### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T M ay 9, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK

Honora ble J eromeFa

rris, United States Circuit Judg e for the Ninth Circuit, sitt ing by * designation. [ P UB L I S H]

I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 13729

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 01 -020 35 -C V -J T C -1 GO RDON VESS EL S P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s A T L A N T A I N D E P E N D E N T S C H O O L S Y S T E M, D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( M ay 9, 2005) B efo re B A R K E T T , K R A V IT C H an d F A R R IS , C i rcu i tJu d g es. * P E R C U R I A M: G ordo n V es se l s ( “ V es se l s” ) app ea l s the di stri ctcourt ’ s grantof sum m ary2

j udgm e ntt o hi s e m pl oy e r , the A t l a nt aI nde pe nde ntS c hool S y s t e m ( “ A I S S ” ) , on hi s c l a i m s tha tA I S S f

a i l e d t o pr om ot e hi m on the ba s i s of hi s r a c e , i n vi ol a t i on of 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 1 , 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 a n d 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 e ( 2 0 0 5 ) ( “T itle V I I ” ) . V e s s e ls a s s e rts s e p a r a te c la im s b a s e d o n tw o in d e p e n d e n t e m p lo y m e n t a c tio n s : ( i) A I S S ’ s de c i s i on nott o pr om ot e hi m on a n i nt e r i m ba s i s t o the C oor di na t orof P s y c h o lo g ic a l S e rv ic e s p o s itio n ; a n d ( ii) A I S S ’s d e c is io n n o t to p r o m o te h im to tha ts a m e pos i t i on on ape rm a ne ntba s i s . W hi l e the di s tr i c tc ourtc onc e de d tha the had m ade outhi s pri m a f ac i e c as e a s t o b oth cl ai m s, i tfoun d thatA IS S proffe re d r a c e - ne utr a l j us t i f

i c a t i ons f ori t s e m pl oy m e nta c t i ons , w hi c h V e s s e l s f a i l e d t o s how w e r e p r e te x tu a l. O n ap p e a l, V e s s e ls a r g u e s th a t g e n u in e is s u e s o f m a te r ia l f

a c t r e m a in a s to w he the rA I S S ha s e ve n di s c ha r ge d i t s bur de n t o a s s e rtar a c e - ne utr a l j us t i f i c a t i on, a s w e l l a s w he the ra ny l e gi t i m a t e gr ounds A I S S ha s a s s e rt e d t o s upporti t s de c i s i on w er e i n fac ta pre t extfor r ac i al pref er ence . A l tho ug h w e a gree thatA IS S w as e nt i t l e d t o s um m a ryj udgm e nton V e s s e l s ’ c l a i m s r e l a t i ng t o the pe rm a ne nt po si t i on , m at er i al i ss ues of di sput ed fa ctre m ai n as t o w hether A IS S ’ s art i cul at ed r e a s o n s f o rf a ilin g to p r o m o te V e s s e ls to th e in te r im p o s itio n w e r e p r e te x tu a l. A c c or di ngl y , w e a f

f i rm the gr a ntof

s um m a ryj udgm e nta s t o V e s s e l s ’ pe rm a ne nt p o s itio n c la im , a n d r e m an d f o rf u rth e rp r o c e e d in g s s o le lyo n V e s s e ls ’ c la im3

r e l a t i ng t o the i nt e r i m pos i t i on. B AC KG R OU ND In June of 19 99 , D r. A rl ett a B ri nson (“ B ri nson ”) anno un ce d thatshe w as l ea vi ng her posi t i on as the C oo rdi nat or of P sy chol og i ca l S ervi ce s f or A IS S . W hen B ri n so n w as ask ed t o reco m m en d so m eo n e t o fi l l th e p o si t i o n o n an i n t eri m b asi s, s h e c h o s e J ill F ie ld s ( “F ie ld s ” ) , a n A I S S s c h o o l p s y c h o lo g is t w h o w a s b la c k . B ri nson as se rt s s ever al re as on s w hy she c ho se t o rec om m end F i el ds: (i ) F i el ds had oc c a s i ona l l y f

i l l e d i n f orB r i ns on’ s pr e de c e s s or , a nd thus ha d aw orki ng know l e dge of op er at i on al procedures thatcoul d h elp p rovi de cont i nu i ty duri ng the se ar ch for a p e rm a n e n t r e p la c e m e n t; ( ii) F ie ld s h a d e x p e r ie n c e a s p a rt o f th e O f f ic e o f Y o u th S e rvi c e s ’ L e a de r s hi p T e a m ; a nd ( i i i ) F i e l ds ha d a s s i s t e d w i th B r i ns on’ s pr oc e s s i ng of re fe rr al s and com m un i ca t i on w i th o ther departm ent s, and h ad re pres ent ed her at va r i ous m e e t i ngs . W hi l e B r i ns on c ons i de r e d V e s s e l s f orthe i nt e r i m pos i t i on, s he c l a i m s s he f

ound tha t : ( i ) hi s e xpe r i e nc e w i th the A I S S s y s t e m a nd c ha i ns of c om m a nd w a s i nf

e r i ort o F i e l ds ’ e xpe r i e nc e ; ( i i ) V e s s e l s l a c ke d e xpe r i e nc e r e l a t i ve t o F i el d s’ i n i n t erfacing w i th th e h u m an reso u rces d ep artm en t ; an d (i i i ) V essel s’ l e a de r s hi p s ty l e t e nde d t o be t oo uni l a t e r a l a nd pot e nt i a l l ydi s r e s pe c t f ul of the sch o o l s th e d ep artm en tserv ed . B ri n so n al so assert s th atsh e t o o ki n t o acco u n tp ast i n ci d en t s i n w h i ch V essel s co n d u ct ed an u n au th o ri zed su rv ey o f st aff m em b ers’4

