[DO N OT PUBLISH]

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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 12 55 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 4 :1 0- cv -0 01 18 -HLM FREDDIE MITCHELL, JOHNETTA MCSEARS, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff s- App el la nt s, RICHAR D BROOKS, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff , ve rs us CITY OF LAFAYETTE , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ernDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J anua ry 28 , 20 13 ) Case: 12-12556 Date Filed: 01/28/2013 Page: 1 of 10Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, W ILSON an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es .

PER CURI AM: App el la nt s Fr ed di e Mi tc he ll an d J oh ne tt a Mc Sear s ap pe al th e d is tri ct co urt’s g ran t o f de fen da ntCit y of LaF ay et te ’s (“ Ci ty”) m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t i n t he ir e m

pl oym en t d is cri m in at io n s ui t u nd er the Age Di sc riminat io n i n Em pl oym en t Actof 1 96 7 (“ ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 6 23 (a)( 1) . On ap pe al , Mit ch el l an d M cSea rs arg ue th atpl ai nt iff s m ay est ab li sh a pr ima fa ci e cas e o f ag e di sc riminat io n i n areduc ti on -in -fo rce (“ RIF” ) co nt ex t b y sh owi ng th at subs ta nt ia ll y

y ou ng er em

pl oyees e it he r rep la cedth em or we re re ta in edinth e sa m e po si ti on . They arg ue th at , eve n i f th atsh owi ng was i ns uf fic ie nt , th ey

est ab li sh eda pr ima fa ci e cas e b y

sh owi ng th atth ey

were m or e qua li fie d tha n young er em pl oyees wh o wer e ret ai ne d i n t he same po si ti on s the y ha d o ccupi ed , th at st at is ti cal ev id en ce i nd ic at es th atth e p ro te ct edcla ss was d is pr op orti on at el y ha rm edinth e RIF , andth atth e p ers on who de ci de d wh ic h p os it io ns to term in at e, Jo hn ni e Arn ol d, h arb or edag ei stst ereo types . Mi tc he ll an d M cSea rs furth er arg ue th atCit y ’s pro ffer edleg it im at e, no nd is cri m in at ory

reas on for

th ei r te rm in at io ns —el im in at in g p os it io ns to av oi d un ne ces sary

ex pe nd itur es —was in su ffi ci en t, b ecau se inanRIF ca se anem pl oyer m us t ex pl ai n wh y

th e sp eci fic pl ai nt iff

was c ho se n fo r te rm in at io n. Th ey arg ue 2 Case: 12-12556 Date Filed: 01/28/2013 Page: 2 of 10th ata reas on ab le jury co ul d fi ndth atArno lddi d n otactua ll y be li ev e h is ass ert io n th atMi tc he ll an d M cSea rs work edles s tha n o ne -qua rte r of th e ti m e fo r whi chth ey were p ai d, b as edon th e co nf li ct s wi th in Arno ld ’s tes ti m on y an d c on tra di ct ory te st im on y by the ir d ep art m en t s up erv is or s. Th ey furth er as se rt t ha t the ir s ta ti st ic al ev id en ce an d t he ir e vi de nc e th atArno ldharb or edag ei stst ereo types als o s ho w th at Arn ol d’s s ta te d re as on s wer e a p ret ex t fo r ag e d is cri m in at io n. I. W e rev ie w de no vo a di stric t co urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t an d m

us t vi ew al l o f th e ev id en ce an d m ak e rea so nabl e in fere nc es fro m th e ev id en ce i n fav orof t he no n- m ov in g p arty . Ch ap man v. AI Tra ns p. , 22 9 F .3d10 12 , 10 23 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 0) ( en ba nc ). Summ ary jud gm en t i s ap pr op ria te if the m ov an t s ho ws th atno ge nu in e is su e o f m at eri al factex is ts , andth atitis en ti tl edto jud gm en t as a m at te r of law. Fed .R.Ci v.P . 56 (a). Th e m ov in g p arty be ars th e b ur de n o f de m on st rat in g t ha t n o g enui ne is su e o f m at eri al factex is ts , se e Bro ok s v. C nt y. Co mm’n , 44 6 F .3d11 60 , 11 62 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ), al th ou gh th e n on -m ov in g p arty m us t m ak e a s uf

fic ie ntsh owi ng on each ess en ti al ele m en t o f hi s ca se for whi chhe ha s the bu rd enof p ro of

