FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T FEB RUARY 28, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 10 80 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 8- cv -0 35 33 -J EC CAVANAUGH WEBB, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP ORATION, 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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Feb ru ary 28 , 20 12 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, CARNES andANDERSON, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Cav an au gh W eb b, an Afric anAm eri can , app eal s the di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o fsu m

m ary jud gm en t fo r In te rn at io na l Bu si ne ss Mac hi ne s C or po rat io n (“ IBM ”), as to hi s ra ce d is cri m in at io n c la im , rai se d p ur su an t t o Ti tl e VII, 4 2 U.S.C. § 20 00 e2( a)(1 ), an d 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 81 (a). W eb b a ll eg edth atsi m il arl y si tu at edwhi te 1 em pl oyees a t IB M h adrece iv edm or e supp ort, re so ur ces , andop po rtu ni ti es to adva nc e, an d t o s uc ceedon ce i n m an ag em en t tha n h e d idbe cau se of t he ir r ace. Sp eci fic al ly, W eb b a ss ert edth athe su ffer edth ree a dv ers e em pl oym en t ac ti on s be cau se of h is race : (1 ) IBM ’s sel ect io n o f Cl are P et ers on , a Cau cas ian fe m al e, ov er Webb , to fil l i n a s the “ act in g” Bu si ne ss Uni t Ex ecu ti ve (“ BUE”) fo r a p eri od of ap pr ox im at el y

two m on th s; (2) IBM’s s el ect io n o f Kev in O’ Co nn or , a Cau cas ian m al e, to pe rm an en tl y fil l the BUE po si ti on ; an d (3 ) IBM ’s sel ect io n o f W eb b o ve r Pet ers onfora res ou rce a ct io n t o re du ce s ta ff (“ th e res ou rce a ct io n” ). The di stric t co urt fo un d t ha t Webb fai le d t o e st ab li sh a pr ima fa ci e cas e o f raci al di sc riminat io n i n t ha t: (1) W eb b d idno t s uf fer an a dv ers e em

pl oym en t act io n wi th reg ardto IBM’s d eci si on to ap po in t Pe te rs onin st eadof h im as t he te m po rary “ act in g” BUE fora two -m on th pe rio d wh il e itfil le d t he va can t BUE Webb’s complaint also alleg ed sex discrimination in vi olation of Title VI I , and included 1 as a de fenda

nt Webb’s manag er, Joseph Rueda. Howe ver, the district court grante d I BM’ s initi al motion for summary

judgme nt as to Webb’s sex di scrimination claim bec ause he failed to administratively

exhaust the claim, and the c ourt dismissed Rueda as a de fenda nt beca use Webb failed to ser

ve him with proce ss. Be cause Webb fails to mention these issues on appeal, they are abandone d. Timson v. Sampson , 518 F.3d 870, 874 ( 11th Cir. 2008) (holding that issues not briefe d on appea l by

a pro se litigant ar e dee med aba ndoned). 2po si ti on ; (2 ) W eb b d idno t ap pl y forth e job with re ga rdto th e v acan t BUE po si ti on ; an d (3 ) W eb b fa il edto sh ow tha t h e was sel ect edforth e res ou rce be cau se of h is race . Mor eo ve r, th e d is tri ctco urt co nc lu de d t ha t, ev enass um in g th atW eb b e st ab li sh eda pr ima fa ci e cas e, he fai le d t o s ho w th atIBM’s l eg it im at e, no nd is cri m in at ory

reas on s fo r it s ac ti on s–th atW eb b fa il edto ap pl y forth e BUE po si ti onan d t ha t Pe te rs onwas b et te r qu al ifi ed –we re p ret ex t fo r rac ia l di sc riminat io n. Inhi s pr o s e br ie f on ap pe al , reg ard in g t he “ act in g” BUE po si ti on , W eb b arg ue s tha t the di stric t co urt erredinde te rm in in g tha t the re was no adve rs e em pl oym en t d eci si on be cau se th e d is tri ctco urt “ ap pl ie d t oo rig idof ast an da rd , ap pa ren tl y