re po rt s. B ri nson conceded thatV es se l s had m ore e du ca t i on , theoret i ca l k n o w le d g e , a n d s ta te c e rtif ic a tio n s th a n F ie ld s . W h ile A I S S r e g u la tio n s w o u ld r e qui r e s om e one w i th V e s s e l s ’ l e ve l of qua l i f i c a t i on f orthe pos i t i on on a p e rm a n e n t b a s is , th o s e r e g u la tio n s o n lyd e e m e d it “d e s ir ab le ” th a t a n in te r im ap p o in te e m e t th o s e c r ite r ia . T h o s e r e g u la tio n s a ls o lim ite d in te r im ap p o in tm e n ts t o 6 0 d ay s, abse ntac t i on by the sc ho ol bo ar d. B ri nson ul t i m at el y c on si dere d F ie ld s to b e th e b e s t r e c o m m e n d a tio n . B ri nson ’ s s up ervi sor, al so ho pi ng for ase am l es s transi t i on , approv ed B r i ns on’ s r e c om m e nda t i on of F i e l ds f orthe i nt e r i m pos i t i on a nd f orw a r de d the r e c o m m e n d a tio n to th e d e p u tys u p e r in te n d e n t, G lo r iaP a tte r s o n ( “P a tte r s o n ” ) . P a tt e r s on appr ove d the r e c om m e nda t i on, pl a c i ng F i e l ds i n the C oor di na t orof P s y c hol ogi c a l S e rvi c e s pos i t i on on a n i nt e r i m ba s i s unt i l s uc h t i m e a s the pos i t i on c oul d be f

i l l e d pe rm a ne nt l y . P a tt e r s on’ s a c t i ons c ontr a ve ne d A I S S r e gul a t i ons a l l ow i ng i nt e r i m appoi ntm e nt s f oram a xi m um of

onl y60 da y s , unl e s s the s c hool bo ar d t oo k act i on . W hi l e P att er son canno tre ca l l the exactci rc um st ance s s u rr o u n d in g h e rap p r o v a l o f F ie ld s , s h e a tte s ts th a t s h e g e n e r a llyd o e s n o t b lin d ly a c c e p t r e c o m m e n d a tio n s , b u t r a th e ra s k s ab o u t th e r e c o m m e n d e d c a n d id a te to e ns ur e the be s tpe r s on ha s be e n putf orw a r d. A ft er F i el d s b eg an serv i n g i n th e co o rd i n at o r p o si t i o n o n an i n t eri m b asi s,Orig inally, candidates were also sche duled to complete a writingexercise. How ever , 1 that portion

of theevaluatio n p ro c e ss w a s n ot c ounte d towa rd s th efinal sc ore s after V e sse ls complained that his lack of computer skills pl ace d him at an unfair disadvantag e.

5 A I S S p o s te d th e v a c a n c y a n n o u n c e m e n t f o rap e rm a n e n t p o s itio n th r e e tim e s : in O ct ob erof 19 99 , A ug ustof 20 00 , and S ept em ber of 200 1. T he anno un ce m entw as r e - p o s te d b e c au s e b o th th e f ir s t a n d s e c o n d a n n o u n c e m e n ts y ie ld e d as m a ll ap p lic a n t p o o l, a n d A I S S r e g u la tio n s r e q u ir e d th a t th r e e ap p lic a n ts b e in te rv ie w e d . U l t i m a t e l y , A I S S hum a n r e s our c e s a dm i ni s tr a t or s i de nt i f i e d thr e e appl i c a nt s w ho w ou l d b e i nt ervi ew ed by a panel of A IS S pers on nel : V es se l s; F i el ds; and D r. G w e n d o ly n J o n e s ( “J o n e s ” ) , w h o lik e F ie ld s , w a s a ls o ab la c kw o m a n . D r . L uc i ndaS ul l i va n ( “ S ul l i va n” ) , E xe c ut i ve D i r e c t orof the O f f i c e of S tud entP rogram s and S ervi ce s, ov er saw the i nt ervi ew proces s. S ul l i van a s s e m bl e d apa ne l of

s i x i nt e rvi e w e r s , a nd pr ovi de d the m w i th aj ob de s c r i pt i on, the c a ndi da t e s ’ r e s um e s , a nd i nt e rvi e w que s t i ons s he ha d de ve l ope d. S he di d not 1 p r o v id e th e m w ith m o d e l a n s w e r s o rin s tru c tio n s o n h o w to r a te th e c a n d id a te s . I ns t e a d the y w e r e t o dr a w on the i re xpe r i e nc e a nd unde r s t a ndi ng of the j ob de s c r i pt i on. T he pa ne l c ons i s t e d of one w hi t e m a n, one w hi t e w om a n, a nd f our bl ac k w om en. S ul l i van ass ert s thatthe panel ’ s r ac i al and g ender di vers i ty w as r e pr e s e nt a t i ve of

ac r os s - s e c t i on of

the A I S S de pa rtm e nt s tha tw ork w i th the p s y c h o lo g ic a l s e rv ic e s d e p a rtm e n t. O n e o f th e p a n e lis ts w a s c h o s e n b ylo tte ryto6

e n s u r e th a t n o p r e f

e r e n c e w a s g iv e n to a n yc a n d id a te . T he pa ne l ’ s a ggr e ga t e s c or e s pl a c e d J one s a t124, V e s s e l s a t106, a nd F i e l ds a t86. T he pa ne l i s t s ’ w r i tt e n e va l ua t i ons , w hi c h the ypr e pa r e d w i thoutc ons ul t i ng one a nothe r , r e f

l e c t e d as ha r e d c onc e rn tha tV e s s e l s w a s ove r l yne ga t i ve a nd t oo f oc us e d on A I S S ’ s pr obl e m s . S ul l i va n a c c e pt e d the pa ne l ’ s r e c om m e nda t i on of Jones, and p as se d i tal on g t o the depu ty s up er i nt endent , w ho i n turn app roved Jones and re com m ended h ert o the superi nt endentand schoo l bo ar d. Jones r e p la c e d F ie ld s o n ap e rm a n e n t b a s is in J a n u a ry2 0 0 2 . V e s s e ls v o lu n ta r ily r e s i gne d e f

f e c t i ve J a nua ry 1, 2003. T he di s tr i c tc ourt , a dopt i ng the m a gi s tr a t e ’ s r e porta nd r e c om m e nda t i on, f o u n d th a tw h i l e V e s s e l s ma d e o u tap r i maf a c i e c a s e o f

r a c e d i s c r i mi n a t i o n , A I SS h a d p r o f f e r e d le g itim a te n o n - d is c r im in a to ryr e a s o n s f o rits e m p lo y m e n t d e c is io n s . T he di s tr i c tc ourtr e

