FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MAY 16, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLIS H]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 1- 13 69 6

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 6 :1 0- cv -0 08 71 -ACC- DAB JAR RETTA P. HAMILTON, Plai nt iff - App el la nt , ve rs us SOUTHLAND CHRIS TIAN SCHOOL, INC., Defen da nt- App el le e.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Ma y 16 , 20 12 ) Befo re CARNES, M ARTIN, an d J ORDAN, Circ ui t J ud ge s. CARNES, Ci rcu itJu dg e: A wom anof c hi ldbe ari ng ag e was hi redas atea ch er ata sm al l Ch ris ti ansc ho ol . Thensh e g otpre gn an t, m arri ed , andfir ed . In tha t o rd er. The n s he fil eda

la wsu it . She lo ston su m m ary jud gm en t. Thi s i s h er ap pe al .

I. InJan uary

20 08 , Jarret taHam il to n b eg antea ch in g a t So ut hl an d C hr is ti an Sch oo l. So m et im e in Jan ua ry 20 09 , sh e an d h er the n- fia nc é co nc ei ve d ach il d. The y go t m arri edth e n ex t m on th . On Su nd ay , Apri l 5 , 20 09 , Hamil to n m etwith Jo hn an d J ul ie Enn is , Sou th la nd ’s adm in is tra to r an d a ss is ta ntadm in is tra to r, to tel l th em th atsh e was pre gn an t an d t o a skform at ern it y lea ve durin g t he ne xtsch oo l y ear. Du rin g t ha t m eet in g, s he adm it te d t ha t s he ha d c on cei ve d t he ch il d b efo re ge tt in g m arri ed . Sou th la ndfir edHam il to n t he fol lo win g Th ur sd ay , purp orte dl y be cau se sh e h adsi nn edby eng ag in g i n p rem ari ta l s ex an d, as Jo hnEnn is pu t i t,

“ th ere are co ns eque nc es for di so be y in g t he wordof Go d.” Ham il to n fi le d ach arg e o f di sc riminat io n wi th th e Equ al Em pl oym en t Opp ortu ni ty Com

m is si on , whi chis su eda ri gh t-t o- su e le tt er o n M ay 4, 2 01 0. Sh e th enfil eda co m

pl ai ntinfed eral di st ric t co urt ag ai ns t So ut hl an d a ss ert in g acla im of pre gn an cy

di sc riminat io n und er Tit le VII of th e Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act o f 19 64 , 42 U.S.C. §§ 20 00 e(k ), 20 00 e-2 (a)( 1) –( 2) , andst at e la w cla im s o f m ari ta l s ta tu s di sc riminat io n a ndin va si onof p riv acy. Afte r di sc ov ery So ut hl an d m ov edfor su m m ary jud gm en t o n a ll th ree c la im s. Th e co urt g ran te d S ou th la nd ’s m ot io n o n 2th e p reg na nc y di sc riminat io n a ndm ari ta l s ta tu s d is cri m in at io n c la im s, an d i t di sm is se d wi th ou t p reju di ce the in va si onof p riv acy clai m . Abo utth e p reg na nc y di sc riminat io n c la im , th e co urt co nc lu de d t ha t Ham il to n h adno t es tabl is he d a pr im a fac ie cas e b ecau se sh e h adno t p ro du cedev id en ce o f a n onpr eg na nt co m pa rat orwho was t reat eddi ffer en tl y . II. Ham il to n app eal s o nl y

th e co urt’s g ran t o f su m

m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of So ut hl an d o n h er p reg na nc y di sc riminat io n c la im , con te nd in g t ha t s he ha s es tabl is he d apri m a fac ie cas e o f un la wfu l d is cri m in at io n. We revi ew de no vo a di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t an d draw “ al l i nf eren ces an d re vi ew[] al l ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e n on -m ov in g p arty .” Mo to n v . Co wart , 63 1 F .3d13 37 , 13 41 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ). “ Su m m ary jud gm en t i s ap pr op ria te on ly if ‘ th e m ov an t s ho ws tha t the re i s n o g enui ne di sp ut e as to an y m at eri al factan d t he m ov an t i s en ti tl edto jud gm en t as a m at te r of law.’” Id. (quo ti ng Fed . R. Civ . P. 56 (a)) . A. The re i s a m in is te ria l ex cep ti on to em pl oym en t d is cri m in at io n l aws , see Hos anna -Tab orEvan ge li cal Luthe ranChur ch& Sch . v. Equ al Em p’t Op po rtu ni ty Co m m ’n, — U.S. —, 13 2 S .Ct. 6 94 , 70 6 (2 01 2) , bu t an y is su e in vo lv in g t ha t 3ex cep ti on ha s n otbe enpro pe rly pres en te d t o u s. So ut hl an d d idrai se th at

