FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT M ar c h 15, 2007 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- 15122 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 4 - 0 2 5 2 7 - C V- R DP O LI V I A D A V I S, E D D I E D A V I S , T A M M Y T A Y L O R , P la in tif f s - A p p e lla n ts , v ersu s N P C P I Z Z A H U T , 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 i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( M ar c h 15, 2007) B efo re A N D E R S O N , D U B IN A an dC A RN E S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

O l i vi a D avi s and T am m y T ay l or, bl ac k fem al es , and E dd i e D avi s, a bl ac k m al e ( col l ec t i vel y “ pl ai nt i ff s” ), appeal the di stri ctcourt ’ s grantof sum m ary j ud gm entt o thei r e m pl oyerN P C P i zz a H ut(“N P C ”) on thei r T i t l e V II di sc ri m i nat i on cl ai m , 42 U . S . C . § 2 00 0e-2(a) . In A ug ust20 03 , N P C prom ot ed P aul a S t anford, a w hi t e f em al e, fr om the po si t i on of re st aurantgeneralm anager ( “ R G M ” ) t o a r e age ne r a l m a na ge r( “ A G M ” ) , w i th r e s pons i bi l i tyf orove r s e e i ng f i v e t o t e n r e s t au r a n t s . A tth a tt i me , O l i v i aa n dEd d i e D a v i s w e r e RG M s f o rN PC r e s tau r a n ts , w h ile T a y lo rw a s a n a s s is ta n t m a n a g e ra t O liv iaD a v is ’s r e s tau r a n t. T he di s tr i c tc ourtgr a nt e d s um m a ryj udgm e ntt o N P C . W e r e vi e w the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s gr a ntof

s um m a ryj udgm e ntde novo, vi e w i ng a l l f a c t s a nd r e a s onabl e i nf

e r e nc e s i n the l i ghtm os tf a vor abl e t o the non- m ovi ng pa rty . L i tt l e v. U n ite d T e c h s ., 1 0 3 F .3 d 9 5 6 , 9 5 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) . S u m m a ryju d g m e n t is approp ri at e w here the evi dence s ho w s thatthere i s no g enui ne i ss ue of m at er i al f a c ta nd tha tthe m ovi ng pa rtyi s e nt i t l e d t o j udgm e nta s am a tt e rof l a w . I d. T h e p la in tif

f s a tte m p te d to u s e c ir c u m s ta n tia l, r a th e rth a n d ir e c t, e v id e n c e to p r o v e d is c r im in a tio n o n th e b a s is o f r a c e . W h e n ap la in tif

f’s T itle V I I c la im is b a s e d o n c ir c u m s ta n tia l e v id e n c e , w e e v a lu a te th e c la im u n d e rth e M c D o n n e ll D ougl a s bur de n- s hi f

t i ng f r a m e w ork. S e e M c D onne l l D ougl a s C orp. v. G r e e n, 411 U . S . 79 2, 80 2-4, 93 S . C t . 18 17 , 18 24 -5 (197 3). T he pl ai nt i ff has the i ni t i al bu rden3

o f e s t ab l i s h i n g ap r i maf

a c i e c a s e o f

d i s c r i mi n a t i o n . “ I n o r d e rt o e s t ab l i s h ap r i ma f a c i e c a s e . . . the pl a i nt i f f m us tde m ons tr a t e onl ytha t : ( i ) he ors he be l onge d t o a pr ot e c t e d c l a s s ; ( i i ) he ors he w a s qua l i f i e d f ora nd appl i e d f

orapos 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 ( iv ) th e p o s itio n w a s f

ille d w ith a n in d iv id u a l o u ts id e th e p r o te c te dc la s s .” V e s s e ls v. A t l a nt aI nde p. S c h. D i s t . , 408 F . 3d 763, 768 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( i n c ont e xtof f a i l ur e t o pr om ot e c l a i m ) . O nc e the pl a i nt i f f ha s pr e s e nt e d apr i m af a c i e c a s e , the bu rden shi ft s t o the em pl oyer“ t o art i cul at e s om e l egi t i m at e, no nd i sc ri m i nat ory r e a s o n ” f o rits e m p lo y m e n t a c 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 , 9 3 S . C t. a t1824. If the em pl oyerdo es art i cul at e s uch a rea son, “ the pl ai nt i ff m ustprov e that the re as on prov i ded b y the defendanti s apret extfor unl aw ful di sc ri m i nat i on . ” B urke - F ow l e rv. O r a nge C ounty , 447 F . 3d 1319, 1323 ( 11th C i r . 2006) . T he e m p lo y e e m u s t m e e t h is o rh e rb u r d e n o f p r o d u c tio n o n p r e te x t in o r d e rto a v o id sum m ary j ud gm ent . S ee K el l i her v. V enem an, 31 3 F . 3d 12 70 , 12 75 (11th C i r. 20 02 ) ( “ [T ] he em pl oyeri s e nt i t l ed t o sum m ary j ud gm entun l es s the pl ai nt i ff proffe rs evi dence s uffi ci entt o cre at e agenu i ne i ss ue of m at er i al fa ctthat di s c r i m i na t i on w a s a c tua l l ythe r e a s on f orthe c ha l l e nge d a c t i on. ” ) . T o s how p r e te x t, th e e m p lo y e e m u s t “c o m e f o rw a r dw ith e v id e n c e . . . s u f f ic ie n t to p e rm it a4

r e a s onabl e f

a c t f i nde rt o c onc l ude tha tthe r e a s ons gi ve n bythe e m pl oy e rw e r e not the r e a l r e a s ons f

