FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT MAY 19, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ N o. 04- 1140 4

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 1- 03 05 8- CV-S-NE GREGORY L. GAMBLE, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant,
ve rs us ARA MARK U

NI FO RM SE RVI CE S, De fendant-Appellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the N orthern District of Alabam a

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ ( May 19, 200 5) Befo re EDMONDSON, Ch ie f Ju dg e, TJOFLAT an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s.2

PE R CU RIA M: G re g G am

ble appe al s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t i n favor of A ram ar k U nif orm S er vic es on h is c la im s of

dis cr im inator

y f ai lur e to pr om ote , dis cr im inator

y de m oti on and d isc ri m inator y dis ch ar ge . W e af

fi rm on a ll claim s. O n the failure to prom ote claim , G am ble has failed to dem onstrate that A ram ar k’ s art ic ulate d r at ion al e fo r the e m plo ym en t de ci sio n is pr et ex tua l. A nd G am ble ha s f ai le d to e sta

bli sh a pr im a fa ci e ca se f

or dis cr im inator

y de m oti on and di sc ha rg e.

FA CTS

G re g G am

ble , a n A fr ic anA m er ic anm al e, se rv ed a s asoi l c ount er

in the Pro du ct io n Dep art m en t o f Aram arkUni fo rm Serv ic es , a ga rm en t re nt al co m pa ny. Ar am ark’ s Service De partm ent em ploy s route service re presentatives (“ RS Rs ”) to se rv e as the pr im ar y c ust om er c ont ac t ona ssi gne d r out es : de liv er ing garm ents, collecting paym ents, selling new business, and renew ing service ag re em en ts. R out e Se rv ic e Su ppor t ( “ RS Ss ”) se rv e as r el ie f dr ive rs ; the y a re not assigned to a specific route. A ram ark re quires, at m inim um , that RS Rs and RSSs ha ve a hi gh sch oo l d ip lo m a an d a cle an dri vi ng reco rd
.3

In 1998, Aram ark prom oted Gam ble to Wholesale Route Helper (“ W RH” ),
a posi tio n c re at ed

to as sis t the Ro ute 25 R SR w ithm anua l l ab or

be ca use of the
ro u t e’s l ar g e i n du s t ri al cl i en t s . Ga m b l e w as t h e o n l y WRH t h at Ar amark ’s D ec at ur Mark et Ce nte r ev er

e m plo y ed
. B ec au se tw o tr

uc ks w er e av ai la

ble f or Ro ute 25, on s om e day s he a nd the RS R s er ve d inaj oin t c ap ac ity

a nd d ivi de d th e ro ute ’ s bu sin es s. O n othe r day s, G am ble a nd the RS R u se d on e tr uc k; and h e se rv ed a s ahe lpe r. T he RS R h ow ev er w as a lw ay s ul tim at el y

r es pons ibl e fo r the
ro ut e an d t he pape rwo rk
. Be tw ee n 19 98 ( the ti m e that G am ble w as pr om ote d to the W H R p osi tio n)
an d January

200 1, tw o R out e 25 R SR s le ft the pos iti on. G am

ble c ont en ds tha t he ap pli ed f or the va canc ie s. A ram ar

k hi re d aw hit e m al e to f

ill e ac h va canc y . B oth successful applicants had eith er f illed in for the Route 25 RSR positio n or had served in a sim ilar ca

pacity for a com

petitor. Sc ott Black, the D ecatur Market Center’ s Gener al Manager, expressed concerns that Gam ble lacked skills required fo r the RS S or

RS R p osi tio ns, obs er

vin g th at pa pe rw ork w as not

pr ope rl y com pleted when G am

ble ran the route. D uring a conversation with Gam ble, Bla ck
co m m en te d th at

“ ce rt ai n pe opl e ar e m ad e to d o c er ta in j obs. ” I n hi s de posi tio n, Bl ac k e xpl ai ne d th at

he be lie ve d G am

ble ’ s in te rp er sona l and c om m uni catio ns sk il ls were l ack in g.Wil liams specifica lly cited Ga mble’s (1) f

ailure to e x chang e a c erta in number of ga rments; (2) 1 failure to clean the locker s; and (3) time mana g ement proble ms. The PI P was lifted on 16 Marc h 2001 . 2
4 InJanuary