affi rm at iv e d efen se init s an swe r an d a ls o i n i ts m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, bu t the di st ric t co urt re

jecte d t he de fen se . The co urt g ran te d s umm ary jud gm en t t o So ut hl an d a nyway , bu t i t d idso on th e g ro un d t ha t Ham il to n h adno t es tabl is he d a pr im a fac ie cas e th athe r pr eg na nc y was t he reas on So ut hl an d fi redhe r. So ut hl an d c ou ldha ve arg ue d t he m in is te ria l ex cep ti on de fen se to us as a n al te rn at iv e b as is foraffi rm in g t he di stric t co urt’s jud gm en t i n i ts fav orby in cl ud in g t ha t ar gu m en t i n i ts bri ef as ap pe ll ee. See , e.g., Bl um v. Ba co n, 4 57 U.S. 13 2, 1 37 n.5 , 10 2 S .Ct. 2 35 5, 2 35 9 n .5 (1 98 2) (“ It i s wel l ac cep te d, h owe ve r, th atwitho utfil in g acro ss -ap pe al or c ro ss -p et it io n, an ap pe ll ee m ay rel y up on an y m at te r ap pe ari ng inth e rec or d i n s up po rt o f th e jud gm en t b el ow.”) ; Sa nc he zVela sc o v . Sec’y , Dep’t o f Co rr., 28 7 F .3d10 15 , 10 26 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ) (“ An ap pe ll ee m ay , witho utcro ss -ap pe al in g, u rg e in supp ort o f a res ul t tha t h as be en ap pe al edby the ot he r pa rty any gr ou ndlea di ng to th e sa m e res ul t, ev enif t ha t gr ou ndis in co ns is te ntwith t he di st ric t co urt’s re as on in g.” ). So ut hl an d’s b rie f m en ti on s the m in is te ria l ex cep ti on on ly onc e, an d t ha t i s whe n d es cri bi ng th e d is tri ctco urt’s ru li ng s: “ The Co urt d et erm in edth atth e m in is te ria l ex cep ti on di d n otap pl y inth is cas e.” App el le e Br. 7 . Sou th la nd ab an do ne d t ha t ex cep ti on as ade fen se by fail in g t o l is t o r othe rwis e st at e itas a n 4is su e o n app eal . See Un it edSta te s v . Jerni ga n, 3 41 F.3d12 73 , 12 83 n.8 (11 th Cir .

20 03 ) (“ Und er o urcas el aw, a pa rty seek in g t o ra is e a cl ai m or i ss ue on ap pe al m us t p la in ly andpro m in en tl y so in di cat e. Oth erwi se , th e is su e—e ve n i f pr op erl y pr es erv edat t ria l—wil l b e co ns id eredab an do ne d.” ); J oh ns on v. Wain wrig ht , 80 6 F.2 d 1 47 9, 1 48 1 n .2 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 6) (ho ld in g t ha t an ap pe ll ee’s fai lu re t o ra is e an affi rm at iv e d efen se onap pe al “ waiv es an y rig htto cla im

su cha de fen se ”); cf. Fed . Sav . & LoanIns . Cor

p. v . Haral so n, 8 13 F.2d37 0, 3 73 n.3 (11 th Cir . 19 87 ) (“ [I]ss ue s tha t cl earl y

are n otde si gn at edinth e ap pe ll an t’s b rie f no rm al ly are de em edab an do ne d.” ). A pas si ng refe ren ce t o a n i ss ue ina br ie f is no t en ou gh , an d t he fai lure t o m ak e arg um en ts an d c it e au th or it ie s i n s up po rt o f anis su e waiv es it . See Si ng h v . U.S. Att’y Gen., 5 61 F.3d12 75 , 12 78 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (p er cu ria m) (“ [S]im

