FIL ED U.S . C OUR T O F A PPE ALS ELE VEN TH CIRCUI T Jun e 1 4, 200 5 THO MAS K. KA

HN CLE RK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T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- 1460 1

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 02-03241 -CV -CA P-1 JUDITH A. RILEY, P la int if f- Appe llant, ve rs us EMORY UNIVERSITY, JACQ UE LINE ZA LU MAS , D ef en dant- Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt f or the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (June 14, 200 5) Be fo re A N D E RS O N , CA RN E S an d M A RC U S, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Judit h Riley , a

white f em ale, appeals the district court’ s grant of summ ary ju d g m en ti n fa v o r o f h erfo rmer empl o yer, Em o ry Un i v er s i t y (“Em o ry”) , i n Ri l ey’sRiley also raised state lawclaim s of breac h of contract, intentio nal 1 inf lic tio n of e m oti ona l di str es s, and n eg lig en t r et en tio n a ga ins t E m or y , and a c la im of intention al infliction of em otion al distress against her form er supervisor, Jacqueline Zalum as. None of these c laim s are at issue on appeal and, ther efore, are deem ed abandoned. Rowe v. S chreiber, 139 F.3d 1381 , 1382 n.1 (11th Cir. 1998 ). 2 act io n ra is in g d is cri m in at io n o n t he ba si s o f rac e in vi ol at io n o f 42 U.S.C. §1 98 1. Ri le y arg ue s onappe al that the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed by f ind ing that sh e did

not es ta bli sh a pr im a fa ci e ca se of

r ac e dis cr im inatio n be ca use she sho w ed

that sh e an d abla ck

e m plo y ee , Joh ne tta

H olc om be , w er e both a cc use d of

sim ilar co nduc t, an d sh e w as inn oc en t of

a lle ge d w ro ngdo ing oth er than th ose that w er e sim ilar to H olc om be ’ s. R ile y

c la im s th at

w er e ge nui ne iss ue s of

m at er ia l f

ac t a s to the reasons Em ory

gave in its m otion for sum m ary j udgm ent for ter

m inating her em ploym ent, and that neith er H olcom be’ s perform ance history nor her longer tenure at E m ory

distin guish ed her fr om

Riley as a m atter of law . 1 W e re vie w“ de nov o adis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t, appl y ing the sam e le ga l st an dard s a s th e dis tr ic t c ourt. ” Ch ap m anv. A I T ransp. , 229 F . 3d 1012 , 102 3 ( 11th C ir . 200 0) ( enbanc ). Ac ourt sh al l gr an t sum m ar y j udgm en t w he n th e ev ide nc e be fo re it sho w s “ that the re is no g enuin e iss ue a s to any m at er ia l f ac t and tha t the m ovi ng p ar ty is en tit le d to aj udgm en t a s am atte r of la w.” Fed .R.Ci v.P . 56 (c). Ru le 56 “ m an da te s t he en try of s umm ary jud gm en t,”3

uponm oti on, “ ag ai nst

aparty w ho f ai ls t o m ak e a show ing suf fi ci en t t o e sta

bli sh an ele m en t es se nt ia l” to hi s ca se on whi ch he be ars th e b ur de n o f pr oo f attri al . Ce lot ex Co rp . v. Catr ett, 477 U . S. 317 , 322 , 106 S . Ct . 254 8, 255 2, 91 L . E d. 2d 2 65 (1 986) . “ Inm ak ing thi s de te rm inatio n, the c ourt m ust vie wa ll ev ide nc e an d m ak e all rea sonable inferences in favor of the par ty oppo sing s umm ary

j udgm ent.” Hay es v. Ci ty of Mi am i, 5 2 F .3d91 8, 9 21 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ). Whe n § 1 981 is u se d a s ar em edy f or e m plo ym en t di sc ri m inatio n, the el em en ts r equir ed

to es ta bli sh a c la im are the sam e as tho se r eq uir ed f or ac la im unde r T itl e V II of

the Ci vil Ri ght s A ct

of 196 4. H ow ar d v. B. P. O il Co . , 32 F . 3d 520, 524 n. 2 ( 11th C ir . 199 4) . T itl e V II m ak es it il le ga l “ to f

ai l or r ef use to hir e or to discharge any

indiv idual, or otherw ise to discrim inate against any indiv idual w ithr es pe ct

to his c om

pe nsa tio n, te rm s, c ondi tio ns, or pr ivi le ge s of

e m plo ym en t, because of such indivi dual's race .” 42 U. S. C. § 200 0e-2(a) (1). Aplaintiff m ay establish a Title V II c laim by introducin g, am ong o ther things , c ircum stantial e v i d e n c e th a tc r e a t e s an i n f e r e n c e o f d i s c r i mi n a t i o n . Hi n s o n v . C l i n c h C o u n t y, G a. Bd . of

E duc . , 231 F . 3d 8 21, 827 ( 11th C ir . 200 0) . T o do so, the pla int if f in a T itl e V II c as e can e sta

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

r ac ia l di sc ri m inatio n. Mc D onne ll D ougl as Co rp . v. G re en , 411 U . S. 792 , 802 , 93 S . Ct . 1817 , 182 4, 36 L . E d. 668 (1 97 3) .4