200 1, a s ar es ult

of ac ust om er

c om pla int , E m ili e W ill ia m s, the Ro ut e 2 5 Di st ric t M an ag er, p ro vi de d Gam bl e wit h a pe rfo rm an ce re vi ew. W ill ia m s no te d se ve ra l pr obl em iss ue s r el at ing to G am

ble ’ s se rv ic e. T he

1 fo ll owi ng m on th , Gam

bl e was writ te n u p fo r hi s fa il ur e to im pr ov e th es e is su es . Gam ble was plac ed on a Per form ance I m provem ent Plan (“ PIP ”). 2 Aro un d 1 2 J an ua ry

20 01 , Gam

bl e b idon an RSS p os it io n. J eff Lu te r, a white m ale, wa s hired. L uter had served as a service departm ent superviso r for an A ram ar k c om pe tit or . L an ce T ow nle y , the D ec at ur Mark et Ce nte r’ s A ssi stant Ge neral Manager , stated that he believed that L uter w as the m ore qualified
candi da te . I n a ddi tio n, T ow nle y state d th e em

plo ym en t de ci sio n w as m oti va te d in part by his c onc er

ns a bout G am ble ’ s “ fa ilure to ef

fe ct ive ly c om m uni cate w itha nd
m anage custom ers, failure to handle custom er c om plaints in a satisfac tory

m anner, and . .
. general lack of interpersonal and sales skill s.” Inthe spr ing of

200 1, Ro ute 25' s larg es t c ust om er c ea se d op er at ion s, causing Aram ark to lose a large par t of its Route 25 bu siness. So, Ar am ark de ci de d to e lim inate the W RH pos iti on and o ff er G am ble apos iti on b ac k inthe5

Pr oduc tio n D ep ar

tm en t. A ram ar

k to ld G am

ble the m ove w oul d be te m por ar y if Ro ute 25 r eg ai ne d it s f

orm er le ve l of bus ine ss. G am ble r ef use d to sig n th e tr an sf

er pa pe rw ork a sso ci at ed

w iththe Pr oduc tio n D ep ar

tm en t P osi tio n. A ram ar

k c ont en ds tha t up on this r ef usa l, G am ble e ff ec tiv el y qui t. G am

ble state s th at

he ne ve r sa id tha t he qui t bu t w as tol d th at , if h e d idno t s ig n t he pape rwo rk , he wo ul d b e te rm in at ed
. InD ec em be r 2001 , G am

ble f ile d ac om

pla int in the N orthe rnD istri ct

of A la ba m a, c la im ing that A ram ar k f ai le d to pr om ote him , de m ote d hi m a nd term inated him

because of his rac e in violatio n of Title V II. T he district court gr an te d A ram ar

k’ s m oti on f

or sum m ar y j udgm en t. G am

ble nowappe al s.
STA ND AR

D O F REVIE W

W e re vie wthe dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t de nov o. H ins on v. Cl in ch Co un ty, Ga. Bd . of Educ ., 23 1 F .3d82 1, 8 26 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). Andwe co nstru e the “ ev ide nc e an d a ll fa ct ua l i nf er en ce s r ea sona

bly dr awn f ro m theGamble c ontends that the district c ourt improperly construed the evidenc e in favor of Ar amar k 3 (the movi n g p arty) by

adoptingAramark’s B rief in Support of its Motion for Summary J udg ment in its order (“ For

all the re asons stated in def endant’ s brief . . . which is adopted a s the opinion of thi s c ourt , d e fe nd ant’ s mo tio n is g ra nte d. ” ). We r e

je c t th is c onte nti on . We no te tha t G ambl e su bmi ts n o e vid e nc e that th e dis tr ic t c ourt a c tua lly fa ile d to re vie w the e vid e nc e in a c c or da nc e wi th the Rul e 56 sta

nd ard s f or summa ry jud g me nt, but me re ly

po int s to the a do pti on

a s p e r s e impermissible. No thi ng pr oh ibi ts a dist

ri c t c ourt ’s a do pti on

of a pa rt y ’s ar gu me nts on a summary

judgme nt m o t i on. A cour

t is not required to include f actua l findings or

leg al conc lusions in a decision on summary judgme nt at all. Fe d. R. Civ. P . 52(a) (statingthat “[f]i ndings of fac t and conc lusions of law ar e unnec essar

y on decisions of motions under Ru l e 1 2 o r 56”). In other c ontext s, we have pe rm itt e d th e a do pti on

of a pa rt y ’s factual findings . See, e.g ., Hamm v. M em b er of the B d. of R ege n t s o f S t at e o f F l
. , 7 0 8 F. 2 d 6 4 7 , 6 5 0 (1 1 th C i r. 1 9 8 3 ) (p erm i t t i n g ad o p t i o no f p arty ’s fi n d i n gs of fa ct in cou rt ’s Fe d.R.Civ.P . 41(b) dismissal of claim). In addition, we have rec og nized that district courts shoul d be afforde d discretion in the m anag ement of the ir ca ses. See Chry sler Intern. Corp. v. Chemaly , 280 F.3d 1358, 1360 ( 11th Cir. 2002)
. There fore , we c onclude that the district court d i d n o t err

