FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT A ugus t 8, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T 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. 05- 16633 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D
. C
. D ocketN o. 04 -001 33 -C V -2 W I L L I A M M I L L E D G E , P la in tif f
- A p p e lla n t, C A T O W A L T H O U R , e t a l., P la in tif f s , v ersu s R A Y O N I E R , I N C O R P O R A T E D , 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 S o u th e r n D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 8, 2006) B efo re T JO F L A T , M A R C U S an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:Cato Walthour, Samuel W althour, and Corne ll Shaw also werenamed plaintiffs on 1 Mil le dg e ’s orig inal c omp la int . T hedis tric t c ourt se ve re d th e oth e r p la intif fs from Mil le dg e . Cato an d S amu e l W a l th o ur ’ s c l a i m s p r o c e e d e d s ep ar at e l y an d th e c o urt gr ant e d s umm ar y j u d gme nt i n favor of Rayonier. TheWa l th o urs ’ appeal is curre ntly before us under

a sepa rateappeal number, casenumber 05-17054- HH. Milledgementions his host ile-work- environment c laim in the issue statement of his brie f, 2 but f a ils to add

re ss t his iss uein h is a

rgument s e c tio n. Ac c ordin g ly , M il le dg e ha s a ba nd on e d th is issue by failingto de velop an argument in his ini tial brief. SeeGre enbria r, Ltd. v. City

of Alaba ster, 881 F.2d 1570, 1573 n.6 ( 11th Cir. 1989) (findingthat issue listed in the statement of fac ts but not elaborated upon in initial or reply briefs w as aba

ndoned). Likewise, by

failingto addre ss the entry o f s umm ary

j u d gm ento nh i s cl ai m fo r i nt ent i o n al i n fl i ct i o n o f em o t i o n al d i s tre s s cl ai m , M i l l ed ge has aba ndoned that claim. See Wil kerson v. Grinnell Corp., 270 F.3d 1314, 1322 (11th Cir. 2001) (holdingthat issues not clearly raised in initial briefs a

re c onsidered a

bandoned)
. 2 W il li am M il led g e , a n A fr ican -A m er ican m ale, ap p ea ls th e d istrict co u rt’s
e n tr y o f s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t in f a v o ro f R a y o n ie r , I n c . ( “R a y o n ie r ” ) , o n h is c la im of r a ce d i scri m i n at i on i n vi ol a t i on of T i t l e V I I of

the C i vi l R i ght s A c tof 1964 (T i t l e V II ), 42 U
. S
. C
. § 2 00 0e-2. O n app ea l , M i l l edge argues the di stri ctcourt 1
e r r e d by f

i n di ng he di d note s t a bl i s h tha tR a y oni e r ’ s pr of f e r e d r e a s ons f

ornot p r o mo t i n g h i m w e r e a p r e t e x tf o rd i s c r i mi n a t i o n . W e a f f i r m. 2 W e r e vi ew a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s gr a ntof s um m a r y j udgm e ntde novo, vi e w i ng the evi dence i n t he l i gh tm ostfa v o ra b le t o the party opp osi ng the m ot i on . P atri ck
v. F l oyd M ed. C tr. , 20 1 F
. 3d 13 13 , 13 15 (11t h C i r. 2 0 0 0 ). R ul e 56(c) s t at es t hat
s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t is a p p r o p r ia te “if th e p le a d in g s , d e p o s itio n s , a n s w e r s to i nt e r ro g at o ri e s , a nd a dm i s s i ons on f i l e , t oge the rw i th t he a f f i da vi t s , i f

a ny , s how th a t 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 a t th e m o v in g p a r ty isAs for Milledg e’s sug g estion in his brie f th at h e est ablished a pattern or practiceof 3 discrimination, he failed to raise this leg al theory in the di strict court and, acc ording ly , we will not consider it for