If th e pla int if

f es ta bli she s apr im a fa ci e ca se , the bur de n sh if ts t o th e em plo y er to “ ar tic ulate som e le git im at e, non dis cr im inator y r ea son fo r the em pl oyee’s reject io n.” McDo nn el l Do ug la s, 4 11 U.S. at 8 02 , 93 S.Ct . at 1 82 4. Finally , the burden shifts back to the plainti ff to show that the em ploy er’ s stated re as on w as apr et ex t f

or dis cr im inatio n. I d. Whe n ana ly zi ng the se c as es , w e ha ve st at edth atwe wil l n ot “ se co nd -g ue ss th e b us in es s ju dg m en t o f em pl oyers.” Co m bs v. Pl an ta ti on Pat te rn s, 1 06 F.3d 15 19 , 15 43 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ). W e ha ve not ed

that a pla int if f can e sta bli sh a pr im a fa ci e ca se ba se d on dis parate tr eatm en t by

sho w ing that “ (1 ) [s he ] be lon gs t o ar ac ia l m ino ri ty ; ( 2) [she] wa s subject[e d] to [an] adverse j ob action; (3) [her] em ploy er tre ated sim ilarl y sit ua te d e m plo y ee s ou tsi de [ he r] c la ssi fi catio n m or e favor ab ly ; and ( 4) [s he ] w as qua lif

ie d to do the j ob. ” K

nig ht v . Ba

pti st H osp. of

Mi am i, I nc . , 330 F.3 d 1 31 3, 1 31 6 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) . W e ha ve he ld tha t i n or de r to s howthat e m plo y ee s are sim ilarl y

sit ua te d, the pla int if f m ust e sta bli sh tha t the “ em

plo y ee s are sim ilarl y

sit ua te d ina ll re le vant as pe ct s. ” Id . a t 13 16. “ Inde te rm ini ng whe the r em plo y ee s are sim ilarl y

sit ua te d f or pur pose s of e sta bli shi ng a pr im a fa ci e ca se , it

is ne ce ssary

to co nsi de r w he the r the em ploy ees ar e involv ed in or accused of the sam e or sim ilar conduct and are5

discipli ned in different w ay s.” Holifield v. R eno, 115 F.3d 1555, 1562 (11th Cir. 19 97 ). Re ce ntl y , w e af

fi rm ed the gr an t of

sum m ar y j udgm en t f

or an e m plo y er on cl ai m s of ge nde r an d a ge dis cr im inatio n, usi ng the sam e an al y sis a s is appl ic ab le in the inst ant case. See Morris v. Em ory Clinic, 402 F. 3d 10 76 (11th Cir. 2005 ). W e found that the em

ploy ee, a m ale phy sician, f ailed to show the existence of a sim ilarly situated fem ale em

ploy ee or a

sim ilarly situated y oung er e m

ploy ee be ca use he ha d no t sh ow n any suc h e m plo y ee w ho h ad

r ec ei ve d su ff

ic ie ntl y sim ilar co m

pla int s or w as tr eate d m or e favor ab ly . I d. a t 10 82- 83. Ri le y f ai le d to ide nti fy

asim ilarl y

sit ua te d e m plo y ee a s r equir ed

to ove rc om e a m oti on f

or sum m ar y j udgm en t onhe r dis cr im inatio n c la im . T he onl y al le gatio ns o f sim ilar co nduc t su ppor te d by the r ec or d are m isc ondu ct in co nne ct ionw iththe Ch ic ag o m ee tin g, ge ne ra l c om pla int s of be ing w ith dr awn and d i s en g ag ed , a n dwi t h th e a s s i g n ed n ew s l et t er . Th e r ec o rd s h o we dth at Ri l ey’s supe rv iso r, Ja cque lin e Z al um as , be lie ve d th at Ri le y pe rf orm ed he r j ob inadequately

at the confer ence and that H olcom be failed to attend altogether. It also sho we d that Riley

initiallyref

used to coo rdinate a new sletter, but then agreed to write an article a fter r epeated re quests, while H olcom be apologi zed for her refusal and ensured that an article w as wr itten. Finally , while both em ploy eesRiley ’s reque st for ora l argument is denied. 2 6 we re c riticized for being “ withdraw n and disen gaged,” H olcom be wa s an em ploy ee w ith several y ears of posit ive review s while Riley had j ust begu n when the se c om

pla int s w er e m ad e. T he se inc ide nts do n ot e vid en ce c ondu ct suf fi ci en tly sim ilar to establish that Holcom be wa s a sim ilarly

situated em

ploy ee who was tr eate d di ff

er en tly , a s r equir ed

f or m ak ing apr im a fa ci e ca se . S ee H oli fi el d, 115 F. 3d at 15 62- 63. F urthe r, tho ugh Ri le y te sti fi ed that H olc om

be w orke d onpr oj ec ts fo r he r chur chdur ing w orkin g ho ur s, that a ct ivi ty , if m isc ondu ct , is not

sim ilar to th e m is co nd uc t o f in ad eq ua te an d i nc om pl et e job pe rfo rm an ce at tri bu te d t o R il ey . M o r e i mp o rt a n t l y, o u r

c a r e f u l c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f

th e t o t a l i t y o f

th e c o n du c to f

R i l e y, as c om pare d to that of

H olc om be , pe rs ua de s us that the tw o are not suf fi ci en tly si m il arl y si tu at ed . Ac co rd i n g l y, th e d i s t ri ct co u rt d i dn o tcl ea rl y err i n g ra n t i n g Em o ry’s mo t i o n f o r s u mmary j u d g me n tan dw e a f f i rm. AFFIRMED. 2