in adopting the arguments set forth in Ara mark’s br ief in support of summary judgme nt. In h is c omp la int , G ambl e a sse rt e d c la ims ba se d on se ve ra l inc ide nts in wh ic h Ar amark a lle g e dly 4 fa ile d to pr omo te him ba se d o n h is r a c e . G ambl e fi le d h is c ha rg e on 30 Ap ri l 20 01 . T he re fo re , o nly his claim reg arding the decision to hire J eff Luter for a R SS position i n J anuar y 2001 is tim ely

under Title VI I . See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5( a). 6 ev ide nc e in the li ght

m ost f av or ab le to the non m ovi ng p ar ty . ” S te w ar

t v. H ap py He rm an’ s Cheshire Bridge, Inc. , 117 F. 3d 12 78, 1285 (11t h Cir. 1997 ). 3

DISC US SION

A
. Pr om oti on C la im 4 A pla int if f m ay e sta bli sh a pr im a fa ci e ca se of

dis cr im inator

y f ai lur e to prom ote by

showing that (1) he is a m em ber of the protected c lass; (2) he w asWe note that whether Gamble wa s “qualified” is a close issue: he ma intai n ed the minimum 5 qualifications (a hig h school diploma and a driver’ s license) and had work experienc e assisting the RSR s and RSSs . Despite acknow ledg ing the se minimum qualifications, an Ara mark a ssistant 7 qua lif ie d and a ppl ie d f or the pr om oti on; ( 3) he w as r ej ec te d; ( 4) a ft er the r ej ec tio n, the e m plo y er pr om ote d ape rs on o uts ide of the pr ote ct ed

c la ss. W al ke r v. Mor tham , 158 F
. 3d 1 177, 118 7 ( 11th C ir
. 199 8)
. T he de fe ndant m ay r eb ut this pr im a fa ci e ca se by

a rt ic ulatin g ale git im at e, non -d isc ri m inator y r ea son fo r the de ci si on . Id. at 11 84
. Th e p l ai n t i ff

m u s tt h en co m e f

o rw ar dwi t h ev i d en ce t h at t h e e m p l o yer’s rationale is pretextual. Id. At that point, a plaintiff c an withstand summ ary j udgm ent if he has “ cast sufficient doubt on the defendant’ s proffer ed nond isc ri m inator

y r ea sons to pe rm it a re as ona ble f ac t f ind er to co nc lud e that the
em plo y er ’ s pr of

fe re d le git im at e re as ons w er e not w ha t a ct ua lly m oti va te d it s co nduc t. ” Co m

bs v
. P lantatio n P atte rn s, 106 F
. 3d 1 519, 153 8 ( 11th C ir
. 199 7) (internal quotation s and citation om itted). B ut, “ a plaintiff m ay not establis h that
ane m plo y er ’ s pr of

fe re d r ea son is p re te xtu al m er el y by que sti oni ng the w isd om

of the e m plo y er ’ s r ea son, a t l ea st n ot whe re . . . the r ea son is o ne that m igh t m oti va te
a rea so nabl e em

pl oyer.” Id . at 1 54 3. H er e, w e w ill a ssu m e that G am ble pr es en te d apr im a fa ci e ca se of discrim inatory

failure to prom ote him

to the RSS position in January 2001
. E ven

5g e ne r a l m an a g e r s t at e d th at h e th o u g h t G amb l e w o u l d b e un a b l e t o h an d l e t o u g h i s s ue s w ith c us tom e rs , a

sk ill re qu ir e d f

or the RSS and

RSR p os iti on s. F or

purp os e s o f th is opini on we wi ll assume, without concluding , that Gamble’ s minim al qualificat i o n s were suffic ient to establish a prima fa cie c ase. Gamble submi t t ed a de position i n which an Arama rk mana g er a cknowledg ed that a Route 25 6 RSRwho worke d with Gamble complimented his per formanc e. The 16 Marc h 2001 coac hing logcannot se rve a s evidenc e of pr etext because this li ftingof the 7 PI P did not occur until after the conteste d J anuar

y 2001 promotion. 8 w ithsuc h an a ssu m

pti on, A ram ar

k ha s pr of

fe re d e vid en ce in supp ort of it s le git im at e non- dis cr im inator y r ea sons f or the de ci sio n: G am

