy that he was being able to report it to me. It was— Q: Did Mr. Cavaluzzi take credit for their terminations? A: Yes, he did. Q: Would you say he bragged about it? A: Oh, he was definitely bragging about it. He laughed. In addition, Raya testified that Cavaluzzi told Raya that he had been involved in the investigation which led to the terminations of Corbitt and Raya.

When Raya reviewed the investigative file, he found confirmation of Cavaluzzi’s claim in a document which listed Cavaluzzi’s name as the investigator. Cavaluzzi described the terminations of Corbitt and Raya as group decisions, with every person in the group, including himself and McLaughlin, having input.

However, he also explained that “[the Home Depot executives] don’t put it on us to make the [termination] decision[s]; that’s their decision.” Because both Corbitt and Raya had tenure with Home Depot due to their ten years or more of employment and because both were store managers, Cava-luzzi and McLaughlin had to obtain approval for the terminations from corporate officers at a level higher than their dis-trid/regional management level.

Corbitt and Raya claim that the vehicle that Cava-luzzi and McLaughlin used for achieving the terminations was an investigation by Michael “Mike” Hall, then a district loss prevention manager, of markdown practices that had purportedly been uncovered in early 2005. Hall’s job in loss prevention included investigating theft and any other practices that could cause losses in all Home Depot stores within his district. Hall’s investigation began in the spring of 2005, and he allegedly uncovered questionable markdowns and discounted sales to customers, employees, contractors, and a competitor.

During the investigation, Hall coordinated his efforts with the district manager, McLaughlin. Hall explained that he was a “business partner” of McLaughlin in the district: “He was my business partner, and I had to make sure that he was kept apprised of issues I’d find in the area .... We looked at each other as peers. I was in the same district he was in, so naturally we had to coordinate a lot of items.” Throughout the investigation, Hall gave McLaughlin copies of his interim reports and also e-mailed McLaughlin.

Hall’s investigation report includes several documents that suggest McLaughlin was actively involved in the investigation. For instance, McLaughlin contacted Hall about a list of contractors’ names that McLaughlin had discovered on a Rolodex in Cor-bitt’s store, and Hall entered in his notes: “District manager Leon McLaughlin notified Mike Hall, DLPM, of the situation and stated that if it developed, he would be asking for assistance.” Hall stated that he already knew about this situation when McLaughlin contacted him.

Hall’s notes indicate that McLaughlin asked that loss prevention look into the items and report back to McLaughlin. In addition, Hall’s investigation report includes several letters to McLaughlin responding to his inquiries about markdown practices in the district. Further, Hall’s notes reflect that on December 2, 2005, McLaughlin attended Hall’s separate investigative interviews with Corbitt and with Raya. Hall testified that he found many violations by many employees in many Home Depot stores during his investigation, and he did not focus on Raya and Corbitt.

Nevertheless, sometime in or after October, Hall began pulling documents on Cor-bitt and Raya that were contained in his file. In November, he provided McLaughlin with a copy of his final report. He also sent the investigation report to the regional management level. Within a short time, Corbitt and Raya were fired. After Hall’s investigation report was sent to regional management, Lisa Keglo-vitz, the regional human resources director and Cavaluzzi’s direct supervisor, spoke to Cavaluzzi and informed him that the terminations of Corbitt and Raya had been approved.

Cavaluzzi then drafted termination notices for Corbitt and Raya. He included nearly identical language in both notices concerning the grounds for termination. Raya’s termination notice provided the following grounds for his firing: It has been brought to District and Regional Managementsf] attention that Alex Raya was approving mark downs not consistent with company policy.

A thorough investigation was performed; findings showed that on multiple occasions Alex approved mark downs that were not properly authorized or consistent with normal operating procedures as out lined in policy for customers/contractors, associates and competitors. Further investigation also confirmed that Alex used a Nextel phone that was company property for his own personal use. This behavior is a direct violation of Company Policy and the Code of Conduct. As a Store Manager it is expected that you model behavior that is consistent with company policy and the Code of Conduct.

Similarly, Corbitt’s termination notice stated: It has been brought to District and Regional Managementsf] attention that David Corbitt was approving mark downs not consistent with company policy. A thorough investigation was performed; findings showed that on multiple occasions David approved mark downs that were not properly authorized or consistent with normal operating procedures as out lined in policy for customers/contractors, associates and competitors. Further investigation also confirmed that David used a Nextel phone that was company property for his own personal use.

This behavior is a direct violation of Company Policy and the Code of Conduct. As a Store Manager it is expected that you model behavior that is consistent with company policy and the Code of Conduct. These notices were signed by Cavaluzzi as the manager approving the terminations. McLaughlin signed the termination notices also as “Supervisor/Manager Conducting Counseling Session.” The firings were summarily executed. Cavaluzzi flew to Pensacola on the morning of December 13, 2005, and summoned first Raya and then Corbitt into the room separately to fire each man.

The termination notices were read aloud, but there was no discussion about the specific policy violations that Corbitt and Raya allegedly committed nor was there any counseling of either manager. 6. Corbitt and Raya’s Evidence in Refutation of Grounds for Termination The record contains evidence on behalf of both Corbitt and Raya refuting the allegations of wrongdoing which Home Depot contends were the reasons for their terminations.

In response to the claim he had made an improper blanket markdown to contractors, associates, and a competitor, Corbitt provided a statement denying that there is or ever was a policy for associates, vendors, or installers to receive automatic discounts, and as to customers, discounts were given on a case-by-case basis depending on the situation, such as damaged material, poor service, or poor installation.

Corbitt also noted that according to the standard operating procedures of Home Depot, each manager and associate had a certain dollar authority within which to make these decisions, and he at no time violated the Home Depot policy. Similarly, Raya stated that contractors asked for a ten percent discount, representing that Lowe’s gave such a discount. Raya called Lowe’s to confirm, which it did. Further, Raya called Sandy Snyder at the Foley Home Depot store and was told that Snyder gave the same discount.

Therefore, Raya began to give the markdown from time to time on some sales to contractors, many with express approval of his district manager, Erik Dardas, and only if the sale would be profitable to Home Depot. Raya at first ran by Dardas every markdown of this nature being given until he learned the information Dardas felt was important for approving the markdown; then Raya asked the same questions, and if the sale was profitable, he would approve the markdown.