pl y st at in g t ha t an is su e ex is ts , witho utfurth er ar gu m en t o r di sc us si on , con st itut es ab an do nm en t o f th atis su e an d p recl ud es ou r co ns id eri ng th e is su e o n app eal .”); Kell ih er v . Vene m an , 31 3 F .3d12 70 , 12 74 n.3 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ) (s ta ti ng th atbe cau se th e ap pe ll an t “ on ly m en ti on edhi s EEOC ret al ia ti on cl ai m inth e su m

m ary of th e arg um en t i n h is in it ia l b rie f” an d “ m ad e n o a rg um en ts on th e m eri ts as t o t hi s i ss ue , th e is su e is de em edwaiv ed ”); Greenbr ia r, Ltd . v. Ci ty of Alaba st er, 8 81 F.2d15 70 , 15 73 n.6 (11 thCir . 19 89 ) (s ta ti ng th atpa ss in g refe ren ces are i ns uf

fic ie ntto rai se is su es forap pe al an d s uc h i ss ue s ar e d eem ed 5ab an do ne d) . Noton ly didSo ut hl an d fa il to arg ue init s b rie f th atth e m in is te ria l

ex cep ti on ap pl ie s, i ts bri ef ac tu al ly ind ic at es th atSo ut hl an d d idno t co ns id er Ham il to n, wh o t au gh t atth e sc ho ol , to be a m in is te r. See Ap pe ll ee Br . 5– 6 (in tro du ci ng it s ar gu m en t wi th a se nt en ce cl ai m in g arig ht“ to term in at e n on m in is te r em

pl oyees” ). Mo re tha n thr ee m on th s af te r fi li ng it s b rie f, So ut hl an d fi le d wi th us a no ti ce o f supp le m en ta l au th or it y di rect in g o uratt en ti onto th e Supr em e Co urt’s Hos anna -Tab orde ci si on , bu t a p arty can no t i njec t n ew, no nju ris di ct io na l i ss ue s in to anap pe al by fili ng un reque st edsupp le m en ta l l ette rs or b rie fs . See Un it ed St at es v. Neal y , 23 2 F .3d82 5, 8 30 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ) (“ [P]arti es can no t p ro pe rly rai se ne w is su es at s up pl em en ta l b rie fin g, ev enif t he is su es ari se ba se d o n t he in te rv en in g d eci si on s o r ne w dev el op m en ts cit edinth e supp le m en ta l au th or it y .”). The re was pl en ty of arg um en t ab ou t the m in is te ria l ex cep ti on at o ral arg um en t, b ut th atals o “ co m es to o l at e.” Sm it h v . Sec’y , Dep’t o f Co rr., 57 2 F .3d13 27 , 13 38 n.6 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ); a cco rdMcFa rli n v . Con se co Serv s., LLC, 38 1 F .3d12 51 , 12 63 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (“ A party is n otall owe d t o ra is e atora l ar gu m en t a n ew is su e fo r rev ie w.”). The requi rem en t tha t i ss ue s b e rai se d i n apa rty’ s b rie f on ap pe al pro m ot es care fu l an d c orrectde ci si onm ak in g. Iten su res th atth e o pp os in g p arty ha s an 6op po rtu ni ty to re fle ctup on an d re sp on d i n wri ti ng to th e arg um en ts th athi s

adve rs ary is rai si ng . Anditgi ve s the ap pe ll at e co urt the be ne fitof wri tt en arg um en ts an d p ro vi de s the co urt an d t he parti es with a n o pp ortu ni ty to p rep are fo r or al arg um en t wi th th e o pp os in g p os it io ns an d arg um en ts inm in d. Itis no t t oo m uc h t o a skof a n app el la ntor a n app el le e. Becaus e So uthl an d d idno t ra is e an y is su e o r m ak e an y

arg um en t i n i ts bri ef ab ou t the min is te ria l ex cep ti on , we wil l n ot de ci de whet he r th atex cep ti on mig htap pl y . B. W e tu rnno w to th e is su e th atwas p ro pe rly pres en te d i n the bri efs , whi chis whe th er the di st ric t co urt erredinco nc lu di ng th atSo ut hl an d was en ti tl edto su m m ary jud gm en t o n the gro un d t ha t Ham il to n h adno t es tabl is he d apri m a fac ie cas e th atsh e was fir edbe cau se of h er p reg na nc y in st eadof h er p rem ari ta l s ex . The reas on th e d iff

eren ce m at te rs is th atTit le VII do es no t p ro te ctan y rig htto en ga ge inpre m ari ta l s ex , bu t as am en de d b y th e Pre gn an cy

