FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT O c t obe r 24, 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. 06- 12302 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 03 -012 33 -C V -T -N J O H N E . T O N E Y , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s M O N T G O M E R Y J O B S C O R P S , D Y N A M I C E D U C A T I O N A L S Y S T E M S , I N C ., M A R Y L . W A T T S , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ 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 M i d d l e D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( O c t ob e r 24, 2006) B efo re D U B IN A , C A RN E S an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

John E . T on ey , a pro se pl ai nt i ff , appeal s the di stri ctcourt ’ s order gr a nt i ng the de f

e nda nt s ’ m ot i on f

ors um m a ry j udgm e nton hi s s e x di s c r i m i na t i on c la im . T o n e y , a b la c k m a le , w a s f o rm e r ly a s h if

t c o o r d in a to rf

o rD y n a m ic E du ca t i on al S ys t em s, Inc. atthe M on t go m ery J ob C orps. T on eysued hi s f orm er em pl oyer s a l on g w i th h i s f orm ersupervi sor, M ary L . W att s, al l egi ng thatthey s u b je c te d h im to d is p a r a te tr e a tm e n t, d e n ie d h im th e o p p o r tu n ity f o ra d v a n c e m e n t, a n d t e rmi n a t e d h i m, a l l o n th e b a s i s o f h i s s e x i n v i o l a t i o n o f

Ti t l e V I I , 4 2 U . S. C. § 2000e - 2( a ) ( 1) . B e c a us e T one y ’ s a r gum e nt s on appe a l s pe a k onl y of d iscr im in ato ry term in atio n , an d b ec au se T o n ey d o es n o t co n test th e d istrict co u rt’s d is m is s a l o f

h is c la im s a g a in s t W a tts , a ll th a t r e m a in s f o ro u rc o n s id e r a tio n is w h e th e rth e d is tr ic t c o u r t p r o p e r ly g r a n te d s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t in f a v o ro f D y n a m ic a n d th e J o b C o rp s o n T o n e y ’s c la im th a t th e y ille g a lly f ir e d h im o n th e b a s is o f h is se x. S ee G re enbri ar , L t d. v. C i ty of A l abas t er , 88 1 F . 2d 15 70 , 15 73 n. 6 (11 th C i r. 1989) ( hol di ng tha tw he n a pa r ty “ e l abor a t e s no a r gum e nt s on the m e r i t s a s t o [ a n] i ss ue i n i t s i ni t i al or re pl y bri ef . . . the i ss ue i s dee m ed w ai ved. ”) S u m m a ry ju d g m e n t is ap 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 rr oga t or i e s , a nd a dm i s s i ons on f i l e , t oge the rw i th the 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 is ent i t l ed t o a j ud gm entas a m att erof l aw . ” F ed. R . C i v. P . 56 (c ). B ec ause T on ey3

b e a r s th e b u r d e n o f

p r o o f o n h is d is c r im in a tio n c la im , R u le 5 6 r e q u ir e s h im to m a k e a s h o w in g s u f

f ic ie n t to e s tab lis h th e e x is te n c e o f e a c h e le m e n t e s s e n tia l to hi s c a s e . S e e C e l ot e x C orp. v. C a tr e tt , 477 U . S . 317, 322, 106 S . C t . 2548, 2552 ( 1 9 8 6 ) . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s g r a n t o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t, v ie w 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 to T o n e y . G itlitz v . C o m p a g n ie N at i on al e A i r F rance, 12 9 F . 3d 55 4, 55 6– 57 (11th C i r. 19 97 ). A p la in tif

f in a T itle V I I d is c r im in a tio n c a s e c a n a v o id s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t in one of tw o w a y s . H e m us te i the r( a ) pr e s e ntdi r e c te vi de nc e of di s c r i m i na t i on or ( b) pr e s e ntc i r c um s t a nt i a l e vi de nc e s uf f i c i e ntt o s hi f