ble ’ s la ck of int er pe rs ona l sk ill s and the poo r ev al ua tio n of his w ork pe rf

orm an ce r en de re d hi m th e le ss su it ab le can di da te . Gam ble cannot dem onstrate that these reasons wer e pretextual. In an atte m pt t o do so, G am

ble a rg ue s th at

( 1) L ute r w as not

m or e qua lif

ie d; ( 2) G am

ble ha d be enpa sse d ov er

f or oth er pos iti ons in the pa st f

or c an did at es w ho w er e le ss qua lif ie d; ( 3) a t l ea st o ne RS M w ithw hom he w orke d c om

m en te d po sit ive ly

on his perform ance; (4) his 16 March 2001 coaching lo g stated that his perform ance 6 im pr ove d; a nd ( 5) Bl ac k’ s c om m en t tha t “ ce rt ai n pe opl e ar e m ad e to d o c er ta in 7 j obs” sug ge sts that the de ci sio n w as r ac ia lly m oti va te d. B ut this e vid en ce is insufficient to perm it a rea sonable fact finder to disbelieve Aram ark’ s proffer ed nond iscrim inatory

rationale.9

G am ble ’ s a sse rt ion s a

bout the suc ce ssf

ul c an did at es ’ a lle ge d in fe ri or qua lif ic at ion s are ins uf

fi ci en t t o de m onstrate pr et ex t: G am ble m ay not sub sti tut e his opi nio n - - that j ob e xpe ri en ce w ith in the c om pany r en de rs a n a

ppl ic an t the
m ost qu alified -- for that of A ram ark. Area sonable em ploy er c ouldprefe r a person, like L uter, who had served in a supervisory positi on with a com

petitor,
rathe r than an in div idu al w ith in the c om pany w ithsom e ex pe ri en ce se rv ing in the
av ai la ble pos iti on. S ee Ch ap m anv. A I T ranspo rt , 229 F
. 3d 1 012, 103 0- 31 ( 11th Ci r. 200 0) ( re

j ec tin g pl ai nti ff

’ s c la im s th at

be ca use he ha d c er

ta in qua lif

ic at ion s that successful candidate lacked, e m ploy er’ s rationale -- based on ot her cr iteria --
w as pr et ex tua l) ; C om

bs, 106 F
. 3d at 15 43. About the RS R’ s po sit ive im

pr es sio n of

G am ble ’ s pe rf orm an ce , a t l ea st o ne oth er c ir cu it ha s no te d th at

c o- w orke r opi nio ns are “ cl ose to ir re le vant” in T itl e VI I c l ai m s . S ee Ha wk i n s v . P ep s i co , I n c. , 2 0 3 F. 3 d2 7 4 , 2 8 0 (4 t h Ci r. 2 0 0 0 ) ( “ [I ]t is the pe rc ep tio n of

the de ci sio n m ak er

w hic h is r el ev an t . . . . T he a lle ge d op ini ons of
. . . c o- w orke rs a s to the qua lity of [ pla int if f’ s] w ork are . . . ‘ cl ose to ir re le vant. ’ ”) ( int er

na l qu otatio ns and c itatio ns o m itt ed ). F ina lly , take n inc ont ex t, Bl ac k ’s co m

m en td o es n o ts u g g es ta r ac i al an i m u s , b u tra t h ers up p o rt s Ar amark ’s rationale: that Gam

ble was not right for the positio n because of his interpersonal skills
. Beca

use Gam ble failed to set forth specific f acts dem onstrating that10

Ar am ark’ s rationale wa s pretextual, the district court properly granted summ ary j udgm en t t o A ram ar

k. B. D em oti on/ T er

m inatio n A pla int if f m ay e sta bli sh a pr im a fa ci e ca se of

dis cr im inator

y de m oti on o r term ination by

showing that (1) he is a m em ber of a protected group; (2) he wa s qua lif ie d f or the pos iti on h e oc cu

pie d; ( 3) he w as de m ote d or te rm inate d; and ( 4) he w as r ep la ce d by

a n in div idu al out sid e of

his pr ote ct ed

c la ss. S tur

nio lo v
. Sheaff er, Eaton, Inc. , 15 F. 3d 10 23, 1025 (11t h Cir. 1994 ); Jones v. L um berj ack Meats, Inc. , 680 F. 2d 98 , 102 (11th Cir. 1982). He re, Gam

ble failed to establish hi s prim a fa cie ca se: he wa s not replaced by any one, let alone a person from outsid e of his protected class. The W RH po si ti on was e li m in at ed . There fo re, s umm ary jud gm en t was ap pr op ria te . AFFIRMED.