Dis cri m in at io n Actof 19 78 , Titl e VII d oe s p ro te ctth e ri gh t t o g etpre gn an t. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 20 00 e(k ), 20 00 e-2 (a)( 1) –( 2) . Whe n a na lyzin g p reg na nc y di sc riminat io n c la im s, we u se th e sa m e type o f an al y si s tha t we u se forsex di sc riminat io n c la im s. Arm st ro ng v. Fl owe rs Hos p., In c., 33 F.3d13 08 , 13 12 –1 3 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 4) . A pla in ti ff al le gi ng a cl ai m of 7pr eg na nc y

di sc riminat io n m

us t s ho w th athe r em

pl oyer in te nd edto di sc riminat e ag ai ns t h er b ecau se of h er p reg na nc y . Id. at13 13 . She m ay m ak e th atsh owi ng us in g e it he r di rector i nd ire ctev id en ce. Id . Direc t ev id en ce o f di sc riminat io n i s

“ ev id en ce wh ic h re fle ct s a d is cri m in at ory or r et al ia to ry

att itud e co rrel at in g t o t he di sc riminat io n o r ret al ia ti on co m pl ai ne d o f by the em

pl oyee” an d “ th at , if be li ev ed , pro ve s the ex is te nc e o f a fac t wi th ou t i nf eren ce o r pr es um

pt io n.” W il so n v. B/ E Aeros pa ce, In c., 37 6 F .3d10 79 , 10 86 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (al te rat io ns an d qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Ind ire ctev id en ce i s ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce. See Wrig htv. So ut hl an d C or

p., 1 87 F.3d12 87 , 12 93 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). The re i s m or e th anon e way to sh ow d is cri m in at ory

in te ntus in g i nd ire ctor ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce. One way is th ro ug h t he burd en -s hi fti ng fram ewo rkset ou t i n M cDo nn el l Do ug la s C or p. v . Green , 41 1 U.S. 7 92 , 93 S.Ct . 18 17 (19 73 ), an d Tex as Depa rtment o f Co m m un it y Affai rs v. Bu rd in e, 45 0 U.S. 2 48 , 10 1 S .Ct. 10 89 (19 81 ). Ano th er way is “pr es en t[i ng ] ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce tha t cr eat es a tri ab le is su e co nc ern in g t he em pl oyer’s di sc riminat ory

in te nt .” Sm it h v . Loc kh eed -Ma rti n C or

p., 6 44 F.3d13 21 , 13 28 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ). A tri ab le is su e o f factex is ts if t he reco rd , vi ewedinth e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e p la in ti ff, p res en ts en ou ghcir cu m st an ti al ev id en ce t o ra is e a rea so nabl e in fere nc e o f in te nt io na l di sc riminat io n. Se e id . If th e p la in ti ff p res en ts en ou gh cir cu m st an ti al ev id en ce t o 8rai se a reas on ab le in fere nc e o f in te nt io na l d is cri m in at io n, h er cl ai m wil l s urvi ve su m m ary jud gm en t. Id . So ut hl an d c on te nd s tha t Ham il to n h as no t p res en te d e no ug h c irc um st an ti al ev id en ce t o ra is e a rea so nabl e in fere nc e o f in te nt io na l d is cri m in at io n b ecau se sh e un di sp ut ab ly cann otsh ow a n onpr eg na ntco m pa rat orwho was t reat eddi ffer en tl y . Bu t s he do es no t h av e to sh ow a c om pa rat orif s he cansh ow en ou gh no nco m pa ris on cir cu m st an ti al ev id en ce t o ra is e a rea so nabl e in fere nc e o f in te nt io na l di sc riminat io n, s ee i d. (“ [T]he p la in ti ff’s fai lu re t o p ro du ce a c om pa rat ordo es no t ne ces sa ril y