requi rin g s om e so rt o f di recteco no m ic im pa ct .” W eb b a rg ue s fo r th e fir stti m e o n app eal th athi s “ lo ss of p res ti ge ” sh ou ldha ve be enco ns id ered , gi ve n th atIBM c ho se a jun io r an d l es s ex pe rie nc edpe rs on forth e “ act in g” BUE po si ti on , whi chW eb b a ss ert s l edto th e res ou rce a ct io n a ndim pa ct edhi s m ark et ab il it y . Reg ard in g t he pe rm an en t BUE p os it io n, Webb arg ue s tha t a p la in ti ff n eed no t s ho w th athe ap pl ie d fo r a p ro m ot io n t o e st ab li sh a pr ima fa ci e cas e whe re the em pl oyer us es anin fo rm al pro m ot io n s y st em th atdo es no t p os t o pe ni ng s o r ta ke ap pl ic at io ns . W eb b arg ue s tha t b ecau se IBM u se d a n i nf orm al syste m , he o nl y 3ne ed edto sh ow tha t IB M h adso m e rea so n o r du ty to co ns id er h im forth e pr om ot io n. Webb arg ue s tha t the ev id en ce co nt rad ic te d t he co urt’s fi nd in g t ha t IBM us eda fo rm al syste m , gi ve n t ha t: (1) IBM a dm itte d t ha t the re was no form al writ te n p ol ic y ; an d (2 ) IBM ga ve th e BUE job to O’ Co nn orbe fo re h e subm it te d a n ap pl ic at io n. Webb ass ert s tha t b ecau se he ha d s ev eral co nv ers at io ns with h is m an ag er ab ou t h is in te res t i n b eco m in g asec on d- li ne m an ag er, an d h is m an ag er ha d c ha ll en ge d h im

to pe rfo rm

th e BUE ro le whi le itwas v acan t, Webb reas on ab ly be li ev edth athe was b ei ng co ns id eredforth e p erm an en t BUE p os it io n, es pe ci al ly gi ve n t ha t h e was qu al ifi edforth e job an d was alr eady pe rfo rm in g i t. Reg ard in g t he res ou rce a ct io n, Webb ass ert s tha t h is m an ag er ad m it te d t ha t he ne ve r ev enlo ok edat Webb ’s per so nn el fil e, whi chov erwh el min gl y pro ve s tha t he was m or e qua li fie d t ha n P et ers on , andth us , hi s m an ag er’s s el ect io n o f W eb b fo r th e res ou rce a ct io n o ve r Pet ers on was u nr eas on ab le an d d is cri min at ory . W eb b al so co nt en ds th athi s m an ag er d idno t fo ll ow the sp eci fic gu id el in es setforth by IBM forth e res ou rce a ct io n d eci si on , bec au se , am on g o th er thi ng s, h is m an ag er co m pa redso m e o f Pet ers on ’s no n- m an ag em en t ev al ua ti on s wi th W eb b’s ev al ua ti on s as a m an ag er. Acco rd in gl y , W eb b a ss ert s tha t the re was no cle ar an d reas on ab ly spe ci fic factua l b as is forth e res ou rce a ct io n, an d t hu s i t “ reek s o f pr et ex t fo r di sc riminat io n.” 4W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t de no vo . Roj as v. Fla . Dep’ t o

f Bu s. & Pro

f’l Regs . Par i-Mu tu al , 28 5 F .3d13 39 , 13 41 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). A cou rt s ha ll grantsu m m ary jud gm en t wh enth e ev id en ce b efo re i t s ho ws

“ th atth ere 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 ed to jud gm en t as a m atte r of law.” Fe d.R .Civ .P. 56 (a). “ Whe n d eci di ng whet he r su m m ary jud gm en t i s ap pr op ria te , all ev id en ce an d re as on ab le factua l i nf eren ces dr awnth eref

ro m are re vi ewedina li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e n on -m ov in g p arty .” Roj as , 28 5 F .3dat 1 34 1- 42 (qu ot at io n o m it te d) . In re vi ewin g agra ntof s umm ary jud gm en t, we wi ll no t m ak e cre di bi li ty det erm in at io ns or we ig h t he ev id en ce. Freder ic k v. S

pr in t/Uni te d Mgmt. Co . , 24 6 F .3d13 05 , 13 11 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ).