There are additional witness statements in the record providing that the ten percent discount to contractors had been implemented to compete with Lowe’s, was a fairly common practice in the district, and had the express approval of Dardas. Dar-das admitted that after receiving information from contractors that they were receiving ten percent discounts from Lowe’s, he instructed all his store managers that if this was in fact happening, he wanted them to match the offer to keep the customer.

During the course of the investigation, Raya was also questioned about the long-ago sale of a door that had been sold twice, returned, was in a damaged condition, and was sold to a Home Depot associate at a discount for $500.00. He explained that based on information McLaughlin and Hall had presented to him much later, the door was not as damaged as he had been told, and he felt that the condition of the door had been misrepresented to him by an employee at the store.

Regarding sales to Midway Lumber, a competitor of Home Depot, several witnesses stated that such sales had been approved by higher-level management and that Midway Lumber was a longtime customer of Home Depot. For instance, Calhoun testified that she had been present when Dardas gave Raya permission to make the sales to Midway Lumber and stated that she could name several more people who were witnesses to this authorization.

Raya testified that over eighty percent of markdowns in price made to Midway Lumber were first approved by Dardas, and further, under Home Depot’s policy, Raya had authority as store manager to approve a markdown of up to $1,000.00 on his own.

Additionally, Scott Gayle stated that Dardas challenged Cor-bitt’s store to get the Midway account and that Midway had been their largest commercial account “for some time.” As to the claim of improper use of a company Nextel phone and improper retention of a store phone after he transferred to another store, Corbitt asserted that when he left the store, he received permission from the incoming store manager to continue using one of the three store Nextel phones for a couple of weeks so he could get the contacts on it switched over to one of his new store’s Nextel phones.

Further, Corbitt testified that McLaughlin knew he had his former store’s Nextel phone and that McLaughlin had called Corbitt on this Nextel phone several times without any reprimand. Moreover, Corbitt offered to produce his personal cell phone bills, stating he used his personal cell phone for personal business as well as company business, and he denied using the company phone for personal calls.

With respect to Raya’s use of a Home Depot Nextel phone, Raya testified that when he put together the grand opening for the new Pensacola store, people contacting him about the event had the number for his old cell phone. Therefore, Raya continued to use the phone to put together the grand opening, and he gave it back to the Daphne store right after that event was completed. Thus, he used this phone for company business. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW We review de novo a district court’s grant of

summary judgment. Chambless v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp., 481 F.3d 1345, 1349 (11th Cir.2007). When deciding a motion for

summary judgment, a district court must consider all inferences drawn from the underlying facts in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion and must resolve all reasonable doubts against the moving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255, 106 S.Ct. at 2513. The grant of

summary judgment should be affirmed if, after construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant, we find “that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). III. DISCUSSION A. Sexual Harassment 1.

General Principles Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that it shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer “to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin .... ” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1).

To establish a claim of sexual discrimination under Title VII due to hostile work environment harassment caused by a supervisor, an employee must produce evidence showing: (1) that he or she belongs to a protected group; (2) that the employee has been subject to unwelcome sexual harassment, such as sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other conduct of a sexual nature; (3) that the harassment must have been based on the sex of the employee; (4) that the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of employment and create a discriminatorily abusive working environment; and (5) a basis for holding the employer liable.

Mendoza v. Borden, Inc., 195 F.3d 1238, 1245 (11th Cir.1999) (en banc) (citing Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 897, 903-05 (11th Cir.1982)). When analyzing a claim of hostile work environment harassment, we apply the same standards to heterosexual conduct and homosexual conduct. The district court concluded that Corbitt and Raya had not demonstrated the fourth element of a hostile work environment claim; therefore, we confine our analysis to this element. 2. Severe or Pervasive Harassment Title VII is not meant to be a workplace “civility code.” Faragher v.

City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 2283-84, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Sexual harassment constitutes sex discrimination only when the harassment “alter[s] the terms and conditions of employment .... ” Mendoza, 195 F.3d at 1245. Thus, harassment constitutes employment discrimination only if “the conduct is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment.” Id. at 1245-46 (internal quotation marks, brackets, and citations omitted).

This “filter[s] out complaints attacking the ordinary tribulations of the workplace, such as the sporadic use of abusive language, gender-related jokes, and occasional teasing.” Faragher, 524 U.S. at 788, 118 S.Ct. at 2284 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). This determination involves both a subjective and an objective component: The employee must subjectively perceive the harassment as sufficiently severe and pervasive to alter the terms or conditions of employment, and this subjective perception must be objectively reasonable.

The environment must be one that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive and that the victim subjectively perceives to be abusive. Furthermore, the objective severity of harassment should be judged from the perspective of a reasonable person in the plaintiffs position, considering all the circumstances. Mendoza, 195 F.3d at 1246 (citations, quotation marks, brackets, and ellipses omitted).

To determine whether conduct is sufficiently severe or pervasive, we consider four factors: “the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance.” Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 28, 114 S.Ct. 367, 371, 126 L.Ed.2d 295 (1993). Before analyzing the alleged harassment within the rubric of these four factors, the law requires that we determine which instances of harassment should be included in the analysis.

We consider only “the statements and conduct ... of a sexual or gender-related nature .... ” Gupta v. Fla. Bd. of Regents, 212 F.3d 571, 583 (11th Cir.2000). “Innocuous statements or conduct, or boorish ones that do not relate to the sex of the actor or of the offended party ... are not counted.” Id. Because we consider the facts in the light most favorable to the Appellants, we assume much of the conduct at issue was of a sexual nature. However, a number of the incidents complained of involve, what many would consider, innocent behavior.

For example, Cavaluzzi telling Raya that he liked how Raya dressed may not be appropriate workplace conversation, but under most circumstances it is not highly objectionable. Similarly, Cavaluzzi’s comment that he liked the way Corbitt dressed could best be characterized as a compliment. That Corbitt and Raya may have subjectively interpreted these comments as sexually offensive does not change the analysis under the objective component.

Further, [a] man can compliment a woman’s looks ... on one or several occasions, by telling her that she is looking “very beautiful,” or words to that effect, without fear of being found guilty of sexual harassment for having done so. Words complimenting appearance may merely state the obvious, or they may be hopelessly hyperbolic. Not uncommonly such words show a flirtatious purpose, but flirtation is not sexual harassment. Id. at 584. Flirtation is part of ordinary socializing in the workplace and should not be mistaken for discriminatory conditions of employment. Oncale v.

Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 81, 118 S.Ct. 998, 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 201 (1998). “Mere solicitude, even if repetitive, is not sexually harassing behavior.” Gupta, 212 F.3d at 583. In the instant case, some of the comments that bothered the Appellants were merely complimentary, and some were clearly flirtatious. We assume arguendo that these comments are of a sexual nature and consider them in examining whether the conduct was severe or pervasive.

Nevertheless, because many would consider the comments innocent compliments, they do not weigh heavily in favor of finding that Cavaluzzi’s conduct, as a whole, constituted sexual harassment. Although the Appellants may be subjectively more uncomfortable because a presumably gay man made the flirtatious comments, this does not factor into the objective component of the analysis. Just as many of the comments appear inoffensive to a reasonable person, so too would some of Cavaluzzi’s alleged touchings of Raya.

Raya stated that Ca-valuzzi put his arm around him like Cava-luzzi was his “best friend in the world” — if a heterosexual man had done this, Raya would likely not have thought anything of it. Once again, we factor incidents such as these into our analysis and consider them in context with all of the conduct at issue, but we cannot ignore that much of the conduct is objectively innocuous. The Appellants argue that Cavaluzzi’s conduct was frequent, stating that Cava-luzzi committed between 74 and 108 sexual offenses to Corbitt and between 63 to 92 sexual offenses to Raya. They exaggerate.

The record reflects far fewer instances. Moreover, given the analysis above, many of the comments and some of the touchings could hardly be characterized as objectionable.

Our review of the record shows that there were a few touchings and some comments that weigh, with significance, in favor of finding the conduct directed towards Raya severe or pervasive harassment — some examples are Cavaluzzi putting his hand on Raya’s thigh; Cavaluz-zi pressing his body against Raya such that Cavaluzzi’s body was touching Raya’s “privates;” three instances of massage of the neck and shoulders; Cavaluzzi’s comment that Raya was “the Italian heifer that I like;” Cavaluzzi’s telling Raya that he was “cute;” Cavaluzzi’s asking Raya whether he was happily married; Cavaluz-zi’s telling Raya that his hair was beautiful and liked his green eyes; and Cavaluzzi’s telling Raya that he “like[s] the rough look.” There were some touchings and several comments of a similar character directed toward Corbitt — some examples are Cava-luzzi’s rubbing of Corbitt’s shoulder with one hand and Corbitt’s stomach with the other; Cavaluzzi’s rubbing of Corbitt’s back, neck, head, and shoulders at the November meeting; two more instances of massage of the neck and shoulders; Cava-luzzi’s comment that he could show Corbitt how and he would “like it;” Cavaluzzi’s question if Corbitt “wore boxers or briefs or nothing;” Cavaluzzi’s comment about Corbitt’s “natural color down there;” Cava-luzzi’s recommendations of various gay websites so Corbitt “could see what [Cava-luzzi] is talking about;” Cavaluzzi’s statement that Corbitt was not Cavaluzzi’s “usual type” but he “could not stop thinking about” Corbitt; Cavaluzzi’s comments that he liked Corbitt’s “baby face” and that he was “small and cute;” Cavaluzzi’s questions whether Corbitt “wasn’t bored with the same woman” and whether Corbitt and his wife “swing;” and Cavaluzzi’s invitation to Corbitt to come to his hotel room on two occasions.

The frequency of harassment is analogous to the frequency in Gupta, in which a few touchings and frequent sexual comments were not sufficiently frequent. 212 F.3d at 578. Even to the extent that Cavaluzzi’s conduct was frequent, this “does not compensate for the absence of other factors.” Mendoza, 195 F.3d at 1248. The Appellants argue that Cavaluzzi’s harassment was severe. We disagree. The Appellants claim that the touchings were “substantial,” but both Corbitt and Raya admitted that most of the touchings were quite brief.

In Gupta, touchings that included briefly putting a hand on the plaintiffs inner thigh and lifting the hem of the plaintiffs dress four inches were not sufficiently severe. Id. This conduct is no less severe than Cavaluzzi’s massage and hugs. The most severe instance was perhaps when Cavaluzzi briefly put his hand on Raya’s leg, but this is analogous to the conduct in Gupta that was not sufficiently severe. The Appellants seem to suggest that the fact that the touchings were same-sex makes them somehow more severe. This is not the law.

Comments during phone calls, rather than physical touchings, comprise most of the complained-of conduct. The Appellants argue that these comments were “sexual and severe.” We disagree. Some of the comments, assuming they were sexual in nature, appear inoffensive. For example, Cavaluzzi’s comments to Raya that he was “cute,” that his hair was beautiful, and that he liked his green eyes, and Ca-valuzzi’s comments to Corbitt that he liked Corbitt’s “baby face” and that he was small and cute would not offend a reasonable person.

This is true whether the comments come from a gay man and target a straight man or they come from a heterosexual man and target a woman. See id. (‘Words complimenting appearance may state the obvious, or they may be hopelessly hyperbolic. Not uncommonly such words show a flirtatious purpose, but flirtation is not sexual harassment.”). Some of Cavaluzzi’s comments to Corbitt, on the other hand, were offensive (e.g. “I know you’re not gay, but you’ve probably thought about it, I could show you how, I know you’ll like it”).

The Appellants claim that they were more severe than the conduct in Gupta or Mendoza, conduct we found was not sufficiently severe. This is arguable. The conduct in Mendoza included an instance of a coworker looking at the plaintiffs groin area and sniffing, which is probably more severe and certainly more humiliating than Cavaluzzi’s comments, especially when considering Cavaluzzi made the comments during phone conversations, when he had no ability to touch the listener or otherwise engage in offensive behavior.

While some may view Cavaluzzi’s comments as more severe than those made in Gupta and Mendoza, this does not save the Appellants under the severe or pervasive element. No one factor is dispositive, unless the conduct is very extreme. Instead, we examine conduct in context, not as isolated acts, and determine under the totality of the circumstances whether the harassing conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive. Mendoza, 195 F.3d at 1245. We acknowledge that some of Cavaluzzi’s comments were offensive; but some were not.

The fact no reasonable person would find some of the comments offensive, coupled with the fact that they were made during phone calls, leads us to agree with the district court that the conduct was not sufficiently severe or pervasive. Because we find that Cavaluzzi’s alleged harassment was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to support a hostile work environment claim, we need not consider whether Home Depot established the affirmative defense set forth by the Supreme Court in Faragher, 524 U.S. at 807, 118 S.Ct. at 2292-93 and Burlington Industries, Inc. v.

Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 765, 118 S.Ct. 2257, 2270, 141 L.Ed.2d 633 (1998). B. Retaliation The anti-retaliation provision of Title VII prohibits discrimination against an employee for engaging in activity deemed protected under the statute. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). A claim brought under this provision based on circumstantial evidence is analyzed using the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting model. See Hairston v. Gainesville Sun Publ’g Co., 9 F.3d 913, 919 (11th Cir.1993) (citing Carter v. City of Miami, 870 F.2d 578, 581 (11th Cir.1989)).

To make a prima facie case of retaliation under Title VII, a plaintiff must show that: (1) he engaged in an activity protected under Title VII; (2) he suffered an adverse employment action; and (3) there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action. Pennington v. City of Huntsville, 261 F.3d 1262, 1266 (11th Cir.2001). Once a plaintiff establishes a pri-ma facie case, the burden of production shifts to the employer who must proffer a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for the adverse employment action. Crawford v. Carroll, 529 F.3d 961, 976 (11th Cir.2008).

If the employer offers such a legitimate reason for the employment action, the plaintiff must then demonstrate that the employer’s proffered explanation is a pretext for retaliation. Id. 1. Prima Facie Case The parties do not dispute the existence of the first and second elements of Corbitt and Raya’s prima facie case. The disagreement concerns the third element: whether there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action.

In order to establish the requisite “causal link” required as part of a prima facie case, a plaintiff need only establish that the protected activity and the adverse action were not wholly unrelated. At a minimum, a plaintiff must generally establish that the employer was actually aware of the protected expression at the time it took adverse employment action. The defendant’s awareness of the protected statement, however, may be established by circumstantial evidence. Goldsmith v. City of Atmore, 996 F.2d 1155, 1163 (11th Cir.1993) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

In the case of a corporate employer, “the plaintiff must show that the corporate agent who took the adverse action was aware of the plaintiffs protected expression and acted within the scope of his or her agency when taking the action.” Raney v. Vinson Guard Serv., Inc., 120 F.3d 1192, 1197 (11th Cir.1997).

When a corporate employer denies that a particular employee had the authority to make a termination decision, such denial puts the scope of that employee’s agency in question and “impose[s] on [the plaintiff] the burden of establishing that [the employee’s] authority extended to making personnel decisions regarding [the plaintiff].” Id. at 1198. The sole fact that a particular employee informs a plaintiff of his or her termination does not raise a genuine issue of material fact that such employee is the decision maker. Id. An employee who functions as “a facilitator or conduit only” is not a true decision maker.

Id. Even if an employee reviews and evaluates termination decisions, but does not have the authority to overrule such decisions, that employee is not the decision maker. Clover v. Total Sys. Servs., Inc., 176 F.3d 1346, 1356 (11th Cir.1999). The actual awareness requirement “rests upon common sense.” Brungart v. BellSouth Telecommc’ns, Inc., 231 F.3d 791, 799 (11th Cir.2000). “A decisionmaker cannot have been motivated to retaliate by something unknown to him.” Id.

Because Title VII retaliation requires actual knowledge on the part of the decision maker, the knowledge of one who is not a decisionmaker cannot be imputed to the decisionmaker. Id. at 800. Courts are wary of relying on weak circumstantial evidence to imply a decisionmaker’s knowledge of protected expression. For instance, in Brungart we found that “temporal proximity alone is insufficient to create a genuine issue of fact as to causal connection where there is unrebutted evidence that the decision maker did not have knowledge that the employee engaged in protected conduct.” Id. at 799.

Additionally, “while we have held that awareness of protected expression may be established based on circumstantial evidence, our cases have required plaintiffs to show a defendant’s awareness with more evidence than mere curious timing coupled with speculative theories.” Raney, 120 F.3d at 1197. Thus, a mere “hunch” that an employee with knowledge of protected expression informed a deci-sionmaker of the protected expression does not constitute “significant probative evidence” to avoid

summary judgment. Id. at 1198. However, evidence that a biased employee with retaliatory motives influenced or participated in the decision to terminate an employee raises a genuine issue of material fact whether there is a causal connection between the employee’s protected conduct and his termination. See, e.g., Pennington, 261 F.3d at 1270, 1270 n. 5 (explaining that a causal connection may exist “when the ultimate decision-maker never would have made the decision in the absence of the actions of the biased employee, or was influenced by that bias”); Olmsted v.

Taco Bell Corp., 141 F.3d 1457, 1461 (11th Cir.1998) (upholding a jury verdict against an employer where there was circumstantial evidence that “the decision to terminate [the plaintiff] was at least influenced by individuals ... who unequivocally had knowledge of [the protected activity]”); Poland v. Chertoff, 494 F.3d 1174, 1184 (9th Cir.2007) (“In

summary, we hold that to establish the essential element of causation in a subordinate bias case — where the investigation that led to the adverse employment decision was initiated by, and would not have happened but for, the biased subordinate — the plaintiff must show that the allegedly independent adverse employment decision was not actually independent because the biased subordinate influenced or was involved in the decision or the investigation leading thereto.”)- Furthermore, the position of a biased employee within the company may raise an inference that he influenced the termination decision: Given the nature of [retaliatory employee] Raymond’s position as a human resources specialist and his professional relationship with [decisionmaker] Sharon Powell (who often consulted with him on various personnel-related issues), a jury could reasonably conclude that she and [decisionmaker] Phil Tatum relied on his recommendation in deciding to terminate Wright.

If so, Raymond’s retaliatory intent could be considered the cause of Wright’s termination, despite the fact that Raymond was not one of the people who actually made the decision to discharge Wright. Wright v. Southland, Corp., 187 F.3d 1287, 1306 n. 26 (11th Cir.1999).

In the instant case, Corbitt and Raya assert that they have proven the causal connection between their complaints of harassment and their terminations by introducing evidence of three facts: (1) “the group decision [was] tainted with the knowledge of Cavaluzzi and possibl[y] McLaughlin”; (2) “Cavaluzzi’s own laughing, bragging, boast that he got them fired”; and (3) “the notice to a delineated appropriate representative.” Regarding the first two facts, Corbitt and Raya contend that Cavaluzzi and McLaughlin were decisionmakers who were motivated by retaliation.

