FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 22, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 10 09 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :0 9- cv -0 09 20 -J HH TOMORROW HUD SON, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF ALABAMA, 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 forth e North ernDis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Jun e 2 2, 2 01 1)
Befo re TJ OFLAT, CARNES andBLACK, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Tom orro w Hud so n, an Afric an -Am eri canfem al e, ap pe al s the di st ric t co urt’s

gr an t o f de fen dantBlu e Cro ss Blu e Sh ie ldof Al ab am a’s (Bl ue Cro ss ’s) m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t as to he r co m pl ai ntall eg in g re ta li at io n, ra is edpu rs ua ntto Tit le VII o f th e Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act o f 19 64 , 42 U.S.C. § 2 00 0e -3 (a). Hu ds on co nt en ds Bl ue Cro ss ’s art ic ul at edreas on forhe r te rm in at io n was pre te xtua l b ecau se sh e d id no t v io la te a co m

pa ny po li cy

an d B lu e Cro ss lac ke d e vi de nc e o f su cha vi ol at io n. 1 Afte r rev ie w, we affi rm

th e d is tri ctco urt. 2 Tit le VII's an ti -ret al ia ti on pro vi si on m ak es itun la wfu l fo r anem pl oyer to di sc riminat e ag ai ns t an em pl oyee “be cau se [s]he ha s o pp os edan y pra ct ic e m ad e anun la wfu l em

pl oym en t p ract ic e b y

th is subc hapt er, o r be cau se [s]he ha s m ad e a ch arg e, te st ifi ed , ass is te d, o r pa rti ci pa te d i n any m an ne r in anin ve st ig at io n, pr oc eed in g, o r he ari ng un de r th is subc hapt er. 4 2 U.S.C. § 20 00 e-3 (a). Th e fram ewo rk

est ab li sh edinMcDon ne ll Dougl as Co rp . v. Gree n , 41 1 U.S. 7 92
The district cour

t gr anted summary

judgme nt in Blue Cross’s fa vor on Hudson’s other 1 claim of ra cial discrimination. B eca use Hudson does not c halleng e this decision on appe al, any claim in this respec t is deemed a bandoned. See Carmichae l v. Kellogg, Brown, &Root Servs. , Inc. , 572 F.3d 1271, 1293 ( 11th Cir. 2009) (statingissues not briefe d on appeal are deeme d abandone d), cert. de nied, 130 S. Ct . 3499 (2010). We reviewa district cour t order grantingsummary judgme nt de novo , viewingall of the 2 fac ts in the recor d in the light most favor able to the non- moving pa rty . Brooks v. County Comm’n of Je

fferson County, Ala. , 446 F.3d 1160, 1161- 62 (11th Cir. 2006). Summary judgme nt is appropriate wher e the movingparty demonstrates that no ge nuine issue of mate rial fac t exi sts, and they

are entitled to judgment a s a matter of law. Id. at 1162; Fe d. R. Civ. P . 56(c) . 2(1 97 3) , go ve rn s the bu rd enof p ro of inTit le VII ret al ia ti on cas es . Golds mith v . Ci tyof Atmo re , 99 6 F .2d11 55 , 11 62 -6 3 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 3) . If a pl ai nt iff est ab li sh es a pr ima fa ci e cas e o f ret al ia ti on an d t he de fen da ntpro ffer s a l eg it im at e rea so n fo r th e em pl oym en t ac ti on , th e p la in ti ff the n m us t t en de r ev id en ce t o s ho w th atth e de fen da nt ’s pro ffer edreas on is pre te xtua l. Id . at 1 16 3.

“ [A] reaso n c an no t b e p ro ve d t o b e ‘a pret ex t fo r dis cr imi na ti on ’ un le ss itis sh own bo th th atth e rea so n was fal se , an d th atdi sc riminat io n was th e rea l re as on .” St . Mar y’s Hon or

Ctr . v. Hicks , 50 9 U.S. 5 02 , 51 5 (1 99 3) (em ph as is inori gi na l). An em pl oyer’s dev ia ti onfro m

it s es tabl is he d p ol ic ie s m ay serve as e vi de nc e o f pr et ex t. Se e Hur lb er t v. St. Ma ry ’s Heal th Ca re Sys., In c. , 43 9 F .3d12 86 , 12 99 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) . An as se rte d “ work ru le ” v io lati on m ay be pre te xtua l wh enth e pl ai nt iff pro ffer s ev id en ce “ (1 ) th atsh e d idno t v io la te th e ci te d wo rkrul e, or (2 ) th atif s he di d v io late th e ru le , othe r em pl oyees o ut si de th e p ro te ct edcla ss , who en ga ge d i n s im il ar ac ts , were n otsi m il arl y tre at ed .” Damo n v . Flemi ng Su pe rma rk et s o f Fl or id a , 19 6 F .3d13 54 , 13 63 (11 thCir . 19 99 ). Neve rth el es s,

“ [a]n em pl oyer who fir es anem

pl oyee un de r th e m is ta ke n b utho ne stim pr es si on th atth e em

pl oyee vi ol at eda work ru le is no t l iabl e fo r di sc riminat ory co nduc t.” Id. at 1 36 3 n .3; se e al

so Nixv. W

LCY Radio /Ra ha ll

Co mmc’n s , 73 8 F .2d11 81 , 11 87 (11 th Cir . 19 84 ) (s tati ng anem pl oyer m ay

fir e anem

pl oyee fo r a g oo d o r ba d 3reas on , a reas on ba se d o n e rro ne ou s fa ct s, o r fo r no reas on at a ll , as l on g a s i ts

reas onis no t d is cri m in at ory ). Thu s, wh ethe r anem pl oym en t d eci si on was p ru de nt orfai r is irr el ev an t. Roj as v. Flo ri da , 28 5 F .3d13 39 , 13 42 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ); se e al so Elr od v. Se ar s, Ro eb uc k a nd