“ Onl y di sp ut es ov er fa ct s tha t m ig htaffec t the ou tc om e o f th e su itun de r th e go ve rn in g l aw wil l p ro pe rly prec lu de th e en try of s umm ary jud gm en t.” Ander so n v. Li be rt y Lo bb y, In c. , 47 7 U.S. 2 42 , 24 8, 1 06 S.Ct . 25 02 , 25 10 (19 86 ). Tit le VII pr oh ib it s an em pl oyer fro m

di sc riminat in g a ga in sta pe rs on ba se d on th e p ers on ’s race. 4 2 U.S.C. § 20 00 e-2 (a)( 1) . Like wis e, un de r 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 1, an em

pl oyee ha s a r ig htto be free o f di sc riminat io n b y anem pl oyer ba se d on race inth e p erfo rm an ce o f a co ntract . The el em en ts requi redto est ab li sh an em pl oym en t d is cri m in at io n c la im un de r § 1 98 1 a re the same as th os e requi red un de r Tit le VII. How ar d v . B.P. Oil Co . , 32 F.3d52 0, 5 24 n.2 (11 th Cir . 19 94 ). 5Und er Tit le VII, a pl ai nt iff be ars th e u lt im at e b ur de n o f pr ov in g d is cri m in at ory tre atm en t b y

a pr ep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce. Ear le y v. Ch amp io n In t’l

Co rp . , 90 7 F .2d10 77 , 10 81 (11 th Cir . 19 90 ). Whe re, as he re, a p arty see ks to est ab li sh di sc riminat io n t hr ou ghcir cu m st an ti al ev id en ce, a Ti tl e VII cl ai m is ev al ua te d un de r th e fra m ewo rk

est ab li sh edin McDo nn el l Do ug la s C or p. v. Gr een , 41 1 U.S. 79 2, 9 3 S .Ct. 1 81 7 (1 97 3) ; Hol if ie ld v. Reno , 11 5 F .3d15 55 , 15 61 -6 2 (1 1th C ir. 19 97 ). McDon ne ll

Douglas pro vi de s tha t the pl ai nt iff be ars th e in it ia l b ur de n o f es tabl is hi ng a pr ima fa ci e cas e o f di sc riminat io n. McDon ne ll Dougl as , 41 1 U.S. at80 2, 9 3 S .Ct. at18 24 . Whe re d ire ctev id en ce o f di sc riminat io n i s ab se nt , a pl ai nt iff m ay est ab li sh a ci rcu m st an ti al pr ima fa ci e cas e o f rac ia l d is cri m in at io n b as edon di sp arat e tre atm en t b y

sh owi ng sev eral th in gs : (1 ) he be lo ng s t o araci al m in or ity ; (2 ) he was qu al ifi edto do th e job ; (3 ) he was s ub jecte d t o a n a dv ers e job act io n; an d (4 ) hi s emplo y er treat edsi m il arl y si tu at edem

pl oyees o ut si de hi s cl as si fic at io n m or e fav or ab ly. Kn ight

v. Bap tist

Hos p. o f Mi ami, Inc . , 33 0 F .3d13 13 , 13 16 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) . In o rd er t o p ro ve th athe was s ub jecte d t o a n a dv ers e em pl oym en t ac ti on , “ anem

pl oyee m us t s ho w a se ri ou s a nd

mat er ia l ch an ge inth e te rm s, co nd it io ns , or p riv il eg es of e m pl oym en t.” Dav is v. To wn of La ke Pa rk