the first time here . Acc ess Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines C o., 385 F.3d 1324, 1331 (11th C i r. 2 0 0 4 ). Moreover, the record belies Milledg e’s c laim that he pre sented dire ct evidenc e in support of his claims. From our review of the record, we di scer n no such direc t evidenceand thus concludethe district court c orre ctly applied the burde n-shiftinganalysis for claims base d on circ umstantial evidence
. 3 e nt i t l e d t o j udgm e nta s a m a t t er o f l aw . ” F e d. R
. C i v. P 56( c )
. T o w a r r a ntthe
e ntr y of s um m a r y j u d gm e nt , t he m ovi ng pa r ty m us tde m ons tr a t e tha t“ the r e i s no ge nui ne i s s ue a s t o a ny m a t e r i a l f a c t . ” H C A H e a l th S e r vs . of G a . , I nc. v. E m pl oyer s H ea l th Ins. C o. , 24 0 F
. 3d 98 2 , 9 9 1 (11t h C i r. 20 01 ). “ A m er e ‘ sc i nt i l l a’ of e vi de nc e s uppor t i ng t he opp o si ng pa r ty ’ s pos i t i on w i l l nots uf f i c e ; the r e m us tbe
e nough o f a s h o w i n g th a t th e j u r y c o u l d r e a s o n a b l y f i n d f o r th a t p a r ty . ” W a l ke r v. D a rb y , 9 1 1 F .2 d 1 5 7 3 , 1 5 7 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 )
. T i t l e V I I m a ke s i t u n l a w f u l f o ra n e mp l o y e r“ t o d i s c h a r g e a n y i n d i v i d ua l , or ot he r w i s e t o di s c r i m i na t e a ga i ns ta ny i ndi vi dua l w i th r e s pe c tt o hi s c om pe ns a t i on, t er m s, cond i t i on s, or pri vi l eges o f e m pl oym ent , beca use of s uch i nd i vi du al ’ s r ac e,
c o l o r , r e l i g i o n , s e x , o rn a t i o n a l o r i g i n . ” 4 2 U
. S. C. § 2 0 0 0 e - 2 ( a )
. Be c a u s e M i l l e dge
r e l i e d on c i r c um s t a nt i a l e vi de nc e t o e s t a bl i s h hi s c l a i m , w e t estt he s uf f i c i e nc y of th a t c la im b y a p p ly in g th e b u r d e n - s h if tin g f r a m e w o r k e s ta b lis h e d in M c D o n n e ll D o u g l as C o rp . v . G reen , 4 1 1 U
. S
. 7 9 2 (1 9 7 3 ), an d T ex as D ep a r t m en to f C m t y. A ff ai rs v. B urdi ne, 45 0 U
. S
. 24 8 (19 81 ). 34

U nd erthe M cD on nel l D ou gl as fr am ew ork, a pl ai nt i ff fi rs tm ustshow an i nf e r e nc e of d i scri m i na t or y i nt e nt , a nd thus c a r r i e s the i ni t i a l bur de n of e s t a bl i s hi ng
a pr i m a f

a c i e c a s e of

di s c r i m i na t i on. S e e M c D onne l l D o ugl a s , 411 U
. S
. a t802. T h e p la in tif

f’s s u c c e s s f

u l a s s e r ti o n o f a p r im a f a c ie c a s e “c r e a te s a r e b u tta b le pr e s um pt i on tha tt he e m pl oy e runl a w f ul l y di s c r i m i na t e d a ga i ns t[ hi m ]
. ” E E O C v. Joe’ s S t on e C rab, Inc. , 29 6 F
. 3d 12 65 , 12 72 (11t h C i r. 20 02 ) ( ci t i ng U
. S
. P ost al S er v. B d. of G ov ’ rs . v. A i kens, 46 0 U
. S
. 71 1, 71 4 (19 83 ))
. S econ d, i f the pl ai nt i ff
s uc c e s s f ul l y de m ons tr a t e s a pr i m a f aci e case, the bur de n the n s hi f t s t o t he
e m pl oy e rt o pr oduc e e vi de nc e t ha ti t s a c t i on w a s t a ke n f ora l e gi t i m a t e , nondi s c r i m i na t or y r e a s on. S e e J oe ’ s S t o n e C r a b, 296 F
. 3d a t1272. W e pr oc e e d t o t he thi r d s t e p o f the a na l y s i s onc e the e m pl oy e rm e e t s i t s bur de n of pr oduc t i on by pr of f e r i ng a l e gi t i m a t e , n o n- di s c r i m i na t or y r e a s on, t he r e by r e but t i ng t he pr e s um pt i on of