Co . , 93 9 F .2d14 66 , 14 70 (11 th Cir . 19 91 ) (n ot in g c ou rts do no t re ex am in e anem pl oyer’s bu si ne ss jud gm en t an d t ha t the ke y in qu iry is “ whe th er the em pl oyer gave anho ne stex pl an at io n o f it s b eh av io r”). An em pl oyer ha s the “ rig htto in te rp retit s ru le s as itch oo se s, an d t o m ak e de te rm in at io ns as i t s ees fitun de r th os e ru le s.” Ni x , 73 8 F .2dat 1 18 7. The di stric t co urt d idno t err in gra nt in g s umm ary jud gm en t i n B lu e Cro ss ’s fav orbe cau se Hud so n fa il edto pro vi de ev id en ce tha t Bl ue Cro ss ’s leg it im at e, no n- ret al ia to ry

reas on for

he r te rm in at io n was pre te xtua l. Altho ug h Hu ds on de ni edvi ol at in g B lu e Cro ss ’s aud io -v is ua l p ol ic y an d a ss ert edBlu e Cro ss kn ew or sh ou ldha ve kn own sh e d idno t v io la te th e p ol ic y , th e p ret ex t i nqui ry cen te rs up on th e em pl oyer’s bel ie fs , no t the em pl oyee’s ownpe rcep ti on s. Here , Blu e Cro ss ha d a g oo d fa it h b el ie f Hud so n v io la te d the po li cy , bas edon : (1 ) he r ve ry de ta il ed , ap pa ren tl y

ve rb at im do cu m en ta ti on of the m eet in g wi th Barb ara Hu tc hi ns on ; (2 ) he r ex pr es se d d es ire to reco rdhe r co nv ers at io ns with m an ag ers be fo re tha t m eet in g; an d (3 ) he r co -wo rk ers ’ acco un ts th atsh e in te nd edto , or d id , reco rdth e m eet in g. Fu rth er, d es pi te be in g a sk edto , sh e d idno t g iv e Ja sm in e Wood s a c op y 4of

he r ha nd writ te n n ot es of t he m eet in g i n que st io n fo r co m pa ris on , andne ve r pr ov id edBlu e Cro ss with awrit te n s ta te m en t d eny in g s he us eda reco rd er. Des pi te Hud so n’s cl ai m

of s ki ll fu l n ot e-t ak in g, h er co -wo rk ers tes ti fie d s he reco rd edhe r m eet in g. Thus , evi de nc e sh owe d B lu e Cro ss be li ev edHud so n vi ol at edit s au di o- vi su al po li cy , andco ns id eredit“ anin to le rab le off en se .” Hud so n fu rth er as se rts Blu e Cro ss ’s dev ia ti on fro m it s o wn p ol ic ie s i s ev id en ce o f pr et ex t. Ass um in g, ar gu en do , Blu e Cro ss fai le d t o i nv es ti ga te he r co m pl ai nt s o f a rac ia ll y

ho st il e work e nv iro nm en t, thi s d ev iati on do es no t s ho w th e rea so n fo r fi rin g Hu ds on was fa ls e, or th e true reas on was re ta li at ory . Howev er, ev id en ce s ho weda co m pa ny offi ci al de ci de d t he ho st il e work en vi ro nm en t cl ai m

was u nr eal is ti c an d u ns up po rte d b y sp eci fic ev id en ce. Hud so n di d n otpre se ntan y

ev id en ce t o re bu t the co m pa ny offi ci al ’s fin di ng , exc ep t tha t Bl ue Cro ss ha s a p ract ic e to in ve st ig at e ev ery ho st il e work e nv iro nm en t co m pl ai nt . To the ex te ntHud so n c on te nd s B lu e Cro ss furth er d ev ia te d fr om it s po li ci es —ci ti ng it s d eci si on no t t o t erm in at e Cri ss y Garret , an Afr ic an -Am eri can fem al e who vi ol at edth e sa m e au di o- vi su al po li cy —h er ar gu m en t fa il s. Bl ue Cro ss de te rm in edGarret , un li ke Hud so n, h ada cred ib le co m pl ai ntof p ot en ti al workp la ce v io le nc e an d was un aware of t he au di o- vi su al po li cy . Also , a vi ol at io n of Blu e Cro ss ’s aud io -v is ua l p ol ic y do es no t n eces sa ril y

res ul t i n t erm in at io n. 5Thu s, n o e vi de nc e o f a p ret ex t ex is ts be cau se Garretan d Hu ds on were m em be rs of th e sa m e p ro te ct edcla ss bu t n otsi m il arl y si tu at ed , andBlu e Cro ss di d n otde vi at e fro m it s p ol ic ie s. Se e Damo n , 19 6 F .3dat 1 36 3; Nix , 73 8 F 2dat 1 18 6 (s ta ti ng no di sc riminat ory

in te ntis sh own if “ anem pl oyer ap pl ie s a rul e d iff

eren tl y to pe op le itbe li ev es are d iff

eren tl y si tu at ed ” (quo ta ti on s o m it te d) ). Bec au se Hud so n d idno t p res en t ev id en ce t o s ho w Blu e Cro ss ’s reas on for he r te rm in at io n was pre te xt , we affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t. AFFIRMED.

6