, Fla . , 24 5 F .3d12 32 , 12 39 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). Altho ug h Ti tl e VII d oe s n otrequi re 6pr oo f of

di recteco no m ic co ns eque nc es inall cas es , “ th e as se rte d i m pa ctcan no t b e sp ecu la ti ve an d m

us t atlea sthave a ta ng ib le adve rs e eff ecton th e p la in ti ff’s em pl oym en t.” Id . “ Mo reo ve r, th e em pl oyee’s subjec ti ve vi ew of th e si gn ifi can ce an d a dv ers it y

of t he em

pl oyer’s act io n i s n otco nt ro ll in g; th e em pl oym en t ac ti on m us t b e m at eri al ly adv ers e as vi ewedby a reaso nabl e p ers on inth e ci rcu m st an ces .” Id. at 1 23 9- 40 . W e h av e h el d t ha t “ lo ss of p res ti ge ” is anob jecti ve fact orth atsh ou ldbe co ns id eredas p artof t he reas on ab le pe rs on tes t, an d t ha t d im in is hm en t o f pr es ti ge m ay als o a ffec t an em

pl oyee’s m ark et ab il it y , whi chis an ot he r si gn ifi can t o bjec ti ve fact or . Se e Doe v. Deka lb Co un tySc h. Dist ., 14 5 F .3d14 41 , 14 52 n.1 9 (1 1t h C ir. 19 98 ) (n ot in g “ lo ss of p res ti ge ” as on e fac to r in adve rs e act io n d et erm in at io n i n di sc riminat io n c as e und er the Am eri can s wi th Dis ab il it ie s Act(“ ADA”)). Bu t we ha ve als o h el d t ha t Co ng res s d idno t i nt en d fo r Tit le VII to be im pl ic at edwher e th e p la in ti ff m erel y

“ fel t s om e b lo w to hi s p ro fes si on al im ag e” an d t ha t “ [i]n t he va stm ajor ity

of i ns ta nc es . . . anem

pl oyee all eg in g alo ss of p res ti ge . . . witho ut an y tan gi bl e h arm , wil l b e o ut si de th e p ro te ct io n a ffo rd edby Con gr es s . . . es pe ci al ly whe re, as he re, the workass ig nm en t atis su e is on ly by de fin it io n te m po rary anddo es no t af

fectth e em

pl oyee’s pe rm an en t jo b t it le or cl as si fic at io n.” Dav is , 24 5 F .3dat 1 24 2- 45 (no ti ng th at Doe , an ADA cas e, “ do es 7no t h ol d t ha t an ass ert edlo ss of p res ti ge cantrans fo rm em pl oyer co nduc t wh ic h do es no t al te r th e ‘term s, co nd it io ns , or p riv il eg es ’ of th e p la in ti ff’s em

pl oym en t in to a pr op er b as is forsu itun de r Tit le VII”). Whe re a p la in ti ff al le ge s tha t an em pl oyer fai le d t o p ro m ot e h im on th e ba si s o f rac e, th e p la in ti ff can e st ab li sh a pr ima fa ci e cas e b y sh owi ng th at : (1 ) he is a m em be r of a pr ot ect edcla ss ; (2 ) he was qua li fie d fo r an d app li edfor th e pr om ot io n; (3) he was re

jecte d i n s pi te of h is qu al ifi cat io ns ; an d (4 ) th e p ers on who rece iv edth e p ro m ot io n was no t a m em be r of hi s p ro te ct edcla ss . See Vess el s v. Atlan ta Indep . Sch . Sys . , 40 8 F .3d76 3, 7 68 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Howev er, “ whe n anem pl oyer do es no t fo rm al ly ann ou nc e a p os it io n, b utrathe r us es in fo rm al an d subjec ti ve pro cedur es to id en ti fy a can di da te , a pl ai nt iff