di s c r i m i na t i on, a nd “ [ our ] i nqui r y ‘ pr oc e e ds t o a ne w l e ve l of sp eci fi ci ty, ’ i n w h i ch t h e p l ai n t i ff m u stsh o w th atth e p ro ffered reaso n real l y i s a pret extfor unl aw ful di sc ri m i nat i on . ” I d. at12 72 -73 (ci t i n g B urdi ne, 45 0 U
. S
. at 2 5 5
- 5 6 )
. O n a ppe a l , M i l l e dge a r gue s t ha tR a y oni e r ’ s pr of fered r e a s ons a tt he s e c ond
s t e p o f th e M c D on ne l l D o u g l a s a n a l y s i s we r e a p r e t e x tf o rd i s c r i mi n a t i o n . To
e s t a bl i s h pr e t e xt , M i l l e dge m us tde m ons tr a t e t ha tt he p ro ff e r e d r e a s ons w e r e not5

the true r e a s ons f

ort he e m pl oy m e ntde c i s i on “ ei t h e rdi r e c t l y by pe r s ua di ng the
c o u r t th a t a d is c r im in a to r y r e a s o n m o r e lik e ly m o tiv a te d th e e m p lo y e ro rin d ir e c tly b y s h o w in g th a t th e e m p lo y e r ’s p r o f f e r e d e x p la n a tio n is u n w o r th y o f c r e d e n c e .” B r o o k s v . C o u n ty C o m m ’n o f J e f f e r s o n C o u n ty , A la ., 4 4 6 F .3 d 1 1 6 0 , 1 1 6 3 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2006) ( quot i ng J a c ks o n v . A l a . S t a t e T e nur e C om m ’ n, 405 F
. 3d 1276, 1289 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ) . M il l e d g e m u s t s h o w th a t th e d is p a r itie s b e tw e e n h is qua l i f i c a t i ons a nd t he qua l i f i c a t i ons of

t he pe r s on w ho r e c e i ve d the pr om o t i o n, S u s a n S te w a r t, w e r e “o f s u c h w e ig h t a n d s ig n if ic a n c e th a t n o r e a s o n a b l e p e r s o n , in the exerc i se of i m part i al j ud gm ent , coul d h ave c ho sen th e ca nd i dat e s el ec t ed ov er the pl ai nt i ff

. ” I d. (quo t i ng C oo per v. S
. C o. , 39 0 F
. 3d 69 5, 73 2 (11 th C i r. 20 04 ),
c e r t. d e n ie d , 1 2 6 S . C t. 4 7 8 ( 2 0 0 5 ) )
. “[ T ]o a v o id s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t [ th e p la in tif f ] m u s t in tr o d u c e s ig n if ic a n tly pr oba t i ve e vi de nc e s how i ng t h at t h e a s s e r t e d r e a s on i s m e r e l y a pr e t e xtf or di sc ri m i nat i on . ” C l ar k v
. C oat s & C la rk, Inc. , 99 0 F
. 2d 12 17 , 12 28 (11t h C i r. 1 9 9 3 ) ( c itat i o n o m i t t ed ). A reaso n i s n o tp ret ex tfo r d i scri m i n at i o n “ u n l ess i tis
s h o w n b o th th a t th e r e a s o n w a s f a ls e , a n d th a t d is c r im in a tio n w a s th e r e a l r e a s o n .” S t . M ar y’ s H on or C tr. v. H i cks, 50 9 U
. S
. 50 2, 51 5 (19 93 ). In th e con t extof a pr om ot i on: a pl ai n ti ff ca nn otprov e pre t extby si m pl y a rgui ng or even

by show i ng t hathe w as bet t erqu al i fied t han t he offi ce r6 w h o recei v ed t h e p o s i t i o n h e co v et ed
. A p l ai n t i ff m u st s how notm e r e l y tha tth e de f e nda nt ’ s e m pl oy m e nt deci si on s w er e m i st aken bu t th at they w er e i n fac t m ot i vat ed by ra ce . W e have expl ai n ed, a pl ai nt i ff m ay n o t e s ta b lis h th a t a n e m p lo y e r ’s p r o f f e r e d r e a s o n is pr e t e xtua l m e r e l y by que s t i oni ng t he w i s dom of the e m p lo y e r ’s r e a s o n s , a t le a s t n o t w h e r e . . . t h e r e a s o n is on e thatm i gh tm ot i vat e a re as on abl e e m pl oyer . A lexand erv. F ul t on C ou nt y, 20 7 F
. 3d 13 03 , 13 39 (11t h C i r. 20 00 ) ( i nt er nal q u o ta tio n s o m itte d )
. F rom ou r r ev iew o f the re cord before us, w e di sc er n n o err or i n t he di stri ct
c our t ’ s f i ndi ng t ha tM i l l e dge f