j e c t e d V e s s e l s ’ c ont e nt i on tha tbe c aus e s e ve r a l of the i ndi vi dua l s i n the de c i s i on- m a ki ng c ha i n ha d no i nde pe nde ntr e c ol l e c t i on of the s pe c i f i c r e a s ons f

orthe i rde c i s i on w he n the yw e r e de pos e d, A I S S ha d not succ es sf ul l y a ss ert ed ra ce -neutra l re as on s f or i t s a ct i on s. F urtherm ore, the di stri ct c ourtf ound tha tV e s s e l s ha d nots how n A I S S ’ s r e a s ons t o be pr e t e xtua l . T he di s tr i c tc ourthe l d tha tw hi l e V e s s e l s m a yha ve pr e s e nt e d e vi de nc e t o que s t i on w h eth erA IS S ’s d ec isio n w as co rr ec t, th er e w as n o d isp u te as to w h eth erA IS S ’sThough the district court did not expli citly consider it, the magistrate had rejected 2 Ve sse ls’ dire c t evidenc eof rac ial pre ferenc e , f

indingit tooremotein timeand unre late d to Vessels’ promotion. Vessels’ direct evidencefocuse d on his alleg ations that soon after he beg an wo rkingat AI SS in

19 87 , h eov erh e ard

B rins on makec omm entsthat sug g e ste d th at sh efe lt black school psycholog ists were preferableto whites, as they were fa miliar with the culture of the pre dominantly

Afric an-America

n school population that AI SS s erve d. Vessels also relied on cer tain comments he c laims weremade by AI SS officials about the desira bility of havingthe employee population mirror the racial composition of the AI SS s chools. The magistrate found such evidence to betoo remote to constitute suffic ient direc t evidenceof discrimination, particula rly where B rinson was not the final decision-maker. Ve ssels has not raised theissue of direc t evidenceon appeal, focusingexclusively on the McDonne ll-Doug las fra mework f or circumstantial evidence . Acc ording ly, we do not pass on Ve ssels’ direct evidenceof di s c ri m in ati o n , e x c ep twh erere l ev antt o p ro v in gdi s c ri m in at o r y int entc ircum s t anti al ly. 7 pr of f e r e d r e a s ons w e r e s i nc e r e l y he l d.

ST AN DA RD OF RE VI EW W e r e vi e w de novo adi s tr i c tc ourt ’ s gr a ntof s um m a ryj udgm e nt , vi e w i ng a l l the e vi de nc e , a nd dr a w i ng a l l r e a s onabl e i nf e r e nc e s , i n f

a vorof the non- m ovi ng p a rty . H u s le y v . P r id e R e s ts ., L L C , 3 6 7 F .3 d 1 2 3 8 , 1 2 4 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . W e w ill a f f irm th e g r a n t o f

s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t o n lyif th e r e is n o g e n u in e is s u e a s to a n y m a te r ia l f

a c t, a n d th e m o v in g p a rtyis e n title d to ju d g m e n t a s am a tte ro f la w . F ed. R . C i v. P . 56 (c ). DI S C US S I ON V e s s e l s ’ di s pa r a t e tr e a tm e ntc l a i m s , br oughtunde rT i t l e V I I , § 1981, a nd § 1983, a l l r e qui r e pr oof

of di s c r i m i na t oryi nt e nt . A s V e s s e l s a tt e m pt s t o pr ove di s c r i m i na t ory i nt e ntby c i r c um s t a nt i a l e vi de nc e , hi s c l a i m s a r e s ubj e c tt o the M c D onne l l D ougl a s m e thods of pr oof . R i c ha r ds on v. L e e ds P ol i c e D e p’ t , 71 F . 3d 28

801, 805 ( 11th C i r . 1995) ; S t a nda r d v. A . B . E . L . S e rvs . , I nc . , 161 F . 3d 1318, 1330 (11th C i r. 19 98 ). U n d er th e fam i l i ar M cD o n n el l D o u g l as fram ew o rk , th e p l ai n t i ff m u stfi rst c r e a te a n in f

e r e n c e o f d is c r im in a tio n th r o u g h h is p r im af a c ie c a s e . M c D o n n e ll D ougl a s C orp. v. G r e e n, 411 U . S . 792, 802 ( 1973) . O nc e the pl a i nt i f f ha s m a de o u t th e e le m e n ts o f

th e p r im af

a c ie c a s e , th e b u r d e n s h if ts to th e e m p lo y e rto a rt i c ul a t e anon- di s c r i m i na t ory ba s i s f ori t s e m pl oy m e nta c t i on. T e xa s D e pt . of C m ty . A f

f a ir s v . B u r d in e , 4 5 0 U .S . 2 4 8 , 2 5 3 ( 1 9 8 1 ) . I f th e e m p lo y e rm e e ts th is bur de n, the i nf

e r e nc e of di s c r i m i na t i on dr ops outof the c a s e e nt i r e l y , a nd the pl a i nt i f f ha s the opportuni ty t o s how byapr e ponde r a nc e of the e vi de nc e tha tthe p r o f f e r e d r e a s o n s w e r e p r e t e x tu a l . St . M a ry ’ s H o n o rCe n t e rv . H i c k s , 5 0 9 U . S. 5 0 2 , 5 1 1 (1 9 9 3 ). W h er e th e p lain ti ff su cc ee d s in d iscr ed it in g th e e m p lo ye r’s p r o f f e r e d r e a s o n s , th e tr ie ro f f a c t m a yc o n c lu d e th a t th e e m p lo y e rin te n tio n a lly di s c r i m i na t e d. R e e ve s v. S a nde r s on P l um bi ng P r ods . , I nc . , 530 U . S . 133, 148 (200 0). V ESSELS’ PRI M A FA CI E CA SE I n or de rt o e s t abl i s h apr i m af a c i e c a s e , a nd thus r a i s e a n i nf e r e nc e of di s c r i m i na t ory i nt e nt , the pl a i nt i f f m us tde m ons tr a t e onl ytha t : ( i ) he ors he bel on ged t o a prot ec t ed cl as s; (i i ) he or s he w as qu al i fi ed for and appl i ed for aWe emph a sizethat th eMc Do nn e ll- Dougla s burden- shif tingframewo rk

