FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT AUG 8, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ 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. 07- 10516 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 0 6 - 0 0 0 5 5 - C V - 3 - E MT M I C H A E L L . W E A T H E R S P O O N , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s B A P T I S T H O S P I T A L , I N C ., 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 orthe N or the rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 8, 2007) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B A R K E T T an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: M i c ha e l L . W e a the r s poon appe a l s pr o s e the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s or de rgr a nt i ngWe reviewa grant of summary judgment de novo. Brooks v. County Comm’n of J eff

erson 1 County , Ala., 446 F .3d 1160, 1162 (11th Cir. 2006). The district cour

t alternatively

conclude d th atWeatherspoon f ailed to show that the 2 Hospital’s leg itimate, nondiscriminatory rea son for terminating him – Weatherspoon’ s violation of 2 s um m a ry j udgm e ntt o B apt i s tH os pi t a l ( “ the H os pi t a l ” ) i n thi s e m pl oy m e nt di s c r i m i na t i on a c t i on br oughtpur s ua ntt o T i t l e V I I of the C i vi l R i ght s A c tof 1964 ( “ Ti t l e V I I ” ) , 4 2 U . S. C. § 2 0 0 0 e - 2 ( a ) . A f t e rr e v i e w , w e a f

f i r m. 1 W ea thers po on , w ho i s bl ac k, w orked for the H ospi t al as a m edi ca l t e c hnol ogi s t . I n M a r c h 2005, W e a the r s poon w a s t e r m i na t e d a f t e rhi s s upe r vi s or s m e l l e d a l c ohol on hi s br e a th a nd a t e s tr e ve a l e d tha tW e a the r s poon ha d a bl ooda lc o h o l le v e l o v e rth e .0 8 lim it s e t b y th e H o s p ita l’s d ru g a n d a lc o h o l p o lic y . In a c i rc um st ant i al evi dence ca se such as W ea thers po on ’ s, the pl ai nt i ff has th e i n i t i al b u rd en o n su m m ary j u d g m en tt o p resen tev i d en ce th at : “ (1 ) [h e] i s a m e m be rof

a pr ot e c t e d c l a s s ; ( 2) [ he ] w a s s ubj e c t e d t o a n a dve r s e e m pl oy m e nt act i o n ; (3 ) [h i s] em p l o yer treat ed si m i l arl y si tu at ed em p l o yees o u t si d e o f [h i s] p r o te c te d c la s s m o r e f

a v o r ab ly th a n [ h e ] w a s tr e a te d ; a n d ( 4 ) [ h e ] w a s q u a lif ie d to do the j ob . ” B urke-F ow l erv. O ra ng e C ou nty, 44 7 F . 3d 13 19 , 13 23 (11th C i r. 20 06 ). T he di stri ctcourtgrant ed sum m ary j ud gm entaf t erconcl ud i ng that W e a the r s poon f

a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h the thi r d pr ong of hi s pr i m a f

a c i e c a s e , tha ti s , he fa i l ed t o p re se ntevi dence thatthe H ospi t al had t re at ed si m i l ar l y s i tuat ed em p l o yees w h o w ere n o tb l ack m o re fav o rab l y. 2thedr

ugand alc oh ol p oli c y

– w a s p retex t. Be c a

us ewec on c ludetha

t We atherspo on

faile d to establish h i s p ri m a facie c ase, w e nee d not addre ss this alternative ground for grantingsummary judgment. 3 O u rd e n o v o r e v ie w o f

th e r e c o r d c o n f

ir m s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s c o n c lu s io n . W e a the r s poon pr e s e nt e d no e vi de nc e of othe re m pl oy e e s w ho vi ol a t e d the drug and al coho l po l i cy and w er e notfi re d. F urtherm ore, the H ospi t al pres ent ed e vi de nc e tha ti tha d f

i r e d othe rhos pi t a l e m pl oy e e s f orvi ol a t i ng the drug a nd al coho l po l i cy , i ncl ud i ng on e w hi t e e m pl oyee w ho , l i ke W ea thers po on , w as fi re d f ol l ow i ng a pos i t i ve bl ood a l c ohol t e s tc onduc t e d a tthe hos pi t a l . A c c or di ngl y , the 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. We a th e r s p o o n a l s o c l a i m s th a tth e Ho s p i t a l v i o l a t e d u n s p e c i f i e d f e d e r a l l a ws a n d th e F lo r id a D ru g - F r e e W o r kp la c e A c t in its h a n d lin g o f h is b lo o d te s t r e s u lts . W e d e c lin e to a d d r e s s th e s e is s u e s , w h ic h w e r e n o t r a is e d in th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. N ar ey v. D ea n, 32 F . 3d 15 21 , 15 26 (11th C i r. 19 94 ). AF F I RME D.