ne edno t s ho w un de r th e se co ndpro ng th athe ap pl ie d fo r th e p os it io n– on ly that the em pl oyer ha d s om e reas onto co ns id er h im

forth e p os t.” Id . If the pl ai nt iff

est ab li sh es a pr ima fa ci e cas e to supp ort h is Tit le VII act io n, th e b ur de n s hi fts to th e em pl oyer to “ art ic ul at e so m e le gi ti m at e, no nd is cri min at ory reas on ” fo r th e adve rs e job act io n. McDo nn el l Do ug la s , 41 1 U.S. at80 2, 9 3 S .Ct. at18 24 . If th e em

pl oyer m eet s thi s b ur de n, the n t he bu rd ensh ift s b ackto th e pl ai nt iff to sh ow tha t the em

pl oyer’s st at edreas on was apre te xtfor di sc riminat io n. Id . at 8 04 , 93 S.Ct . at 1 82 5; Hol if ie ld , 11 5 F .3dat 1 56 4- 66 . 8The in qu iry int o p ret ex t re qu ire s u s t o d et erm in e whe th er, i n v ie w of a ll th e

ev id en ce, “ th e p la in ti ff h as cas t d oubton th e d efen da nt ’s pro ffer ed no nd is cri m in at ory

reas on s s uf

fic ie ntto all ow a r eas on ab le fact fin de r to de te rm in e th atth e d efen dant ’s pro ffer edleg it im at e rea so ns were n otwhatactua ll y m ot iv at ed it s co nduc t.” Si lv er a v . Ora ng e Cn ty . Sch . Bd. , 24 4 F .3d12 53 , 12 58 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ) (quo ta ti onom it te d) . Suc h e vi de nc e, ho wev er, m us t d em on st rat e “ su ch weakne ss es , im

pl au si bi li ti es , in co ns is te nc es , in co he ren ci es , or c on tra di ct io ns in th e em pl oyer’s pro ffer edleg it im at e rea so ns forit s ac ti on th ata reas on ab le fact fin de r co ul d fi ndth em un worth y

of c red en ce.” Ja cks on v. Ala . Stat e Ten ur e Co mm’n. , 40 5 F .3d12 76 , 12 89 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (quo ta ti on om it te d) . “ A pl ai nt iff is no t al lo wedto reca stanem pl oyer’s pro ffer edno nd is cri m in at ory reas on s o r subs ti tu te hi s b us in es s ju dg m en t fo r th atof t he em pl oyer.” Ch ap man v. AI Tr an sp or t , 22 9 F .3d10 12 , 10 30 (11 thCir . 20 00 ). Pro vi de d t ha t the pro ffer ed reas on“ is on e th atm ig htm ot iv at e a rea so nabl e em pl oyer, an e m

pl oyee m us t m eet th atreas onhe adon an d re bu t i t, an d t he em pl oyee can no t s uc ceedby sim pl y qu arre li ng with t he wis do m of t ha t re as on .” Id . Inth e co nt ex t o f a p ro m ot io n, “ a p la in ti ff cann otpro ve pre te xtby sim pl y arg ui ng or e ve n b y

sh owi ng th athe was b ette r qu al ifi edth anth e [p ers on ] who rece iv edth e p os it io n h e co ve te d. A p la in ti ff m us t s ho w no t m erel y

th atth e 9de fen da nt ’s em pl oym en t d eci si on s wer e m is ta ke n b utth atth ey were i n fa ct m ot iv at edby race.” Bro ok s v. C ou nt y Co mm’n o

f Je ff er so n C ou nt y, Ala . , 44 6 F .3d 11 60 , 11 63 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (quo ta ti on om it te d) . Furt he rm or e, a p la in ti ff m us t sh ow tha t the di sp ari ti es be twee n t he su cces sf ul ap pl ic an t’s an d h is own qu al ifi cat io ns were “ of

su chweig htan d s ig ni fic an ce tha t n o re as on ab le pe rs on , in th e ex erci se of i m