remainsonly 3 one method by

which the plaintiff c an provediscrimination by circumstantial evidence . McDonne ll-Doug las is not the exclusi ve mea ns of proof. SeeL ee v. Russell County Bd. of Educ., 684 F .2d 769, 773 (11th Cir. 1982). 9 pos i t i on tha tthe e m pl oy e rw a s s e e ki ng t o f i l l ; ( i i i ) de s pi t e qua l i f

i c a t i ons , he ors he w a s r e j e c t e d; a nd ( i v) the pos i t i on w a s f i l l e d w i th a n i ndi vi dua l out s i de the p r o te c te d c la s s . M c D o n n e ll D o u g la s C o rp . v . G r e e n , 4 1 1 U .S . 7 9 2 , 8 0 2 ( 1 9 7 3 ) . 3 H ow ever , w here an em pl oyerdo es no tform al l y ann ou nce apo si t i on , bu tra ther us e s i nf orm a l a nd s ubj e c t i ve pr oc e dur e s t o i de nt i f yac a ndi da t e , apl a i nt i f f ne e d not s how unde rthe s e c ond pr ong tha the appl i e d f orthe pos i t i on – onl ytha tthe em pl oyerhad som e r ea son t o con si der hi m for the po st . Jones v. F i re st on e T i re & R ub ber C o. , 97 7 F . 2d 52 7, 53 3 (11 th C i r. 19 92 ). I n itia lly , w e a g r e e w ith th e d is tr ic t c o u rt th a t V e s s e ls s u c c e s s f u lly e s tab lis h e d ap r im af

a c ie c a s e , a n d r e

je c t A I S S ’s a r g u m e n t th a t V e s s e ls f a ile d to e s t abl i s h the s e c ond a nd f ourth e l e m e nt s the r e of

. T he f ourth e l e m e ntof

the M cD on nel l -D ou gl as t es tre qu i re s onl y thata pl ai nt i ff show thatan i nd i vi du al ou t si de hi s prot ec t ed cl as s w as prom ot ed. W e f i nd A IS S ’ s s um m ary a ss ert i on that V es se l s has no tsa t i sf

i ed thi s f ou rth el em entent i re l y bas el es s. Iti s und i sput ed that V e s s e ls is aw h ite m a le . A I S S u ltim a te lyap p o in te d F ie ld s , w h o A I S S c o n c e d e s is a b lack fe m ale, to th e in terim p o siti o n . U n d erth es e c ircu m stan ce s, A IS S ’s u n s u b s ta n tia te d a s s e rtio n th a t V e s s e ls h a s n o t s a tis f ie d th e f o u rth e le m e n t o f

h isIn additi on to b e ingentire ly

su bje c tiv e , AI SS’ s a

rticulate d criteri a

for t heinterim 4 position are entire ly

ex post , as therewere no for mal selec tion criteria f

or the interim position at the time that position was filled. 10 p r im af a c ie c a s e is m e r itle s s . A I S S a ls o a r g u e s th a t V e s s e ls ’ p r im af a c ie c a s e is la c k in g b e c au s e V e s s e ls fa i l ed t o sho w thathe w as qu al i fi ed. S peci fi ca l l y, A IS S cont ends thatV es se l s w as u n q u a lif ie d b e c au s e h e la c k e d th e le a d e r s h ip s ty le w h ic h A I S S p r e f e rr e d . W e a gr e e w i th the di s tr i c tc ourttha tV e s s e l s de m ons tr a t e d tha the w a s qua l i f i e d f orthe in te r im p o s itio n . T h o u g h A I S S h a d n o f o rm a l lis t o f

q u a lif ic a tio n s f o rth e in te r im pos i t i on, i t s r e gul a t i ons de e m e d i t“ de s i r abl e ” tha tthe i nt e r i m appoi nt e e hol d the qu al i fi ca t i on s nec es saryfor the po si t i on on a perm anentbasi s. Iti s und i sput ed that V e s s e l s ha d the r e qui s i t e e duc a t i on, y e a r s of e xpe r i e nc e , a nd s t a t e c e rt i f i c a t i on l evel s thatA IS S spec i fi ed for e ven the perm anentpo si t i on . W hi l e A IS S ar gu es tha the w a s unqua l i f

i e d be c aus e he l a c ke d the l e a de r s hi p s ty l e the ypr e f e rr e d a nd c o u ld n o t p r o v id e as e a m le s s tr a n s itio n , s u c h s ub je c tiv e c r ite r iah a v e n o p la c e in 4 th e p la in tif

f’s in itia l p r im af

a c ie c a s e . R ather, t o d em on stra t e thathe w as qu al i fi ed for the po si t i on , a T i t l e V II pl a i nt i f f ne e d onl y s how tha the ors he s a t i s f i e d a n e m pl oy e r ’ s obj e c t i ve qua l i f i c a t i ons . T he e m pl oy e rm a ythe n i ntr oduc e i t s s ubj e c t i ve e va l ua t i ons of the pl ai nt i ff atthe l at erst ages of the M cD on nel l D ou gl as fr am ew ork. A contraryrul e,11

un der w hi ch an em pl oyer ’ s s ubj ec t i ve eval uat i on coul d d ef ea tthe pl ai nt i ff’ s i ni t i al pri m a f ac i e c as e, cann otbe square d w i th the structure and pu rpose of the M c D o n n e l l D o u g l a s f

r a me w o rk . Sp e c i f

i c a l l y , w e h a v e ma d e c l e a rth a tth e p r i ma faci e case i s d esi g n ed t o i n cl u d e o n l y ev i d en ce th ati s ob j ec t i ve l y v er i f i ab le a nd e i th e re a s i l y o b t a i n ab l e o rw i th i n th e p l a i n t i f f’ s p o s s e s s i o n . W a l k e rv . M o rth a m, 158 F . 3d 1177, 1192- 93 ( 11th C i r . 1998) . T hi s pe rm i t s the pl a i nt i f f w ho l a c ks di re ctevi dence of i nv i di ou s i nt entt o force the em pl oyert o art i cul at e i t s m ot i ves f o rth e c h a lle n g e d e m p lo y m e n t a c tio n s o th a t th e p la in tif f h a s a n o p p o rtu n ityto s h o w in te n tio n a l d is c r im in a tio n b yc ir c u m s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . I d . I f w e w e r e to h o ld a n e m pl oy e r ’ s s ubj e c t i ve e va l ua t i ons s uf f i c i e ntt o de f