Cavaluzzi had retaliatory motives because their complaints of sexual harassment were against him, and McLaughlin had retaliatory motives because he was a “business partner” of Cavaluzzi who had knowledge of Cava-luzzi’s sexual harassment and could be facing termination for failing to act on Corbitt’s and Raya’s complaints. Significantly, Corbitt and Raya note that they were terminated twenty-five days after they made formal complaints of Cavaluz-zi’s harassment to McLaughlin and Home Depot’s Aware Line through Calhoun.

As to the first highlighted fact, to demonstrate that Cavaluzzi caused their terminations by participating in the group decision, Corbitt and Raya point to Cavaluzzi’s deposition testimony in which Cavaluzzi admitted that he approved Corbitt’s and Raya’s termination notices and participated in their termination counseling sessions. He also testified that the terminations were group decisions, and he agreed that he was a part of the termination group.

However, when questioned further about the meaning of his signature on the termination notices, Cavaluzzi gave the following testimony: Q: Well, you wrote the reason for the termination, correct? A: Again, I will tell you one more time. I did not even — this was written— give a rough draft, okay, even on a ten-year associate, I can’t even have this delivered without approval. So this was wordsmithed by another person. Q: You didn’t write this? A: I wrote it and it was wordsmithed and send back to me. Q: Then you read it and you approved it, the language? A: I read it and we went for termination.

Q: Surely you’re not telling me you just rubber-stamped it? A: I’m not what? Q: Surely you’re not saying, I just rubber-stamped this piece of paper? A: I don’t know what you mean by that. Q: I just wrote my name on it without looking at it or— A: No. Of course, I read it. It would be ridiculous to say I haven’t read it.

In response to additional questioning, Ca-valuzzi stated, “Again, I did not make the decision to fire them.” Home Depot argues that this testimony, when viewed in context, shows that Cava-luzzi was not actually a decisionmaker but instead was merely a conduit through which Home Depot provided Corbitt and Raya with their termination notices. Home Depot states that the recommendation to terminate Corbitt and Raya was made by Keglovitz, the regional human resources director, and Powers, the regional vice president, based upon an investigation independently initiated and conducted by Hall.

The termination recommendations were then reviewed and approved by Taylor, the divisional employment practices director, and Goldsmith, the human resources vice president. Curiously, while Keglovitz and Powers state that they “recommended” termination, and Taylor and Goldsmith state that they “approved” termination, no Home Depot management employee expressly states that he or she was responsible for making the actual termination decision.

The sworn declarations of Keglovitz, Powers, Taylor, and Goldsmith include nearly identical paragraphs in which they state that they were not aware that either Corbitt or Raya complained of sexual harassment against Cavaluzzi when the termination recommendations or approvals were made, and that they did not learn of the allegations of sexual harassment until well after Corbitt and Raya were terminated.

While Keglovitz testified that she communicated with Cavaluzzi about the terminations, apparently at no time did Cavaluzzi, a regional manager, tell his supervisor, Keglovitz, that he was the subject of sexual harassment complaints by both Corbitt and Raya. In addition, Cava-luzzi testified that he was in communication with Keglovitz about the investigation of Corbitt and Raya before the terminations.

Similarly, McLaughlin failed to tell his supervisor, Powers, at any time before Corbitt and Raya were terminated that both store managers had made complaints against Cavaluzzi, and further that McLaughlin, knowing of such complaints, had taken no action to stop the harassment. Nevertheless, Corbitt and Raya have provided evidence that Cavaluzzi and McLaughlin participated in the Hall investigation and influenced the termination decision purportedly made by Keglovitz, Powers, Taylor, and Goldsmith.

As to Ca-valuzzi’s involvement, Corbitt and Raya point to their second highlighted fact: Calhoun testified that Cavaluzzi called her and bragged that he was responsible for Cor-bitt and Raya’s terminations. Cavaluzzi’s own admission that he orchestrated the terminations of Corbitt and Raya, in addition to his testimony that he participated in the group termination decision, raises a factual issue whether he caused Corbitt’s and Raya’s terminations in retaliation for their complaints of harassment. Moreover, Raya gave testimony during his deposition about threats Cavaluzzi made.

He testified that Cavaluzzi’s statements and actions indicated that he was “out to get” Raya. Raya’s store human resources manager, Susan Parker, purportedly told Raya that Cavaluzzi had said that he was “going to get” Raya, Raya’s “days were numbered,” and Raya was “not out of the woods.” Further, Cavaluzzi informed Raya that he was involved in the investigation that resulted in Raya’s termination.

In a previous case, we found that similar evidence raised a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether a retaliatory employee caused a termination, thus establishing the requisite causal connection between the employee’s protected conduct and his termination: The threat of “You will regret it,” made by a human resources director, hardly could be anything other than a threat of some form of employment-related hardship. Furthermore, the threat was clearly linked to the statutorily-protected activity of pursuing a complaint with the EEOC.

Finally, [the employee] was terminated — based in part on [the human resources director’s] recommendation — one month thereafter. Thus, [the employee’s] testimony, if believed, is sufficient to make out a case of retaliation. Wright, 187 F.3d at 1306 (footnote omitted). Also, Cavaluzzi stated in his deposition that he was “business partners” with all the district managers in his region. One such district manager was McLaughlin. Cavaluzzi explained that it was his job “to influence” the district managers regarding personnel decisions.

A jury could reasonably infer from this evidence that, given his retaliatory motives, boasts, and threats, Cavaluzzi influenced Hall’s investigation of Corbitt and Raya through McLaughlin and thus participated in the group decision to terminate them. See Wright, 187 F.3d at 1306 n. 26 (inferring a retaliatory employee’s influence in the termination decision from the professional relationship between the decisionmakers and the retaliatory employee).

Because Cavaluzzi’s statements contradict Home Depot’s evidence that Cavaluzzi was not involved in the group termination decisions, and because Corbitt and Raya have produced evidence that suggests Ca-valuzzi took

part in the termination decisions, there is a genuine factual issue whether Cavaluzzi caused the terminations. Similarly, the record demonstrates that McLaughlin was an active participant in the Hall investigation that led to the terminations. A number of documents in Hall’s investigation report were employee responses to questions from McLaughlin. Furthermore, McLaughlin directed Hall at least once specifically to investigate Cor-bitt’s markdown practices. Additionally, on December 2, 2005, McLaughlin attended Hall’s separate investigative interviews with Corbitt and with Raya.