, se e Cel ot ex Co rp . v. Catre tt , 47 7 U.S. 3 17 , 32 2- 23 , 10 6 S . Ct . 25 48 , 25 52 , 91 L. Ed. 2d26 5 (1 98 6) . “ A ‘ m ere s ci nt il la ’ of ev id en ce supp orti ng th e o pp os in g p arty ’s po si ti on wil l n otsu ffi ce.” Bro ok s , 44 6 F .3dat 3 Case: 12-12556 Date Filed: 01/28/2013 Page: 3 of 1011 62 (in te rn al qu ot at io ns m ark s o m it te d) . II. The ADEA pro hi bi ts em

pl oyers fr om

di sc ha rg in g a n e m

pl oyee who is at le as t 4 0 years o f ag e b ecau se of tha t em pl oyee’s ag e. 29 U.S.C. §§ 62 3( a)(1 ), 63 1( a). Abs en t d ire ctev id en ce o f di sc riminat io n, we h av e ap pl ie d t he bu rd en -s hi fti ng fram ewo rkest ab li sh edin McDo nn el l Do ug la s C or p. v. Gr een , 41 1 U.S. 79 2, 8 02 -0 4, 9 3 S . Ct. 1 81 7, 1 82 4- 25 , 36 L. Ed. 2d66 8 (1 97 3) , when ev al ua ti ng di sc riminat io n c la im s u nd er the ADEA. Se e Ch ap man , 22 9 F .3dat 10 24 . The Supr em e Co urt i n Gro ss v. FBL Fin . Ser vs ., Inc . , hel d t ha t, t o e st ab li sh a d is pa rat e-treatm en t cl ai m un de r th e ADEA, a “pl ai nt iff m us t p ro ve by a pr ep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce . . . th atag e was th e ‘bu t-f or ’ cau se of t he ch al le ng edem

pl oyer de ci si on .” 55 7 U.S. 1 67 , 17 7- 78 , 12 9 S . Ct. 2 34 3, 2 35 1, 1 74 L. Ed. 2d11 9 (2 00 9) ; see al so Mor a v . Jac ks on Mem’l Fo un d., In c. , 59 7 F .3d 12 01 , 12 04 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (n ot in g, i n o ur on ly pub li sh edop in io n i nt erp ret in g Gro ss , th at“ anADEA pla in ti ff m us t es tabl is h ‘bu t fo r’ caus al it y ” an d t ha t “ th e em pl oyer eit he r act ed‘ be cau se of’ th e p la in ti ff’s ag e o r itdi d n ot ”). Eve n s o, the Supr em e Co urt ex pr es sl y res erv edth e que st io n o f whe th er the ev id en ti ary fram ewo rk

of McDo nn el l Do ug la s is ap pr op ria te inth e ADEA con te xt . Gro ss , 55 7 U.S. at17 5 n .2, 1 29 S. Ct. at23 49 n.2 . Sin ce the Supr em e Co urt d idno t 4 Case: 12-12556 Date Filed: 01/28/2013 Page: 4 of 10ex pl ic it ly ove rru le our pr eced en t i n app lying th e McDo nn el l Do ug la s te stto

ADEA case s i nv ol vi ng cir cu m st an ti al ev id en ce, we wi ll rev ie w Mit ch el l’s an d McS ears ’s cla im s u nd er b ot h McDo nn el l Do ug la s an dGro ss . Se e Gan da ra v. Ben ne tt , 52 8 F .3d82 3, 8 29 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th at“we are b ou ndby the ho ld in gs of e arl ie r pa ne ls un le ss an d u nt il th ey are cl earl y

ov erru le d en ba nc or b y th e Supr em e Co urt” ) (quo ti ng Sw an n v . S. Hea lth Pa rtne rs , Inc . , 38 8 F .3d83 4, 83 7 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 4) . App lying th e McDo nn el l Do ug la s fram ewo rk , a pl ai nt iff m ay est ab li sh a pr ima fa ci e cas e fo r anADEA vio la ti on by dem on st rat in g tha t: (1) he was a m em be r of a pr ot ect edcla ss ; (2 ) he was s ub jecte d t o a n a dv ers e em