e a tthe pr i m af

a c i e c a s e , the c o u rt’s in q u iry w o u ld e n d , a n d p la in tif f w o u ld b e g iv e n n o o p p o rtu n ityto dem on stra t e thatthe subj ec t i ve eval uat i on w as pret extual . S uch a bl i nd ac ce pt ance o f s u b je c tiv e e v a lu a tio n s is a t o d d s w ith th e in te n t th a t u n d e r lie s th e M c D o n n e llD ou gl as fr am ew ork. T hi s i s part i cul ar l y i m po rt antbecause w e have emp hasi ze d th a t s u b je c tiv e c r ite r iac a n b e ar e a d yv e h ic le f o rr a c e - b a s e d d e c is io n s . S e e , e .g ., Mi l e s v . M. N. C . C o rp . , 7 5 0 F . 2 d 8 6 7 , 8 7 1 ( 1 1 th C i r . 1 9 8 5 ) . F u rth e rm o r e , we cann otre conci l e arul e thatw ou l d ess ent i al l y r equi re a pl ai nt i ff t o p rove pret extas p a rto f h i s p r i maf

a c i e c a s e a tth e s u mma ryj u d g me n ts t a g e w i th th e Su p r e me C ourt ’ s i ns truc t i on tha tthe pl a i nt i f f’ s pr i m af

a c i e bur de n i s notone r ous . P a tt e r s on12

v . M c L e a n C r e d it U n io n , 4 9 1 U .S . 1 6 4 , 1 8 6 ( 1 9 8 9 ) ; s e e a ls o I s e n b e r g h v . K n ig h tR i dde rN e w s pape rS a l e s , 97 F . 3d 436, 439 ( 11th C i r . 1996) ( c ha r a c t e r i z i ng pl ai nt i ff’ s pri m a f

ac i e burden as “ l i gh t ”) . T hu s, subj ec t i ve eval uat i on s pl ayno part i n the pl a i nt i f

f’ s pr i m af

a c i e c a s e . R a the r , the ya r e pr ope r l ya rt i c ul a t e d a s pa rtof the e m pl oy e r ’ s bur de n t o pr oduc e al e gi t i m a t e r a c e - ne utr a l ba s i s f ori t s de c i s i on, the n s ubs e que nt l y e va l ua t e d a s pa rtof the c ourt ’ s pr e t e xti nqui ry . A c c or d F ow l e v. C & C C ol a , 868 F . 2d 59, 65 ( 3d C i r . 1989) ; M e di nav. R a m s e yS t e e l C o. , 238 F . 3d 674, 681 ( 5th C i r . 2001) ; W e xl e rv. W hi t e ’ s F i ne F urni tur e , 317 F . 3d 564, 575 ( 6th C i r . 2003) ( e n banc ) ; J a y a s i nghe v. B e thl e he m S t e e l C orp. , 760 F . 2d 132, 13 5 (7th C i r. 19 85 ); L eG rand v. T r. of U ni v. of A rk. , 82 1 F . 2d 47 8, 48 1 (8th C i r. 19 87 ); L ynn v . R egent s of U ni v. of C al . , 65 6 F . 2d 13 37 , 13 44 -45 (9th C i r. 19 81 ); B u rru s v . U n ite d T e l. C o ., 6 8 3 F .2 d 3 3 9 , 3 4 2 ( 1 0 th C ir . 1 9 8 2 ) ; S te w a rt v . A s h c r o f t, 21 1 F . S up p. 2d 16 6, 17 0-71 (D . D . C . 20 02 ), af f’ d 3 52 F . 3d 42 2 (D . C . C i r. 20 03 ); L aF l eur v. W al l ac e S t at e C m ty. C ol l ege, 95 5 F . S up p. 14 06 , 14 18 (M . D . A l a. 1 9 9 6 ) . W e a g r e e w ith th e d is tr ic t c o u rt th a t V e s s e ls h a s e s tab lis h e d ap r im af a c ie c a s e a s to b o th p o s itio n s , a n d w e p r o c e e d to th e s e c o n d s te p in th e M c D o n n e llD ougl a s f

r a m e w ork. AI S S ’ S B UR DE N O F P R OD UC T I ON13

A n e m p lo y e r ’s b u r d e n to a rtic u la te an o n - d is c r im in a to ryr e a s o n f o rf a ilin g to pr om ot e a n e m pl oy e e i s abur de n of pr oduc t i on, notof

pe r s ua s i on. B ur di ne , 450 U .S . at 2 5 4 . A s th is b u rd en in v o lv es n o cr ed ib il ity d eter m in atio n , S t. M ary’s H on or C ent er , 50 9 U . S . at50 9, i thas bee n charac t er i ze d as “ exce edi ng l y l i gh t . ” P erry m an v. John son P rod. C o. , 69 8 F . 2d 11 38 , 11 41 (11th C i r. 19 83 ). S o l on g as th e e m p lo y e ra rtic u la te s “ac le a ra n d r e a s o n ab lys p e c if ic ” n o n - d is c r im in a to ryb a s is f ori t s a c t i ons , i tha s di s c ha r ge d i t s bur de n of pr oduc t i on. B ur di ne , 450 a t254- 55. V e s s e l s a s s e rt s tha tA I S S ha s notm e ti t s bur de n of pr oduc i ng anondi s c r i m i na t ory j us t i f

i c a t i on f ori t s e m pl oy m e nta c t i ons be c aus e : ( i ) s om e of the de c i s i on m a ke r s , pa rt i c ul a r l y thos e a tthe uppe rl e ve l s , ha ve no i nde pe nde nt reco l l ect i o n o f th e b asi s o n w h i ch th ey accep t ed th ei r su b o rd i n at es’ reco m m en d at i o n s; an d (i i ) so m e o f th e m em b ers o f th e i n t erv i ew p an el l i k ew i se h a v e n o in d e p e n d e n t r e c o lle c tio n o f th e irr e a s o n s f

o rr a tin g J o n e s ab o v e V e s s e ls . W e r ej ec tthese ar gu m ent s bec ause the re cord dem on stra t es thatA IS S has a rtic u la te d s u f

f ic ie n t r a c e - n e u tr a l ju s tif ic a tio n s f o rits a c tio n s . F o rth e in te r im po si t i on , B ri nson art i cul at ed nu m er ou s non -di sc ri m i nat ory r ea sons for her pr e f e r e nc e f orF i e l ds ove rV e s s e l s , pa rt i c ul ar l yhe rde s i r e f oras e a m l e s s tr a ns i t i on a nd he rappr a i s a l of