Moreover, Corbitt testified that McLaughlin interviewed the employees in his store about Corbitt’s performance, the times he arrived and left work, and instructed the employees not to tell Corbitt anything about his questioning. Both Corbitt and Raya testified that they complained directly to McLaughlin about Cavaluzzi’s behavior in the fall of 2005. After Parker told Raya about the threats Cavaluzzi had made against him, Raya in turn told McLaughlin about Cava-luzzi’s sexual harassment and threats. Raya asked McLaughlin “to partner with” him to confront Cavaluzzi about these threats.

Instead, McLaughlin chastised Parker for telling Raya of Cavaluzzi’s threats and told Raya not to call Cavaluzzi. One could reasonably infer from this evidence that McLaughlin was aware of Ca-valuzzi’s retaliatory motives and was trying to hide this information from Corbitt and Raya. McLaughlin also could have been concerned for his own job due to his failure to act on the complaints of harassment in violation of Home Depot’s policy.

As their third highlighted fact, Corbitt and Raya emphasize that they reported the harassment to a delineated Home Depot representative, Calhoun, to establish Home Depot’s knowledge of the harassment prior to their terminations. In the case of a retaliation claim against a corporate defendant, however, knowledge of someone within the corporation may not be imputed to the decisionmaker. Brungart, 231 F.3d at 799-800.

For a corporate defendant to be held liable for a retaliatory discharge, the corporate agent making the discharge decision must either have actual knowledge of the protected conduct or be influenced by someone with knowledge. Thus, Calhoun’s knowledge does not establish notice to Home Depot of Corbitt’s and Raya’s complaints of harassment. Nevertheless, the record presents sufficient circumstantial evidence to raise genuine issues of material fact concerning Ca-valuzzi’s and McLaughlin’s involvement in the decisions to terminate Corbitt and Raya.

We have previously explained that a corporate employer is not insulated from the actions of a retaliatory subordinate who manipulates the decisionmakers into terminating an employee. See, e.g., Pennington, 261 F.3d at 1270, 1270 n. 5 (explaining that a causal connection may exist where the termination decision is “tainted” by the retaliatory animus of a subordinate employee); Stimpson v.

City of Tuscaloosa, 186 F.3d 1328, 1332 (11th Cir.1999) (per curiam) (“causation may be established if the plaintiff shows that the deci-sionmaker followed the biased recommendation without independently investigating the complaint against the employee”); Wright, 187 F.3d at 1304 n. 20 (stating that the discriminatory intent of a subordinate may be deemed the cause of an employee’s termination if that biased subordinate “manipulated the decisionmakers ... into terminating” the employee). In this case, the retaliatory employee, Cavaluzzi, was a human resources employee and a member of upper management.

His business partner, McLaughlin, was also a member of upper management. A jury could reasonably infer from the evidence that these high-level managers influenced the Hall investigation. Additionally, because it is undisputed that the purported decision-makers, Keglovitz, Powers, Taylor, and Goldsmith, did not make an independent investigation of the policy violations allegedly committed by Corbitt and Raya, a jury could reasonably infer that Cavaluzzi and McLaughlin caused the terminations of Corbitt and Raya. £.

Legitimate, Non-Retaliatory Reason Once a plaintiff has established a prima facie case of retaliation, “ ‘the burden shifts to the defendant to rebut the presumption of retaliation by producing legitimate reasons for the adverse employment action.’ ” Raney, 120 F.3d at 1196 (quoting Hairston, 9 F.3d at 919). It is undisputed that Home Depot has done so by stating that Corbitt and Raya were terminated for violating Home Depot’s standard operating procedures and code of conduct.

Specifically, the termination notices for both Corbitt and Raya, drafted by Cavaluzzi using nearly identical language, stated that these managers were “approving mark downs not consistent with company policy.” They continued to state that these “mark downs ... were not properly authorized or consistent with normal operating procedures.” Additionally, “further investigation” confirmed that Corbitt and Raya “used ...

Nextel phone[s] that [were] company property for [their] own personal use.” Because Home Depot has produced legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for Corbitt’s and Raya’s terminations, we must consider whether Corbitt and Raya have demonstrated that these reasons are instead pretext for retaliation. 3.

Pretext A plaintiff raises a genuine issue of material fact concerning pretext if the plaintiff casts sufficient doubt on the defendant’s proffered non-retaliatory reasons to permit a reasonable fact finder to conclude that the employer’s proffered reasons were not what actually motivated its conduct but were pretext for retaliation. Crawford, 529 F.3d at 976; Combs v. Plantation Patterns, Meadowcraft, Inc., 106 F.3d 1519, 1538 (11th Cir.1997).

A plaintiff may show pretext “ ‘either directly by persuading the court that a discriminatory reason more likely motivated the employer or indirectly by showing that the employer’s proffered explanation is unworthy of credence.’ ” Jackson v. Ala. State Tenure Comm’n, 405 F.3d 1276, 1289 (11th Cir.2005) (quoting Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 1095, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981)). “ ‘A plaintiff withstands

summary adjudication by producing sufficient evidence to allow a reasonable finder of fact to conclude that the defendant’s articulated reasons for its decision are not believable.’ ” Id. (brackets omitted) (quoting Howard v. BP Oil Co. 32 F.3d 520, 526 (11th Cir.1994)). In reviewing a

summary judgment motion, “ ‘the district court must evaluate whether the plaintiff has demonstrated such weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions in the employer’s proffered legitimate reasons for its action that a reasonable fact-finder could find them unworthy of credence.’ ” Id. (quoting Combs, 106 F.3d at 1538).