a i l e d t o e s t a bl i s h t ha tR a y oni e r ’ s r e a s ons f orf a i l i ng t o p rom ot e hi m -- t hese re as on s i ncl ud ed M i l l ed g e’s negat i ve pastperf orm ance
ra t i ng s a s a re l i ef

supervi sor, the coun se l i ng se ss i on s he und er w entafter se rv in g as
a r e l i e f s upe r vi s or , a nd S t e w a r t ’ s pr i ors up er vi s or y e xpe r i e nc e , he rB a c he l orof S ci ence degree i n chem i stry , and h er“ exce l l ent ” pas tperf orm ance ra t i ng s - - w er e a pret extfor di sc ri m i nat i on . A tbest , M i l l edge’ s a cc ou ntof t he fa ct s, tak en as t rue,
m a y s how tha t h e w as q u al i f i e d f orthe pos i t i on, butnottha tthe r e w a s s uc h a d is p a r ity b e tw e e n h is a n d S te w a r t’s q u a lif ic a tio n s th a t n o r e a s o n a b le p e r s o n w o u ld ha ve c hos e n he rove rhi m , o r t h at R a y oni e r ’ s r e a l r e a s on f ort he hi r i ng de c i s i onThe F ederal Rules of Appe llate Proce dure specify that within 10 days afte r fili nga notice 4 of appe al, the ap p el l an tmust either “order f rom the reporter a

transcript of such par

ts of the proce eding s not alrea dy

on file as the appellant considers ne cessa ry” or “ file a c ertificate statingthat no transcript will be ordered.” Fe d. R. App. 10(b)(1) . Rule 10(b)(2) , in turn, specifie s that: “[i] f the appellant intends to urg e on appe al that a f inding or conclusion is unsupported by the evidenc e or is contrar y to the evidenc e, the a

ppellant must include in the re co rd a tra nscript of all evidence rele vant to that findingor conc lusion.” Fe d. R. App. 10(b)( 2). It is well-settled that the appe llant bear s the burden of

ensuringthat the re cord on a ppeal i s co mp l et e, and we will aff irm the district court’s judgment where a f ailure to discha

rg e that burden p re v ents the Court from re viewingthe district court’s de cision. See L oren v. Sasser, 309 F.3d 1296, 1304 (11th Cir. 2002) ; Borden, Inc. v. F la . E . Co a st Ry
. Co. , 77 2 F .2 d 75 0, 75 8 ( 11 th C ir . 1 98 5) . T his is k no wn a s th e “ a bs e nc e -e qu a lsaff irmancerule.”Selman v. Cobb County School D ist., 449 F.3d 1320, 1333 (11th Cir. 2006). The rationalebehind this rule “is that whe re it is the appe llant’s fault that an a ppell at e court cannot properly car ry out its re v i ew th e ap pellant is the one who should suff er theconsequences, a

nd inflicting the m encourag es prope r preparation and prese ntation of the re cord on a ppeal.”I d. On Dec ember

12, 2005, Milledge ’s attorney returne d a tra nscript orde r for

m sugg estingthat no tran scripts were re quired for this appeal. In light of thedistrict court’s re liance on nume rous depositions in it s summary judgme n t o rd er , as we ll as the parties’ briefs on a ppeal, including Milledge ’s own brie f, which repeatedly ref erence deposition te stimony and exhibi ts use d duringthe depositions, we observe th at i tis plain that the deposition materials are re quired for meaning ful appellaterevie w of many of the Milledge ’s arguments. We highlight that in reac hing our decision to affir m the district co urt, we ha ve g iven Milledg e the be nefit of the doubt a nd revie wed the de fi c ie nt re c ord p ro vid e d to us . App lic ati on of the“ a bs e nc e -e qu a ls- a ff

ir manc e rule ” wo uld

yie ld thesamere su lt, a lbe it w iththee xpe nditureof le ss j udic ia l r e so urc e s. 7 w as di sc ri m i na ti o n . B rook s, 44 6 F
. 3d at11 63
. A cc ordi ng l y, w e a ff i rm the ent ry of sum m ar y j ud gm entt o R ay on i er . 4 AF F I RME D.