V e s s e l s ’ l e a de r s hi p qua l i t i e s . B r i ns on’ s s upe rvi s orga ve r e a s ons ba s e d on s i m i l a rgr ounds . F orthe pe rm a ne ntpos i t i on, m e m be r s of the14

i nt ervi ew panel l i kew i se art i cul at ed no n-di sc ri m i nat ory r ea sons for thei r pre fe re nce for J on es , i ncl ud i ng V es se l s’ negat i ve focus on the departm ent ’ s probl em s, as oppos e d t o s tr a t e gi e s f

orc ha nge . W hi l e s om e of the uppe rl e ve l s upe rvi s or s w ho appr ove d the s e pe r s onne l a c t i ons do notnow ha ve an i nde pe nde ntr e c ol l e c t i on of th e e x a c t b a s is f

o rth e irap p r o v a l, th is d o e s n o t n e g a te th e f a c t th a t A I

SS – thr ough i t s l ow e r - r a nki ng e m pl oy e e s w ho w e r e pr i m a r i l yr e s pons i bl e f orm a ki ng the deci si on s – has art i cul at ed a s uffi ci entra ce -neutra l j ust i fi ca t i on . A s the di stri ct c ourtnot e d, thi s i s notac a s e w he r e a n uppe r - l e ve l m a na ge rove rrul e d a subo rdi nat e m anager’ s r ec om m endat i on or deci si on w i tho utexpl anat i on . R ather, B r i ns on, F os t e r , S ul l i va n, a nd the i nt e rvi e w pa ne l i s t s a l l a rt i c ul a t e d nondi s c r i m i na t ory r e a s ons f orthe i rde c i s i ons nott o pr om ot e V e s s e l s , a nd no one i n the m a n a g e m e n t h ie r a r c h y e x e r c is e d th e irau th o r ityto o v e rru le th a t d e c is io n . W h ile V es se l s r el i es on ca se s s uch as J on es v. G erw ens, 87 4 F . 2d 15 34 , 15 40 (11th C i r. 1 9 8 9 ) a n d S c h o e n f

e l d v . B ab b i tt , 1 6 8 F . 3 d 1 2 5 7 , 1 2 6 8 ( 1 1 th C i r . 1 9 8 9 ) , wh e r e we h a v e h e ld th a t th e m o tiv a tio n s o f m u ltip le m a n a g e r s a r e r e le v a n t to o u rd is p a r a te tre atm enti nq ui ry , nei ther of these ca se s are re l evantt o w hether ara ce -neutra l j us t i f i c a t i on ha s be e n art i culat ed . W e r e qui r e thi s a rt i c ul a t i on m e r e l yt o a l l ow d e f e n d a n ts to “m e e t th e p r im af a c ie c a s e a n d to f

r a m e th e f

a c tu a l in q u iryw ith s u f f ic ie n t c la r itys o th a t th e p la in tif f w ill h a v e af

u ll a n d f a irab ilityto d e m o n s tr a te15

pr e t e xt . ” B ur di ne , 450 U . S . a t255- 56. S i m i l a r l y , tw o of

the i nt e rvi e w pa ne l m e m be r s ’ i nabi l i tyt o r e c a l l the s pe c i f i c ba s i s on w hi c h the y s c or e d J one s hi ghe rtha n V e s s e l s f orthe pe rm a ne nt pos i t i on i s una va i l i ng t o V e s s e l s . B oth of the pane l i s t s w ho c a nnotnow r e c a l l the basi s f or thei r pre fe re nce ( B akerand O rdu-R i el y) t oo k n ot es on thei r i nt ervi ew e va l ua t i on f

orm s , m a ki ng c l e a rtha tthe i rpr e f e r e nc e f orJ one s s t e m m e d f

r om the o v e r lyn e g a tiv e ap p r o a c h w h ic h V e s s e ls to o kd u r in g th e in te rv ie w . W e a g r e e w ith the di stri ctcourtthattho se no t es , al on g w i th the t es t i m on y of the other panel i st s a s t o thei r non -di sc ri m i nat ory r ea sons for pre fe rr i ng Jones, prov i de the re qu i si t e c l ear and reas on abl y s peci fi c bas es for the A IS S panel ’ s s ubj ec t i ve prefe re nce. S ee C hapm an v. A 1 T ranspo rt , 22 9 F . 3d 10 12 , 10 34 -35 (11 th C i r. 20 00 ) ( en banc) ( e m pl oy e r ’ s non- di s c r i m i na t ory j us t i f i c a t i on c a n be ba s e d on s ubj e c t i ve e v a lu a tio n s , s o lo n g a s th e y a r e c le a ra n d r e a s o n ab lys p e c if ic ) . V e s s e ls a r g u m e n ts thus f a i l t o pe r s ua de us tha tA I S S ha s notdi s c ha r ge d i t s bur de n of pr oduc t i on, a nd w e p ro ceed t o th e p ret ex tan al ysi s. E VI DE NC E OF P R E T E XT O nc e the e m pl oy e rm e e t s i t s bur de n t o pr oduc e anon- di s c r i m i na t oryr e a s on f o ri t s a c t i o n s , th e p r e s u mp t i o n o f d i s c r i mi n a t i o n i s e l i mi n a t e d . Re e v e s , 5 3 0 U . S. a t 1 4 3 . T o s u rv iv e s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t, th e e m p lo y e e m u s t c o m e f o rw a r d w ith16

e v id e n c e s u f

f ic ie n t to p e rm it ar e a s o n ab le f a c t f in d e rto c o n c lu d e th a t th e le g itim a te r e a s ons gi ve n by the e m pl oy e rw e r e noti t s true r e a s ons , butw e r e apr e t e xtf or d i scri m i n at i o n . Id . ; see al so , C h ap m an , 2 2 9 F . 3 d at1 0 2 4 . T h i s ev i d en ce m u st r e ve a l “ s uc h w e a kne s s e s , i m pl aus i bi l i t i e s , i nc ons i s t e nc i e s , i nc ohe r e nc i e s or c o n tr a d ic tio n s in th e e m p lo y e r ’s p r o f f e r e d le g itim a te r e a s o n s f o rits a c tio n s th a t a re as on abl e f

