Civil No. 07-cv-407-JL, 2009 WL 737112, at *9 (D.N.H. Mar.20, 2009) (quoting Billings v. Town of Grafton, 515 F.3d 39, 54 (1st Cir. 2008) (“ruling that defendant supervisor did not retaliate as a matter of law by calling plaintiff into his office and accusing her of trying to embarrass him before his superiors”)). See also Bussell v. Motorola, Inc., 228 Fed. App. 832 (11th Cir. 2006) (finding that occasional yelling by a supervisor is not actionable harassment under [Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006)]). In fact, “ ‘[t]he Supreme Court . . . has emphasized that sporadic verbal altercations or disagreements do not qualify as adverse actions for purposes of retaliation claims.”
Civil No. 07-cv-407-JL, 2009 WL 737112, at *9 (D.N.H. Mar.20, 2009) (quoting Billings v. Town of Grafton, 515 F.3d 39, 54 (1st Cir. 2008) (“ruling that defendant supervisor did not retaliate as a matter of law by calling plaintiff into his office and accusing her of trying to embarrass him before his superiors”)). See also Bussell v. Motorola, Inc., 228 Fed. App. 832 (11th Cir. 2006) (finding that occasional yelling by a supervisor is not actionable harassment under [Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006)]). In fact, “ ‘[t]he Supreme Court . . . has emphasized that sporadic verbal altercations or disagreements do not qualify as adverse actions for purposes of retaliation claims.”
None of these cases involved applying Burlington to First Amendment retaliation claims. E.g., Myers v. Cen. Fla. Invs., Inc., 237 Fed. App'x 452, 457 n. 3 (11th Cir. 2007);Bussell v. Motorola, Inc., 228 Fed. App'x 832 (11th Cir. 2006);Cain v. Geren, No. 07-12929, 2008 WL 64007, at *1 (11th Cir. Jan. 7, 2008). The parties have not identified, and the Court has not found, any Eleventh Circuit case applying Burlington to a First Amendment retaliation claim under § 1983.