orthe a dve r s e e m pl oy m e ntde c i s i on. ” C om bs v. P l a nt a t i on P att erns, M ea do w cr af

t , Inc. , 10 6 F . 3d 15 19 , 15 28 (11th C i r. 19 97 ). A cc ord R ee ves v. S anders on P l um bi ng P rods. , Inc. , 53 0 U . S . 13 3, 12 0 S . C t . 20 97 (200 0). H ere, assu m i n g arg u en d o th atth e p l ai n t i ffs h av e m ad e o u ta p ri m a faci e case of di s c r i m i na t i on, N P C ha s a rt i c ul a t e d al e gi t i m a t e , nondi s c r i m i na t oryr e a s on f or prom ot i ng S t anford rather than o ne of the pl ai nt i ff s. N P C st at ed thati tprom ot ed St a n f o r d b e c au s e s h e w a s mo r e q u a l i f i e df o rth e p o s i t i o n th a n th e p l a i n t i f f s . N PC pr oduc e d e vi de nc e s how i ng tha tS t a nf or d m e tthe i nt e rna l m i ni m um qua l i f i c a t i ons f orthe A G M pos i t i on, ha d y e a r s of e xpe r i e nc e m a na gi ng m ul t i pl e r e s t aur a nt s f or an o th er co m p an y, an d h ad o w n ed an dm an ag ed sev eral o f h er o w n rest au ran t s. P la in tif f s th e n h a d th e b u r d e n o f p r o d u c in g e v id e n c e s u f f ic ie n t to p e rm it a re as on abl e j ury t o con cl ud e thatN P C ’ s s t at ed re as on for prom ot i ng S t anford w as pret extual . C om bs, 10 6 F . 3d at15 28 . P l ai nt i ff s produ ce d n o such evi dence. T hey assert ed th atS t an fo rd w as l ess q u al i fi ed th an th ey w ere, b ased o n th e p l ai n t i ffs’ g r e a te rle n g th o f

s e rv ic e w ith N P C . T h is d idn o t, h o w e v e r , d e m o n s tr a te p r e te x t.

“ [A ] pl ai nt i ff

m ayno tes t abl i sh thatan em pl oyer ’ s proff er ed re as on i s pre t extual m e r e lyb yq u e s tio n in g th e w is d o m o f th e 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 . . . th e r e a s o n is o n e th a t m ig h t m o tiv a te ar e a s o n ab le e m p lo y e r .” B r o o k s v . C o u n ty5

C om m ’ n, 446 F . 3d 1160, 1163 ( 11th C i r . 2006) . T he r e f or e , t o e s t abl i s h pr e t e xton th e b asi s o f a co m p ari so n o f q u al i fi cat i o n s, “ th e d i fferen ce i n q u al i fi cat i o n s m u st b e s o 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 ldh a v e c h o s e n th e c a n d id a te se l ec t ed for the prom ot i on i n q uest i on ov erthe pl ai nt i ff . ” V es se l s, 40 8 F . 3d at 772. A c c or d A s h v. T y s on F oods , I nc . , 546 U . S . 454, 126 S . C t . 1195, 1197 (200 6). H ere, th e d i fferen ce i n q u al i fi cat i o n s d i dn o tm eetth i s st an d ard . T h ere m u st b e a“g la r in g ” d if

f e r e n c e in q u a lif

ic a tio n s if

th a t d if f e r e n c e a lo n e is u s e dto i m peac h the em pl oyer ’ s s t at ed re as on for i t s dec i si on . V es se l s, 40 8 F . 3d at77 2. In th e in s ta n t c a s e , th is d if f e r e n c e in q u a lif

ic a tio n s w a s s im p lyn o t p r e s e n t. I n f a c t, it wa s r e a s o n ab l e f

o rNP C t o c o n c l u d e th a tS t a n f o r dwa s m o r e q u a l i f

i e df o rth e AG M po si t i on than the pl ai nt i ff s w er e, despi t e thei r l on ger t enure w i th N P C . S t anford h ad m an ag ed m u l t i p l e rest au ran t s fo r years, w h i l e p l ai n t i ffs h ad m an ag ed atm o st one r e s t aur a nt . O ne of

the pl a i nt i f

f s , T a y l or , ha d note ve n be e n a n R G M a tthe t i m e S t a nf

or d w a s pr om ot e d. T he pl a i nt i f f s the r e f or e c oul d note s t abl i s h pr e t e xt s i m pl ybyc om pa r i ng the i rqua l i f i c a t i ons t o S t a nf

or d’ s . B e c aus e the ypr oduc e d no a ddi t i ona l e vi de nc e of

pr e t e xt , the ydi d notm e e tthe i rbur de n of pr oduc t i on, a nd sum m ary j ud gm entw as prop er . P l a i nt i f f s f urthe ra r gue on appe a l tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourte rr e d i n di s m i s s i ngIn Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en ba nc), w e 1 adopted a s binding pre cedent all decisions handed down by the former F ifth Circuit beforethe close of busine ss on September 30, 1981. 6 thei r c as e w i th p re

j ud i ce . D i sm i ss al w i th p re j ud i ce w as , ho w ever , a nec es sary r e s ul tof the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s gr a ntof s um m a ryj udgm e ntt o N P C . S e e T ul e yv. H ey d, 48 2 F . 2d 59 0, 59 4 n . 2 (5th C i r. 19 73 ). 1 AF F I RME D.