The district court summarized the bulk of the evidence of pretext provided by Corbitt and Raya as follows: [Appellants] attempt to show pretext by offering comparators who allegedly committed the same or similar mark down violations without being terminated. [Appellants] submit that 1) Store Manager, Tim Pardue, gave blanket ten percent discounts to contractors at the Foley Store; 2) Store Manager, Sandy Snyder, continued Pardue’s practice of giving 10 percent discounts to contractors at the Foley store; 3) Assistant Store Manager, Dan Shulte, allowed the blanket discounts to contractors at the Foley store; 4) Store Manager, Donna Montgomery, replaced Corbitt at the Foley store and continued the blanket 10 percent discounts to contractors; 5) District Manager, Eri[k] Dardas, approved blanket ten per cent discounts to contractors at the Foley store and approved discounted sales to competitor, Midway Forest Products; 6) Either Aaron Flow or Chris Mangino and either Sabrina Jones or Dan Shulte were the store managers of the Pensacola Store and allowed discounts to Adams Homes; 7) Store Manager, Rick Liska, gave blanket 10 percent discounts to contractors on all sales over $1,000 if made on Home Depot charge cards and us[ing] a Home Depot cell phone, 8) District Manager, Leon McLaughlin, approved or allowed Liska to give 10 percent discounts to contractors and approved sales to a competitor, Midway Forest Products, 9) Store Manager, Aaron Flow, sold discounted truckloads of OSB sheets to competitor, Midway Forest Products, 10) Store Manager, Mike McGowan, approved sales to a competitor, Midway Forest Products, 11) Store Manager, Chris Mangino, marked down sales to a competitor, Midway Forest Products, and 12) Vicki Hall used a Home Depot cell phone.

We have explained the degree to which a comparator employee must be similarly situated: “The plaintiff and the employee she identifies as a comparator must be similarly situated ‘in all relevant respects.’ The comparator must be nearly identical to the plaintiff to prevent courts from second-guessing a reasonable decision by the employer.” Wilson v. B/E Aerospace, Inc., 376 F.3d 1079, 1091 (11th Cir.2004) (citation omitted).

Citing this language, the district court found that Cor-bitt and Raya’s comparator evidence did not establish pretext because the proffered comparators did not have the exact same positions as Corbitt and Raya and did not engage in the exact same policy violations.

In analyzing this evidence solely as comparator evidence, however, the district court failed to examine whether the evidence also offered support for Corbitt and Raya’s arguments that they did not in fact violate Home Depot’s policies and/or that their actions were authorized by their district manager, Dardas, or were within their discretion as store managers. In this regard, the district court did not fully consider the arguments made by Corbitt and Raya concerning the illegitimacy of the reasons given by Home Depot for their terminations.

Instead, the court simply stated that it “does not find the reasons offered by Home Depot to be inconsistent.” The court continued: The court also finds unavailing [Appellants’] contention that pretext is provided by Home Depot’s failure to produce more evidence regarding when the investigation started or to have kept a better record of the investigation. [Appellants] have submitted no reliable evidence that the investigation was a sham or that it was only begun because [Appellants] complained about Cavaluzzi’s conduct.

There is circumstantial evidence supporting Corbitt and Raya’s assertion that they were not fired for the reasons proffered by Home Depot. Home Depot contends that Corbitt and Raya were terminated in part because they gave unauthorized ten percent discounts to contractors, associates, family members, and a competitor in violation of its markdown policy. In response, Corbitt and Raya have produced evidence showing that these markdowns were in fact made pursuant to Home Depot’s policies. They have offered their statements that Dar-das approved the contractor discounts and the sales to Midway Lumber.

Dar-das himself admitted to approving a matching Lowe’s ten percent discount, a new commercial credit card account ten percent discount, and quarterly contractor discounts. Although Dardas directly denies approving certain markdowns, there is a factual issue whether these markdowns in fact occurred and whether they were authorized by Dardas. Other employees also confirmed approval by Dardas of the general ten percent contractor discount.

For instance, there is evidence from statements of employees such as Todd Saddler and Sam Power that other store managers within the district, such as Sandy Snyder and Rick Liska, gave regular ten percent discounts to contractors. Polo Cutts stated that Dardas had challenged stores in the district to meet and beat competition with discounts that protected the bottom line. Taylor Morgan, Dan Schulte, John Vaughan, Scott Gayle, and Rick Liska provided statements that Dardas had encouraged contractor discounts in the district to compete with Lowe’s.

As to the sales to a competitor, Midway Lumber, Calhoun testified that she in fact witnessed Dardas’ approval of the Midway Lumber sales to Raya. This approval was also confirmed by Scott Gayle. Thus, Cor-bitt and Raya have provided considerable evidence that, when construed in the light most favorable to them, raises a genuine issue of material fact whether they violated Home Depot’s markdown and competitor sales policies. Moreover, there is question from the record whether Home Depot even had a policy prohibiting the actions for which Corbitt and Raya were purportedly terminated.

For instance, Keglovitz admitted there is no Home Depot policy against giving a competitor a discount. Hall stated that Home Depot had a “meet and beat” policy such that if a customer showed that a competitor had a lower price, Home Depot would beat that price on identical in-stock merchandise by ten percent and meet that price on all special order merchandise, installations, or other special order products, except lumber.

Further, if a markdown sale by a store manager was approved by the district manager, any violation of a Home Depot policy would be attributed to the district manager who approved it and not to the store manager. Notably, a written copy of Home Depot’s markdown policy was not included in the record on appeal.

Additionally, Cor-bitt’s and Raya’s termination notices indicate that any policy violations should be specifically identified, but in the spaces designated for such specifications, the notices state generally “Violation of Company Policy.” Construing all of this evidence in the light most favorable to Corbitt and Raya, a jury could reasonably infer that the supposedly unauthorized markdowns were not what truly motivated Home Depot to terminate Corbitt and Raya.

Home Depot offered as an additional legitimate, non-retaliatory reason that Corbitt and Raya had used the company Nextel phones improperly by retaining phones from stores which they had left and by using these phones for personal business. However, Corbitt and Raya have both provided statements explaining that the continued use of the Nextel phones from their previous stores was authorized by the incoming store managers and was done for legitimate business reasons. They also both denied using the company phones for personal business.

In contrast, Home Depot has not explained which specific policy Corbitt and Raya violated in using the Nextel phones, nor has it provided evidence that such use was a terminable offense. In any event, a reasonable jury could find that such a minor policy violation would not realistically motivate an employer to terminate two store managers with over ten years of service. The source of Home Depot’s legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons is the Hall investigation. Significantly, the Hall investigation itself is riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions which raise significant doubts about its legitimacy.

First, Corbitt and Raya note that while Home Depot contends that Hall began his investigation into impermissible markdowns in late spring of 2005, the earliest-dated document in his investigation notes is dated September 28, 2005. In addition, several documents within Hall’s investigation report, upon which the decisionmakers purportedly relied to make the termination decisions, are dated after Corbitt’s and Raya’s terminations on December 13, 2005.

