FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T AUGUST 31, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 12 92 6

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 8- 00 27 6- CV-5 -RS- MD MELINDA CHURCHILL,
Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us CITY OF PANAMA CITY BEACH FLORIDA, 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 fo r th e North ernDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Au gu st31 , 20 10 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, CARNES andCOX Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Mel in daCh ur ch il l ap pe al s t he di st ric t co urt’s en try of s umm ary jud gm en t

ag ai ns t h er an d i n fa vo r th e Ci ty of Pan am a Ci ty Beach on he r cl ai m s o f ge nd er di sc riminat io n a ndret al ia ti on in vi ol at io n o f Tit le VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2 00 0e , et s eq . Bec au se th e p art ie s ar e fu ll y aware o f th e ev id en ce an d p ro cedur al hi st ory of t he
cas e, an d i n v ie w of o urm or e d et ai le d d is cu ss io n o f th e is su es at o ral arg um en t, we wil l b e b rie f. On t he ge nd er d is cri m in at io n c la im , we agr ee wi th th e d is tri ctco urt tha t Ch ur ch il l fa il edto est ab li sh a pr im a fac ie cas e o f di sp arat e d is ci pl in ary tre atm en t. Non e o f th e m al e co m

pa rat or s s he po in ts to en ga ge d i n m is co nduc t tha t was ev en subs ta nt ia ll y

si m il ar, m

uc h l es s n earl y

id en ti cal , to he rs . Office r Bo y er, wh o rece iv eda le ss er p un is hm en t tha n C hu rch il l, wo ul d h av e b een a ne arl y id en ti cal
co m pa rat orbu t fo r th e fac t tha t h e rec an te d h is fal se tes ti m on y when gi ve n a n op po rtu ni ty to d o s o. Ch ur ch il l, wh engi ve n t he same op po rtu ni ty, fai le d t o reca nt . W e n ot e h ere, as we di d dur in g t he ora l ar gu m en t, tha t i t m at te rs no t whe th er Ch ur ch il l was tel li ng th e trut h o r lying . Wha t m at te rs is whet he r th e de ci si on m ak ers in go odfai thbe li ev edth atsh e was lying , andth ere i s n o e vi de nc e th atth ey di d n ot . Alte rn at iv el y , forth e sa m e rea so n, the re i s n o g enui ne is su e o f
m at eri al factab ou t the Cit y ’s pro ffer edno n- di sc riminat ory reas onforfir in g h er: sh e d idno t re can t h er fa ls e te st im on y when gi ve n ach an ce. 2On t he ret al ia ti on cla im , we are u nc on vi nc edby Chu rch il l’s ar gu m en t tha t

he r refu sa l t o re can t h er t es ti m on y was o pp os it io n t o d is cri m in at io n a ga in st Co rp or al Mi ll er-Go od win . Ly in g i s n otpro te ct edco nduc t an d, i n any even t, the re is no ev id en ce atall th atany of t he de ci si on m ak ers kn ew th atth e rea so n s he refu se d t o c orrecthe r te st im on y was h er d es ire to op po se di sc riminat io n. Se e Bru ng artv. Be ll So uth Tel eco m m un ic at io ns , Inc ., 23 1 F .3d79 1, 7 98 -8 00 (11 th Ci r. 20 00 ) (h ol di ng th atev enwher e th ere i s cl os e te m po ral pro xi m it y , su m

m ary jud gm en t s ho ul d b e g ran te d o n acla im of r et al ia ti on wher e th ere i s n o e vi de nc e th atth e d eci si on m ak er was aware t ha t the pl ai nt iff ha d e ng ag edin an y

pro te ct ed
co nduc t). AFFIRMED.

3