pl oym en t act io n; (3) he was qua li fie d t o d o t he job ; an d (4 ) he was re pl acedby or ot he rwis e lo sta po si ti on to a y ou ng er i nd iv idua l. Ch ap man , 22 9 F .3dat 1 02 4. We hav e m od ifi edth e p la in ti ff’s pr ima fa ci e bu rd enwher e h e was term in at edas p artof a n RIF, s uc h t ha t the pl ai nt iff m us t m ak e a s ho win g t ha t: (1) he was i n apro te ct ed ag e g ro up ; (2 ) he was a dv ers el y affe ct edby an em

pl oym en t d eci si on ; (3 ) he was qu al ifi edforhi s cu rren t p os it io n o r to ass um e an ot he r po si ti on at t he ti m e o f di sc ha rg e; an d (4 ) th e ev id en ce co ul d l eada fact fin de r rea so nabl y to co nc lu de th at th e em pl oyer in te nd edto di sc riminat e o n t he ba si s o f ag e. Smi th v. J. Smi th La ni er &Co . , 35 2 F .3d13 42 , 13 44 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ); se e a ls o Ro wel l v. Bel lS ou th Co rp . , 5 Case: 12-12556 Date Filed: 01/28/2013 Page: 5 of 1043 3 F .3d79 4, 7 98 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). The v ari an t t es t al te rs th e fo urth pro ng of t he

McDo nn el l Do ug la s te st , th ata pe rs on ou ts id e th e p ro te ct edcla ss rep la cedth e pl ai nt iff , bec au se , inRIFs , em

pl oyers ra rel y

see k re pl acements forth e d is ch arg ed em pl oyee. Se e Ma ut er

v. HardyCo rp . , 82 5 F .2d15 54 , 15 57 (11 th Cir . 19 87 ). In o rd er t o s at is fy

th e la stpro ng , th e p la in ti ff m us t p ro du ce s om e ev id en ce th atth e em

pl oyer di d n ottre athi m

ne ut ral ly w it h re sp ectto hi s ag e, bu t, i ns te ad , di sc riminat edba se d upo n i t. Se e Row el l , 43 3 F .3dat 7 98 . The ev id en ce m us t l ead th e fac tfi nd er t o re as on ab ly con cl ud e ei th er tha t the em pl oyer co ns ci ou sl y

refu se d to co ns id er re tra in in g o r rel oc at in g t he pl ai nt iff du e to hi s p ro te ct ed -cl as s m em be rs hi p, o r th atth e em

pl oyer co ns id eredhi s p ro te ct ed -cl as s m em be rs hi p a s a ne ga ti ve fact orinth atco ns id erat io n. Id . Stat is ti cal pro of or o th er ev id en ce o f a pa tt ernof t erm in at in g o ld er wo rk ers m ay be us edto sat is fy

th e la stpro ng . Pac e v. S. Ry. S ys ., 70 1 F .2d13 83 , 13 88 (11 th Cir . 19 83 ). Howev er, t o b e acc ep te d, st at is ti cal cal cu la ti on s m

us t co m e fro m

a witne ss , no t a p arty ’s lawyer. W atki ns v. Sv erdr up Tech ., Inc ., 15 3 F .3d13 08 , 13 15 n.1 6 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 8) . Abs en t an y an al yti cal fou nd at io n, s ta ti st ic al ev id en ce i s “ vi rtu al ly m ean in gl es s,” a ndth us , can no t h av e an y

pro ba ti ve va lu e. W

il so n v . B/E Aero sp ac e, In c. , 37 6 F .3d10 79 , 10 89 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (quo ti ng Eva ns v. McClai n o f Ga ., Inc . , 13 1 F .3d95 7, 9 63 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 7) ). 6