pa rti al jud gm en t, co ul d h av e ch os enth e can di da te sel ect edov er th e p la in ti ff.” Sp ri ng er

v. Co nv er

gys C us to mer Mgmt . Gro up , 50 9 F .3d13 44 , 13 49 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (quo ta ti on om it te d) . “Abs en t ev id en ce tha t s ub jecti ve hi rin g c rit eri a were u se d a s a m as k fo r di sc riminat io n, the factth atanem pl oyer ba se d ahi rin g o r pr om ot io n d eci si on on pu rel y subjec ti ve cri te riawil l ra rel y , if ev er, p ro ve pre te xt. . . .” Id. (quo ta ti on om it te d) . W he re an em

pl oyer’s dec is io n to pro m ot e o ne em

pl oyee ov er an ot he r is ba se d o n asubjec ti ve vi ew of who se qu al ifi cat io ns were s up eri or forth e p os it io n, “ [a] subjec ti ve reas on is a le ga ll y su ffi ci en t, l eg it im at e, no nd is cri m in at ory reas on if the de fen da ntart ic ul at es a cl ear an d re as on ab ly spe ci fic factua l b as is up onwhi chitba se d i ts subjec ti ve op in io n.” Id . (qu ot at io n o m it te d) . A. The Acti ng BUE Appo in tm ent The di stric t co urt co rrec tl y gra nt edsu m

m ary jud gm en t i n favo r of IBM reg ard in g t he act in g B UE app oi nt m en t b ecau se W eb b fa il edto sh ow tha t h e 10su ffer edanadve rs e act io n. Th e ev id en ce i nd ic at es th atth e act in g B UE

ap po in tm en t was tem

po rary in n atur e, la st in g l es s tha n t wo m on th s, an d t ha t Pet ers on rece iv edno ad di ti on al co m pe ns at io n o r be ne fit s as a res ul t o f th e as si gn m en t. Mo reo ve r, W eb b fa il edto sh ow tha t the Pet ers on ’s app oi nt m en t as th e act in g B UE hadan y

tan gi bl e adve rs e eff

ecton hi s emplo ym en t, o th er tha n t o of fer h is ownsubjec ti ve vi ew th athe su ffer eda lo ss of p res ti ge an d t ha t h is m ark et ab il it y

was d im in is he d. Acco rd in gl y , th e as se rte d a dv ers e em pl oym en t act io n d oe s n otm eetth e th res ho ldlev el of s ub st an ti al ity requi redby T it le VII be cau se W eb b s uf

fere d n o “ m at eri al ly adv ers e” ch an ge inth e te rm s o r co nd it io ns of hi s emplo ym en t. Davis , 24 5 F .3dat 1 23 9. W eb b a ls o fa il edto pre se ntan y ev id en ce t o s ho w th atIBM’s p ro ffer ed , le gi ti m at e n on -d is cri min at ory reas on s fo r se le ct in g P et ers on–t ha t s he was m or e qu al ifi edforth e p os it io n–were p ret ex tu al . Ins te adof o ffer in g e vi de nc e to reb ut te st im on y th atPet ers onwas am or e p ro act iv e an d e ffec ti ve lea de r, W eb b m erel y qu arre le d wi th th e wis do m of I BM’s d eci si on , ass ert in g tha t, i n h is own es ti m at io n, h e was be tt er qua li fie d t ha n P et ers on . Becau se W eb b m ay no t es tabl is h p ret ex t s im

pl y by que st io ni ng th e wis do m of h is em pl oyer’s dec is io ns , an d Webb ha s n otm etIBM’s n on di sc riminat ory reas on s h eadonan d re bu tt ed th em , W eb b fa il edto est ab li sh pre te xtreg ard in g t he act in g B UE po si ti on . Bro ok s , 1144 6 F .3dat 1 16 3.