do om [he r] case.” ), an d s he ha s d on e th at . Ham il to n p res en te d e vi de nc e th at , inm ak in g t he de ci si on to fir e h er, So ut hl an d was m or e co nc ern edab ou t h er p reg nanc y an d h er re qu es t t o t ak e m at ern it y lea ve th anab ou t h er ad m is si on th atsh e h adpre m ari ta l s ex . She tes ti fie d atde po si ti on th at , aft er s he to ldth e Enn is es ab ou t h er p reg na nc y bu t b efo re s he to ldth em sh e h adco nc ei ve d b efo re g etti ng m arri ed , Jo hn Enn is “pu t h is he adba ck an d h e sa id , we feare d s om ethi ng li ke th is wou ldhapp en .” Ham il to n t es ti fie d t ha t Jo hn Enn is to ldhe r th atsh e was go in g t o h av e to “ ta ke th e y ear o ff” b ecau se rep la ci ng a te ach er t ak in g m at ern it y lea ve aft er the sch oo l year ha d s ta rte d was ha rdto do . She als o t es ti fie d t ha t i t ap pe aredto he r th e Enn is es ’ pr im ary co nc ern was he r reque stform at ern it y lea ve . Accor di ng to Ham il to n’s d ep os it io n

9te st im on y , at s om e p oi ntdu rin g t he m eet in g, s he ask edJo hn Enn is : “ [W] ha t i s the

is su e h ere? Is i t b ecau se of t he co ve rag e? Or is itbe cau se of t he pre m ari ta l co nc ep ti on ? Andhe sai d b ot h re as on s.” Ham il to n a ls o p res en te d e vi de nc e v it ia ti ng th e v erac ity of S ou th la nd ’s pu rp orte d re as onforfir in g h er—th atsh e h adpre m ari ta l s ex . Jo hn Enn is tes ti fie d atde po si ti on th at , eve n t ho ug h Ham il to n c omm it te d t he si n o f pr em ari ta l s ex , “ [i]f, in fact , sh e wou ldha ve sai d t o u s I’m so rry th atI’ve s in ne d a ga in stth e Lor d a nd th is sch oo l, we wo ul d n otbe he re. W e co ul d h av e g on e in an ot he r to ta l d ire ct io n.

. . . [Bu t] I nev er h eardhe r sa y sh e was so rry .” Bu t Ham il to n t es ti fie d t ha t af te r sh e to ldth e Enn is es ab ou t h er p reg na nc y : I be cam e afr ai d t ha t I h addo ne so m ethi ng ho rri bl e. AndI wen t t o Godinpra y er, an d m

y hu sb an d a ndI bo th to ge th er, an d a sk edfor fo rg iv en es s. An d I e xp res se d t ha t t o M r. Enn is . Hop efu ll y , y ou kn ow, l etti ng hi m

kn ow tha t I, you kno w, was re m or se fu l fo r wha t ha d—y oukn ow, i f I’ve d on e so m ethi ng so ho rri bl e ag ai ns t Go d. An d th atGodha d fo rg iv enm e, an d I ju stwant edhi m to , if, y oukn ow, i t was su cha ho rri bl e th in g. Bu t i t d idn’t m ak e a d iff eren ce. So , hertes ti m on y

co nt rad ic te d J oh n En ni s’ tes ti m on y th athe ha d n ev er h eardhe r sa y sh e was so rry

an d t ha t h e wou ldno t h av e fi redhe r if sh e h ad . For t ha t an d t he ot he r rea so ns we ha ve di sc us se d, Ham il to n h as est ab li sh eda ge nu in e is su e o f m at eri al factab ou t the reas on th atSo ut hl an d fi redhe r. The u lt im at e is su e is on e fo r a jury to d eci de . 10III.

W e REVERSE th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of So ut hl an d o n Ham il to n’s Ti tl e VII p reg na nc y di sc riminat io n c la im

an d REMAND fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs co ns is te ntwith t hi s o pi ni on .

11