Case: 12-12556 Date Filed: 01/28/2013 Page: 6 of 10Onc e a p la in ti ff es tabl is he s a pr ima fa ci e cas e o f di sc riminat io n, the

em pl oyer m ay

reb utth e res ul ti ng pre su m pt io n o f di sc riminat io n b y art ic ul at in g a t le as t o ne leg it im at e, no nd is cri m in at ory reas on for

it s ac ti on . W

atki ns , 15 3 F .3dat 13 14 . Elim in at in g apo si ti on to av oi d a n u nn eces sa ry ex pe nd itur e m ay

be a le gi ti m at e, no nd is cri m in at ory reas on foranem

pl oym en t d eci si on . See Tid wel l v. Ca rt er Pro ds ., 13 5 F .3d14 22 , 14 26 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ) (“ Cart er p ro ffer edit s R IF as a le gi ti m at e, no nd is cri m in at ory reas on forterm in at in g Ti dwe ll , eli m in at in g t he pr es um pt io n o f di sc riminat io n.” ). Onc e th e em

pl oyer art ic ul at es a le gi ti m at e, no nd is cri m in at ory reas on forit s act io n, the burd ensh ift s b ackto th e p la in ti ff t o p ro du ce ev id en ce tha t the em pl oyer’s pro ffer edreas onis a pr et ex t fo r di sc riminat io n. Se e W atki ns , 15 3 F .3d at13 14 . To d em on st rat e p ret ex t, the pl ai nt iff m us t s ho w bo th th atth e em pl oyer’s pr of fere d re as on is fal se , andth atdi sc riminat io n was th e rea l re as on . Se e Bro ok s , 44 6 F .3dat 1 16 3. Th e p la in ti ff m us t m eetth e em

pl oyer’s reas onhe adon an d reb utit , andm ay

no t s im pl y qu arre l wi th th e wis do m of t he reas on . Se e id. He m ay do th is eit he r di rect ly by est ab li sh in g t ha t a d is cri m in at ory reas on m or e li ke ly th anno t m ot iv at edth e em pl oyer, or i nd ire ct ly by

sh owi ng th atth e p ro ffer ed reas onis un worth y

of c red en ce. Se e W

atki ns , 15 3 F .3dat 1 31 4. Un de r th e la tt er ap pr oa ch , th e p la in ti ff m

us t d em on st rat e su chweakne ss es , im pl au si bi li ti es , 7 Case: 12-12556 Date Filed: 01/28/2013 Page: 7 of 10in co ns is te nc ie s, i nc oh eren ci es , or c on tra di ct io ns inth e p ro ffer edreas on th ata

reas on ab le fact fin de r co ul d c on cl ud e th atitis un worth y of c red it . Id.

“ W e are no t i n t he bu si ne ss of a dju dg in g wh ethe r em pl oym en t d eci si on s ar e prud en t o r fai r,” an d a re s ol el y co nc ern edwith “ whe th er unl awfu l d is cri m in at ory an im us m ot iv at e[d ] a ch al le ng edem pl oym en t d eci si on .” Damo n v . Flemi ng Su pe rma rk et s o f Fla., In c. , 19 6 F .3d13 54 , 13 61 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). “ [W] e d o n otsi t as a supe r-p ers on ne l d ep art m en t tha t re ex am in es anen ti ty’ s b us in es s d eci si on s.” Alp hi n v . Sea rs , Roeb uc k &Co . , 94 0 F .2d14 97 , 15 01 (11 th Cir . 19 91 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . “ The in qu iry int o p ret ex t ce nt ers up on th e em pl oyer’s be li efs , andno t the em

pl oyee’s ownpe rcep ti on s o f hi s p erfo rm an ce.” Hol if ie ld v. Ren o , 11 5 F .3d15 55 , 15 65 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ). I I I . W e co nc lu de fro m