tthe bur de n of

pr oduc i ng c o n tr a ry e v id e n c e to th e d e f e n d a n t u n d e rth e a n a ly tic a l f r a m e w o rk s e t o u t in M c D onne l l D ougl a s C orp. v. G r e e n, 411 U . S . 792, 802–804, 93 S . C t . 1817, 18 24 –2 5 (19 73 ). M orri s v. E m ory C l i ni c, Inc. , 40 2 F . 3d 10 76 , 10 81 (11th C i r. 2005) . B e c a us e T one y ha s done ne i the r , the di s tr i c tc our tc orr e c t l y gr a nt e d the de f e nda nt s ’ s um m a ry j udgm e ntm ot i on. I. O n appe a l , T one y s a y s tha the ha s pr e s e nt e d di r e c te vi de nc e tha thi s f i r i ng w a s d is c r im in a to ry . I t is u n d is p u te d , T o n e ys a y s ( a n d w e w ill a g r e e g iv e n o u rd u ty t o v i ew the evi dence i n the l i gh tm ostfa vo rabl e t o the no n-m ov i ng party) , that W a tt s m a de the de c i s i on t o t e rm i na t e hi m a nd tha t , on s e ve r a l oc c a s i ons , s he m a deToney testified in his deposition that W atts told himthat “she w as a strongindependent 1 black woma

n in a position of authority and [Toney] couldn’t handle it.” Watts alleg edly made this statement about a month and a half before Toney ’s firingwhile g iving Toney a performanc e imp ro vement p lan. Simi larly, T on ey ’sc o- e mpl oye eJame s M. Go oden averre d in an a ff ida vit that Watts at one point tol d another male manag er that “she didn’t nee d a male to do a ny thing f or her a nd that women rule .” Also, Gooden claims, Watts tol d him that “she wa s not goingto allow anyone to run over her

beca use she wa s a strongindependent black woman.”

4 statem en ts to h im an d o th er s r ev ea li n g a g en er ally se x ist att itu d e. B u t T o n ey ’s 1 exho rt at i on thatw e c on si der the “ t ot al i ty of the ci rc um st ance s” i n h i s c as e i gn ores th e m e a n in g o f

th e te rm “d ir e c t e v id e n c e .” D ir e c t e v id e n c e is “e v id e n c e , th a t, if be l i e ve d, pr ove s [ the ] e xi s t e nc e of [ a ] f a c tw i thouti nf

e r e nc e orpr e s um pt i on. ” I d. ( in te rn a l c ita tio n o m itte d ) . A c c o r d in g ly , to s u rv iv e s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t u s in g th is r out e , T one y m us tpr e s e nte vi de nc e tha tpr ove s , w i thouti nf e r e nc e , tha tthe de f e nda nt s di s c ha r ge d hi m “ be c a us e of [ hi s ] . . . s e x. ” 42 U . S . C . § 2000e - 2( a ) ( 1) (e m ph as i s a dd ed). W att s’ st at em ent s m er el y s ug gestthatW att s m ayhave fi re d T on eybecause of hi s s ex; they do n otdi re ct l y prove thatW att s f i re d h i m for that r e a s on. II . W e now consi der w hether T on eyhas pre se nt ed enou gh ci rc um st ant i al evi dence s up po rt i ng hi s di sc ri m i nat i on cl ai m t o survi ve sum m ary j ud gm entun der the M cD on nel l D ou gl as bu rden-s hi ft i ng anal ys i s. U nd erthi s a nal ys i s, i f apl ai nt i ff ca n est abl i sh a pri m a f

ac i e c as e of di sc ri m i nat i on , the bu rden shi ft s t o the em pl oyer to a rtic u la te a le g itim a te , n o n - d is c r im in a to ry r e a s o n f o rth e e m p lo y m e n t d e c is io n .Toe sta bli sha prima fac iec a seof

dis c rimin atio n, a

plaintif f m us t sh ow(1 ) t

hat hewa s a 2 member o f a

prote c te d c la ss; (2 ) h ewa s q ualif ie d f or hisjob ; ( 3) hesu ff

ere d a n adv ers e employ ment action; and (4) his employer tre ated similarly situated employees, who were not members of

the protec ted class, morefavorably . Rice-L amar v. City of F ort L auderdale, 232 F.3d 836, 842–43 ( 11th Cir. 2000). We assume, for thesake of this discussion, that Toney has me t th efirs t thre eof

the sefour

e lements . 5 I f th e e m p lo y e rm e e ts th is b u r d e n , th e n th e b u r d e n s h if ts b a c k to th e p la in tif

f to s how tha tthe l e gi t i m a t e r e a s ons of f e r e d by the de f

e nda ntw e r e pr e t e xtf

or d is c r im in a tio n . M c D o n n e ll D o u g la s , 4 1 1 U .S . a t 8 0 2