In her deposition, Keglovitz specifically pointed to these documents, some of which bore the post-termination dates, as what she reviewed in reaching her decision to recommend termination. Also, Hall’s notes are far more detailed regarding alleged policy violations by Corbitt and Raya than any other employee, even though the investigation was supposedly district-wide. Despite the fact that Hall allegedly never particularly focused his investigation on Corbitt and Raya, these were the only two employees terminated.

The legitimacy of the investigation is further rendered questionable by the fact that there is no record of the formal complaint lodged by Calhoun on behalf of Cor-bitt and Raya in Home Depot’s files; Cor-bitt and Raya were terminated on the exact same day with almost identical notices listing exactly the same reasons for termination; no specific policy violations were listed on the notices even when the forms stated that such violations should be specified; Cavaluzzi and McLaughlin signed and delivered these notices to Cor-bitt and Raya; and the record of the complaints and actions taken by Calhoun as to Cavaluzzi’s sexual harassment, which she maintained at the Home Depot store, have never been produced.

Further there is confusion and inconsistency in the testimony of Keglovitz and Hall as to what the Home Depot policy is and whether it was in fact violated by Corbitt and Raya. Cor-bitt and Raya’s contention that Cavaluzzi and McLaughlin used the Hall investigation as a vehicle to effect their terminations is supported by the lack of any indication in the record that Keglovitz, Powers, Taylor, or Goldsmith, the corporate officers who approved the recommendation to terminate Corbitt and Raya, conducted any independent investigation of the matter.

Instead, the decision was made based on input from a small group of managers, which included among their number the accused perpetrator of the sexual harassment, Cavaluzzi, one of his business partners in the region who had refused to take, and had blocked, any action to stop the inappropriate behavior, McLaughlin, and the Hall report in the formulation of which McLaughlin had been a participant.

The district court found that Corbitt and Raya had not submitted any evidence to demonstrate that this investigation was a sham; however, a jury could reasonably infer from the evidence that Corbitt and Raya were being improperly targeted for investigation and termination by Cavaluzzi and McLaughlin. Based on this evidence, there is a genuine issue whether Home Depot’s proffered reasons for terminating Corbitt and Raya were pretext for retaliation. In granting

summary judgment for Home Depot, the district court appears not to have drawn all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to Corbitt and Raya and instead improperly weighed the evidence. Therefore, we must reverse the grant of

summary judgment to Home Depot on Corbitt and Raya’s claim of retaliation. C. State Law Claims Count Three of the Appellants’ Complaint alleges four state law claims against Home Depot in a single count: assault and battery; outrage; negligent and wanton hiring, retaining, training and supervision; and invasion of privacy. Count Three reads as follows: Count Three (State Law Claims) 53. [Appellants] adopt and incorporate the allegations set forth in this Complaint. 54.

Assault and Battery: The conduct of Home Depot’s agent, Cavaluzzi, constituted assaults and batteries against the [Appellants] and invasions of the [Appellants’] privacy. 55. The assaults and batteries of Ca-valuzzi were conducted in rudeness and in a hostile manner. Home Depot condoned or ratified such assaults and batteries. 56. Outrage: The Defendant recklessly and/or intentionally caused the [Appellants] to suffer severe emotional distress through the Defendant’s extreme and outrageous conduct. 57.

Negligent and Wanton Hiring, Retaining, Training and Supervision: Defendant Home Depot negligently and wantonly hired, retained, trained, and supervised Cavaluzzi thereby causing the [Appellants] to suffer severe emotional distress. 58. -Invasion of Privacy: The conduct of Home Depot’s agent, Cavaluzzi, constituted a wrongful intrusion and invasion of the [Appellants’] privacy.

Cava-luzzi’s wrongful acts were committed in the line and scope of the [sic] his employment with Home Depot; or Cavaluz-zi’s wrongful acts were committed in furtherance of the business of the Home Depot; or Home Depot participated in, authorized, or ratified such wrongful acts. 59.As a proximate consequence of the aforedescribed conduct of Defendant, [Appellants] have incurred great mental and emotional distress and have lost earnings from their employment. [Appellants] claim punitive damages. (R.l at 14-15.) Thus, paragraph 53 of Count Three incorporates all allegations in the Complaint, including those relevant only to Count One, a federal harassment and hostile work environment claim, and Count Two, a federal retaliation claim.

The Complaint is a classic example of shotgun pleading. First, it alleges all state law claims in a single count. See Cesnik v. Edgewood Baptist Church, 88 F.3d 902, 905 (11th Cir.1996) (lamenting that a Complaint was “framed in complete disregard of the principle that separate, discrete causes of action should be plead in separate counts”) (citation omitted); Anderson v. Dist.

Bd. of Trs., 77 F.3d 364, 366-67 (11th Cir.1996) (finding that failure to “present each claim for relief in a separate count, as required by Rule 10(b),” constitutes shotgun pleading and undermines the ability of a court to administer justice). Second, each count incorporates by reference all allegations of the previous counts. As a consequence, it is impossible to determine the factual basis for each claim. We have roundly condemned this type of pleading. Strategic Income Fund, L.L.C. v.

Spear, Leeds & Kellogg Corp., 305 F.3d 1293, 1295 (11th Cir.2002) (“The typical shotgun complaint contains several counts, each one incorporating by reference the allegations of its predecessors, leading to a situation where most of the counts ... contain irrelevant factual allegations and legal conclusions.”). Finally, pleading multiple assaults and batteries as one claim violates Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 10(b)’s clear command that, “each claim founded on a separate transaction or occurrence ... must be stated in a separate claim or defense.” The district court granted

summary judgment on the Appellants’ claims of assault and battery, invasion of privacy, and outrage on the basis that the Appellants had not shown that Home Depot could be vicariously liable for the conduct of Cavaluzzi. Under Alabama law, an employer can be held vicariously liable for the intentional torts of its employee if it ratifies its employee’s torts. Machen v. Childersburg Bancorporation, Inc., 761 So.2d 981, 984-85 (Ala.1999).

To show that an employer ratified its employee’s torts, a plaintiff must show, among other things, that the employer “had actual knowledge of the tortious conduct of the offending employee .... ” Id. (quoting Potts v. BE & K Constr. Co., 604 So.2d 398, 400 (Ala.1992)). The district court concluded that Home Depot did not have “actual knowledge” of the tortious conduct of Cavaluzzi until November of 2005, and that at that point it took adequate steps to remedy the situation. Accordingly, the district court concluded that

summary judgment was appropriate for the assault and battery, invasion of privacy, and outrage claims because Home Depot

[…]