th e rec or d t ha t M it ch el l an d M cSea rs fai le d t o e st ab li sh a pr ima fa ci e cas e o f ag e d is cri m in at io n. Fi rs t, the factth aty ou ng er em pl oyees were re ta in edinMi tc he ll ’s andMcSe ars ’s dep art m en ts do es no t s up po rt a n in fere nc e o f di sc riminat ory in te ntinli gh t o f th e fac t tha t the Cit y als o re ta in ed ot he r em pl oyees wh o wer e wel l o ve r th e ag e o f 40 inth os e d ep art m en ts , andm an y of th e em pl oyees re ta in edwere o ld er tha n M it ch el l an d M cSea rs . Se e S mith , 35 2 F.3 d a t 1 34 4. Th e st at is ti cal cal cu la ti on s p ro ffer edby Mit ch el l an d M cSea rs lac k 8 Case: 12-12556 Date Filed: 01/28/2013 Page: 8 of 10pr ob at iv e v al ue , as t he y were p ro ffer edby the ir a tt orne y an d the y ha ve no t n am ed anex pe rt t o e st ab li sh a pr op er an al yti cal fou nd at io n. Se e W il so n , 37 6 F .3dat 10 89 ; W atki ns , 15 3 F .3dat 1 31 5 n .16 . Alth ou ghMi tc he ll is co rrec t tha t h e co ul d es tabl is h a pr ima fa ci e cas e in th e tr ad it io na l m an ne r of sh owi ng th athe was rep la cedby a y ou ng er i nd iv idua l, h e is un ab le to m ak e th atsh owi ng , as t he pu rp os e o f th e RIF was t o re al lo cat e labo r res ou rces fol lo win g apo si ti on el im in at io n. Fu rth er, the ev id en ce tha t M it ch el l an d M cSea rs arg ue in di cat es th at th ey were b et te r qu al ifi edth any ou ng er em pl oyees wh o wer e ret ai ne d i n t he RIF do es no t n eces sa ril y

sh ow tha t the y

were, i n fa ct , m or e qua li fie d a t the ti m e o f th ei r te rm in at io ns . Thei r co nt en ti on th atArno ldha rb or edag ei stst ereo types is al so un av ai li ng , as h is co m m en ts reg ard in g M it ch el l’s ag il it y an d c om pu te r sk il ls were b as edon Arno ld ’s per so na l kno wled ge . Eve n i f Mi tc he ll an d M cSears ha d e st ab li sh eda pr ima fa ci e cas e o f ag e di sc riminat io n, the y

fai le d t o p res en t s uf

fic ie ntev id en ce t en di ng to sh ow tha t the Ci ty’ s p ro ffer edreas onforth ei r te rm in at io ns was apre te xtforag e d is cri m in at io n. Se e W atki ns , 15 3 F .3dat 1 31 4. Mi tc he ll an d M cSea rs fai le d t o m eethe adon an d reb utth e Ci ty’ s p ro ffer edreas on forterm in at in g t he m , nam el y , th atth e Ci ty’ s bu dg etsh ortfa ll ne ces si ta te d t erm in at in g s om e p os it io ns to reduc e co st s. See Bro ok s , 44 6 F .3dat 1 16 3. Th ey ha ve cit edno bi nd in g autho rit y insupp ort o f th ei r 9 Case: 12-12556 Date Filed: 01/28/2013 Page: 9 of 10arg um en t tha t the City was re qu ire d t o e xp la inwhy th ei r po si ti on s wer e el im in at ed in st eadof o th ers . Furt he r, th e ev id en ce i de nt ifi edby Mit ch el l an d M cSea rs di d no t i nd ic at e th atth e sp eci fic reas on s tha t Arn ol d g av e fo r th ei r te rm in at io ns were a pr et ex t fo r ag e d is cri min at io n. Th e fac t tha t the tes ti m on y fro m th ei r de pa rtment he ad s t en de d t o s ho w th atMi tc he ll an d M cSea rs were wo rk in g t he ir f ul l h ou rs was irr el ev an t, as Arno ldm ad e th e d eci si on to term in at e Mi tc he ll an d M cSea rs ba se d on hi s o wn o bs erv at io ns an d wi th ou t an y inpu t fr om

th e d ep art m en t h ead s. Fi na ll y , forth e rea so ns st at edab ov e, Mi tc he ll an d M cSea rs als o fa il edto sh ow tha t the y

wou ldno t h av e b eensel ect edforin cl us io n i n t he RIF b utforth ei r ag e. Se e Gro ss , 55 7 U.S. at17 7- 78 ; 1 29 S. Ct. at23 51 . Fo r al l the afo rem en ti on edreas on s, we af firm th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t i n favo r of th e ci ty. AFFIRMED.

10 Case: 12-12556 Date Filed: 01/28/2013 Page: 10 of 10