– 0 4 , 9 3 S . C t. a t 1 8 2 4

– 2 5 . A pl a i nt i f

f m a y e s t abl i s h a pr i m a f a c i e c a s e of

e m pl oy m e ntdi s c r i m i na t i on b y i d en t i fyi n g an i n d i v i d u al o u t si d e h i s p ro t ect ed cl ass w h o rep l aced h i m , M o rri s, 40 2 F . 3d at10 82 , or show i ng thathi s e m pl oyertre at ed a s i m i l ar l y s i tuat ed e m pl oy e e out s i de hi s c l a s s m or e f a vor abl y . H ol i f

i e l d v. R e no, 115 F . 3d 1555, 2 1562 ( 11th C i r . 1997) . T one y ha s c onc e de d tha thi s r e pl a c e m e ntw a s m a l e , s o he m usti dent i fya f

em al e e m pl oyee w i th w ho m he i s s i m i l ar l y s i tuat ed w ho re ce i ved m o re fa v o ra b le trea tm en t. O n th is p o in t, o u r c as es m ak e c learth at, “ [i]n de t e rm i ni ng w he the re m pl oy e e s a r e s i m i l a r l y s i tua t e d f orpurpos e s of

e s t abl i s hi ng a pri m a f ac i e c as e, i ti s nec es sa ryt o con si der w hether the em pl oyee s a re i nv ol ved i n o r a cc used of the sa m e or s i m i l arcond uctand are di sc i pl i ned i n d i ff er entw ay s. ” I d. a t1562. I nde e d, thi s c onduc tm us tbe “ ne a r l y i de nt i c a l t o pr e ve ntc our t s f r om s e c ond- gue s s i ng e m pl oy e r s ’ r e a s onabl e de c i s i ons . ” M a ni c c i a v. B r ow n, 171 F . 3d 13 64 , 13 68 (11th C i r. 19 99 ).Th e seins tanc e s in c ludetim e s whereTo ney and e ith er H aye s o r Wi lso n ( 1) allo we d ju st 3 one staff member to c over morethan one “ quad” in the Job Corps student dormitory in violation of policy and (2) personally

transporte d a student off

of the Job C orps campus instead of a s s i gn i n ga

s u b o rdi n at et o d o s o a s re qui re d b y p o l i c y. 6 U ndi s put e d f

a c t s i l l us tr a t e tha tT one y i s nots i m i l a r l y s i tua t e d t o the tw o c oem pl oyee s he has i dent i fi ed as re ce i vi ng fa vo rabl e tre atm ent , fe m al e s hi ft c oor di na t or s E l i z a nne H a y e s a nd D aphne W i l s on. T one y poi nt s t o e vi de nc e of se vera l i nst ance s w here he and W i l son (and som et i m es H ay es ) e ng aged i n si m i l ar prac t i ce s thatvi ol at ed w orkp l ac e pol i cy , bu tw here W att s onl y r epri m anded T o n ey. F o r th e sak e o f th i s d i scu ssi o n , w e w i l l assu m e th i s i s tru e. B u tth ere i s a

3 pr obl e m w i th T one y ’ s a r gum e nt : I ti gnor e s a tl e a s tthr e e othe ri nc i de nt s of m i s c onduc ttha the w a s “ i nvol ve d i n ora c c us e d of , ” buttha tH a y e s a nd W i l s on undi s put e dl y w e r e not . T he s e i nc i de nt s i nc l ude : ( 1) T one y t a ki ng a pi e c e of c a ndy f r om a J ob C orps s tude nta nd e a t i ng i ti n a t a unt i ng m a nne r ; ( 2) T one y e nga gi ng a subo rdi nat e i n a verbal di sput e i n frontof Job C orps stud ent s; and (3) T on ey r e q u ir in g a s u b o r d in a te to c o n d u c t o r ie n ta tio n w ith o u t p r o p e rtr a in in g . I n h is de pos i t i on, T one y a c know l e dge s tha the w a s a c c us e d of the s e thr e e vi ol a t i ons a nd r e ve a l s tha the c a nnoti de nt i f y s i m i l a ra c c us a t i ons a ga i ns tH a y e s a nd W i l s on. T he un di sput ed fa ct s thu s r evea l thatthe “ qu ant i ty a nd qu al i ty” of T on ey ’ s a l l eged c o n d u c t w a s n o t “n e a r ly id e n tic a l” to th e a lle g e d c o n d u c t o f H a y e s a n d W ils o n . S e e i d.7

Be c a u s e To n e y i s n o t“ s i mi l a r l y s i tu a t e d ” t o th e f e ma l e e mp l o y e e s h e c l a i ms re ce i ved favorabl e tre atm ent , he ca nn otes t abl i sh a pri m a f ac i e c as e of s ex di sc ri m i nat i on , and thatm ea ns sum m ary j ud gm entfor the defendant s i s proper u n d er M cD o n n el l D o u g l as. AF F I RME D.