ac t fi nd ercoul d fi nd them un w orthy of cr edence. ” C oo per v. S ou thern C o ., 3 9 0 F . 3 d 6 9 5 , 7 2 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . A s t o the i nt e r i m pos i t i on, w e f i nd tha tV e s s e l s ’ e vi de nc e c r e a t e s age nui ne is s u e o f m a te r ia l f

a c t a s to w h e th e rA I S S ’s a rtic u la te d r e a s o n s w e r e p r e te x tu a l. V e s s e ls ’ e v id e n c e o f

p r e te x t in c lu d e s s ta te m e n ts h e c la im s th a t A I S S o f f ic ia ls m ade r egar di ng the desi rabi l i ty of havi ng bl ac k em pl oyee s i n a sc ho ol sy st em s e rvi ng apr e dom i na nt l y bl a c k popul a t i on. V e s s e l s a l s o r e l i e s on as t a t e m e nthe al l eg es B ri n so n m ad e reg ard i n g th e su p eri o ri ty o f b l acksch o o l p sych o l o g i st s’ perf orm ance i n servi ng bl ac k schoo l chi l dren. E ven w here such evi dence of ra ce bi as prov es i nsuffi ci entt o p rove an em pl oyee ’ s c as e throu gh di re ctevi dence, i tcan be re l evanti n the ci rc um st ant i al fr am ew ork t o sho w thatthe em pl oyer ’ s proff er ed re as on s w er e pre t extual . R oss v. R ho des F urni ture, 14 6 F . 3d 12 86 , 12 91 (11th C i r. 19 98 ). I n a ddi t i on, V e s s e l s r a i s e s ge nui ne i s s ue s of m a t e r i a l f

a c ta s t o s i nc e r i tyof17

th e b u lko f

A I S S ’s p r o f

f e r e d r a c e - n e u tr a l r e a s o n s f o rth e d e c is io n . F ir s t, V e s s e ls d irec tl y d isp u tes w h eth erF ield s h ad ex p er ien ce “fil li n g in ” f o r B rin so n ’s p r e d e c e s s o rw h ic h V e s s e ls la c k e d . T a k in g th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o r ab le t o V e s s e l s , B r i ns on kne w tha tne i the rF i e l ds norV e s s e l s f orm a l l y“ f

i l l e d i n” but rath er p erfo rm ed o n e t asko r an o th er o n an ad h o c b asi s w h en n ecessary. V essel s’ ev i d en ce th u s d i rect l y d i sp u t es B ri n so n ’ s assert ed reaso n s. S e c ond, V e s s e l s di s put e s w he the rthe i nc i de nt s of unpr of e s s i ona l i s m upon w h ic h B r in s o n c la im e d to r e lya c tu a llyo c c u rr e d . A d m itte d ly , th is w o u ld f a il to de m ons tr a t e pr e t e xti f

V e s s e l s onl ydi s put e d tha tthe i nc i de nt s oc c urr e d, w i thout c a l l i ng i nt o que s t i on B r i ns on’ s s i nc e r e be l i e f tha tthe yoc c urr e d. S e e E l r od v. S e a r s , R o e b u c k& C o ., 9 3 9 F .2 d 1 4 6 6 , 1 4 7 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ) ( e m p lo y e e f a ile d to show pret extw here he pres ent ed evi dence s ug gest i ng thatal l egat i on s w er e untrue, butf a i l e d t o pr e s e nte vi de nc e s ugge s t i ng tha te m pl oy e r ’ s be l i e f i n thos e a l l e ga t i ons w a s u n w o rth y o f

c r e d e n c e ) . H o w e v e r , B r in s o n c la im s th a t s h e h a d m u ltip le confere nces abou tthe i nci dent s w i th V es se l s. V es se l s di re ct l y deni es thatany s uch c onf e r e nc e s , orthe i nc i de nt s w hi c h pr e c i pi t a t e d the m , e ve n oc c urr e d. B r i ns on d o e s n o t c la im to h a v e r e lie d o n in f o rm a tio n w h ic h m a yo rm a yn o t b e tru e . Inst ea d, because the confere nces , and the di sc ussi on s w hi ch w ou l d h ave occurr ed the r e i n w oul d be w i thi n B r i ns on’ s pe r s ona l know l e dge , V e s s e l s r a i s e s i s s ue s of18

f a c t a s to w h e th e rth is a s s e rte d r e a s o n w a s p r e te x tu a l. T h ir d , V e s s e ls p o in ts o u t th a t A I S S v io la te d its o w n p e r s o n n e l p r o c e d u r e s in the se l ec t i on and app oi ntm entof F i el ds. S peci fi ca l l y, A IS S re gu l at i on s perm i tt ed a n i nt e r i m appoi ntm e ntf oronl y s i xtyda y s . H ow e ve r , F i e l ds r e m a i ne d i n the pos i t i on f

orm or e than tw o y e a r s . T a ke n i n the l i ghtm os tf a vor abl e t o V e s s e l s , the f in d e ro f f a c t c o u ld in f

e rth a t th is e x te n d e d ap p o in tm e n t e n ab le d F ie ld s to o b ta in the ne c e s s a ry c e rt i f

i c a t i ons t o qua l i f

yf orthe pe rm a ne ntpos i t i on. S e e C a rt e rv. T hree S pri ng s R es i dent i al T re atm ent , 13 2 F . 3d 63 5, 64 4 (11 th C i r. 19 98 ) ( evi dence th a t e s tab lis h e d ru le s w e r e b e n t o rb r o k e n to g iv e c a n d id a te a n a d v an ta g e is pr oba t i ve of

pr e t e xt ) . F urthe rm or e , A I S S r e gul a t i ons de e m i t“ de s i r abl e ” tha tthe i nt e r i m appoi nt e e hol d the qua l i f i c a t i ons r e qui r e d f

orape rm a ne ntappoi nt e e t o the po si t i on . Iti s und i sput ed thatV es se l s hel d the st at e l ea ders hi p cert i fi ca t i on w hi ch w a s r e qui r e d of