B. The Per m an ent B UE Pos iti on W eb b fa il edto est ab li sha pr ima fa ci e cas e reg ard in g t he pe rm an en t BUE po si ti onbe cau se W eb b d idno t ap pl y forth e p os it io n. Be cau se th e ev id en ce sh owe d t ha t IB M u se d aform al pro cedur e fo r po st in g t he BUE po si ti on , itwas on ly requ ire d t o c on si de r th os e who actua ll y ap pl ie d, as op po se d t o a nyon e who m ig htreas on ab ly be in te res te d. Here , th e ev id en ce s ho wedth atW eb b c ho se no t t o ap pl y be cau se he fel t tha t IB M s ho ul d h av e o ffer edhi m th e job . Accor di ng ly, th e di st ric t co urt d idno t err in fin di ng th atW eb b fa il edto est ab li sh a pr ima fa ci e cas e of di sc riminat io n. W eb b a ls o fa il edto pre se ntev id en ce t o e st ab li sh pre te xt . Alth ou gh W eb b was alr eady

pe rfo rm in g a t l eas t s om e o f th e dut ie s o f th e BUE an d h e h ad ex pr es se d age ne ral in te res t i n a dv an ci ng hi s ca reer , th e ev id en ce s ho wedth atth e BUE po si ti on was ahi gh -le ve l ex ecu ti ve po si ti onth atwas e xt rem el y co m pe ti ti ve , an d t hu s IB M ex pe ct edan y can di da te see ki ng th e p os it io n t o b e p ro act iv e in ap pl y in g fo r it . Accor di ng ly, W eb b c an no t es tabl is h t ha t IB M’s p ro ffer ed no nd is cri m in at ory

reas on s fo r no t s el ect in g h im forth e p erm an en t BUE po si ti on–t ha t h e d idno t ap pl y or e xp res s s pe ci fic in te res t i n t he po si ti on–we re pr et ex tu al . 12C. The Res ou rce Ac tio n

The di stric t co urt co rrec tl y gra nt edsu m

m ary jud gm en t i n favo r of IBM a s t o W eb b’s cl ai m

th athe was s el ect edforth e res ou rce a ct io n b ecau se of h is race . Eve n a ss um in g t ha t Webb co ul d e st ab li sh a pr ima fa ci e cas e, hi s ar gu m en t tha t a co m pa ris on of h is qu al ifi cat io ns ag ai ns t Pe te rs on ’s dem on st rat es pre te xt ne ces sa ril y

fai ls . W eb b a ndPet ers on ’s m an ag er fo ll owe d aform al pro ces s i n ev al ua ti ng th em

for th e res ou rce a ct io n, co ns id eri ng th ei r pr oduc ti on rep orts an d th ei r rel at iv e ab il it ie s b as edon th ree c rit ic al sk il ls id en ti fie d b y IBM. Th e ev id en ce s ho wedth atPet ers on ’s pro du ct io n re po rts were h ig he r an d s ho wedth at sh e was tre nd in g up, wh il e Webb ’s pro du ct io n re po rts were s om ewh atlo wer an d were tren di ng do wnwar d. Mo reo ve r, Pet ers onrat edhi gh on th e th ree c rit ic al sk il ls , wher eas W eb b ra te d o nl y m ed iu m as t o t he cri ti cal sk il ls . Furt he r, th ere was tes ti m on y

th atPet ers onwas o ne of t he be stlea de rs onth e te am , wher eas W eb b was m erel y

a sa ti sf act ory m an ag er. Fi na ll y , asi de fro m arg ui ng th atIBM’s de ci si on was wro ng be cau se W eb b b el ie ve s tha t h e was m or e qua li fie d t ha n Pet ers on , W eb b o ffer edno ev id en ce t o s ho w th athi s s el ect io n fo r th e res ou rce act io n was ba se d o n ra ce. Con cl us io n Bec au se W eb b fa il s t o s ho w th atan y of I BM’s ac ti on s wer e a p ret ex t fo r 13un la wfu l d is cri m in at io n, we af firm . AFFIRMED . 2

Webb’s reque st for ora l argument is denied. 2 14