ape rm a ne ntappoi nt e e , w hi l e F i e l ds di d not . T he c r i t e r i af orthe pe rm a ne ntpos i t i on a l s o s t a t e d tha tadoc t or a l de gr e e w a s de s i r abl e . V e s s e l s he l d a doc t or a l de gr e e , w hi l e F i e l ds di d not . T hough notde t e rm i na t i ve , A I S S ’ s c hoi c e of F i e l ds ove rV e s s e l s w he n A I S S ’ s ow n r e gul a t i ons appe a rt o f a vors om e one of V e s s e l s ’ qua l i f

i c a t i ons c ontr i but e s t o V e s s e l s ’ s how i ng of pr e t e xt . S e e B a s s v. B d. of C ounty C om m ’ r s . , 256 F . 3d 1095, 1108 ( 11th C i r . 2001) ( “ [ T ] he f a c ttha t[ the em p l o yer] p ro m o t ed . . . an em p l o yee w h o w as u n q u al i fi ed b y [th e em p l o yer’ s]19

ow n c r i t e r i aove r[ a n e m pl oy e e w ho w a s s o qua l i f i e d] s upport s a n i nf

e r e nc e of di sc ri m i nat i on . ”) . F urtherm ore, i n add i t i on t o h ol di ng l ea ders hi p cert i fi ca t i on and a t erm i nal de gr e e i n the f

i e l d, V e s s e l s w a s apubl i s he d authora nd a s A I S S c onc e de s , ha d a g r e a te ru n d e r s tan d in g o f p s y c h o lo g ic a l th e o rya n d m e th o d o lo g yth a n F ie ld s . A dm i tt e dl y , ourpr e c e de ntm a ke s c l e a rtha tw he r e a n e m pl oy e e s e e ks t o pr ove p ret ex tth ro u g h q u al i fi cat i o n s al o n e, th e d i fferen ce i n q u al i fi cat i o n s m u stb e so g la r in g th a t n o r e a s o n ab le im p a rtia l p e r s o n c o u ld h a v e c h o s e n th e c a n d id a te s e l e c t e d f

orthe pr om ot i on i n que s t i on ove rthe pl a i nt i f f . A l e xa nde rv. F ul t on C ounty , 207 F . 3d 1303, 1340 ( 11th C i r . 2000) . H ow e ve r , w he r e the qua l i f i c a t i ons d i sp ari ty i s n o tth e so l e b asi s fo r arg u i n g p ret ex t , th e d i sp ari ty n eed n o tb e so dr a m a t i c t o s upporta n i nf e r e nc e of pr e t e xt . S e e B a s s , 256 F . 3d a t1107 ( “ H i r i ng a le s s q u a lif

ie d p e r s o n c a n s u p p o rt a n in f e r e n c e o f d is c r im in a to rym o tiv a tio n .” ) . T a ke n t oge the ra nd vi e w e d i n the l i ghtm os tf a vor abl e t o V e s s e l s , the e vi de nc e of

r a c i a l l y t i nge d s t a t e m e nt s byA I S S de c i s i on- m a ke r s , the r e l a t i ve s upe r i or i ty of

V e s s e l s ’ qua l i f

i c a t i ons , A I S S ’ s di s r e ga r d of i t s ow n e m pl oy m e nt re gu l at i on s, and V es se l s’ re bu tt al of m any of A IS S ’ s proff er ed j ust i fi ca t i on s r ai se a ge nui ne i s s ue of

m a t e r i a l f

a c ta s t o w he the rA I S S ’ s a rt i c ul a t e d r e a s ons f orr e j e c t i ng V e s s e l s f orthe i nt e r i m pos i t i on w e r e pr e t e xtua l . S um m a ryj udgm e ntf orA I S S onBe causewe remand the c ase f or fur ther proc eeding s, we ne ed not address the 5 mag istrate’s alternative holding s (not reached by the district court) a s to AI SS’s li ability under § 1981 and § 1983. 20 V es se l s’ i nt er i m po si t i on cl ai m w as thu s i napp ropri at e. B y c on tra st , V es se l s’ ar gu m ent s thatthe i nt ervi ew panel i st s’ proffe re d r e a s ons f orpr e f e rr i ng J one s f

orthe pe rm a ne ntpos i t i on f a l l s hortof

c r e a t i ng a ge nui ne i s s ue a s t o pr e t e xt . V e s s e l s a r gue s tha tS ul l i va n de l i be r a t e l ys ke w e d the i nt e rvi e w pa ne l i n f

a vorof bl a c k a nd f

e m a l e e m pl oy e e s , a nd f a i l e d t o gi ve the p an el i st s ex p l i ci ti n stru ct i o n s, p erm i tt i n g th ei r raci al p referen ces t o m an i fest them se l ves i n the subj ec t i ve rank i ng s. H ow ever , on e of the panel m em bers w as c h o s e n b y lo tte ry . F u rth e rm o r e , f o u ro f th e s ix p a n e lis ts , in c lu d in g th e w h ite m a le panel i st , rank ed Jones hi gh es t , w hi l e onl y tw o o f the panel i st s, i ncl ud i ng a bl ac k pa ne l i s t , r a nke d V e s s e l s hi ghe s t . T he pa ne l i s t s w ho di s f a vor e d V e s s e l s , w i thout c ons ul t i ng one a nothe r , m a de s i m i l a rc om m e nt s a s t o V e s s e l s ’ e xc e s s i ve f oc us on p r o b le m s w ith o u t a d d r e s s in g s o lu tio n s . V e s s e ls f o c u s o n th e p a n e lis ts ’ o v e r a ll raci al co m p o si t i o n fai l s t o rai se g en u i n e factu al i ssu es as t o w h eth er th e p an el i st s’ c r i t i que of

hi s e xc e s s i ve f

oc us on pr obl e m s w a s apr e t e xtf orr a c i a l pr e f

e r e nc e . F or th e p e rm a n e n t p o s itio n , w e th u s a g r e e w ith th e d is tr ic t c o u rt th a t V e s s e ls f a ile d to c r e a t e age nui ne i s s ue a s t o pr e t e xt , a nd tha ts um m a ryj udgm e ntf orA I S S on V es se l s’ cl ai m s ari si ng fr om the perm anentpo si t i on appo i ntm entw as approp ri at e. 5 A F F IR M E D i n p art, R E V E R S E D i n p art .