FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T NOVEMB ER 2, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U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 0- 12 81 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 6- cv -0 21 25 -RGV LYSA JONES, LAWRENCE LYLE, a.k .a. Larry , REGINA ELNER, Pl ai nt iff s - Ap pe ll an ts , vers us FULTON COUNTY , GEORGIA, ROBERT TAYLOR, Dire ct or , Depa rtment o f In fo rm at io n Tec hn ol og y , DANNY T ROUTMAN, Dep uty Dire ct orof t he Depa rtment o f In fo rm at io n Tec hn ol og y , SALEEM SAYANI, CJ I's Ass is ta ntDire ct or , Defen da nt s - Ap pe ll ees .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ern Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (No ve m be r 2, 2 01 1)Befo re EDMONDSON, HULL andKRAVITCH, Cir cu itJu dg es .

PER CURI AM: Ly saJo ne s, Re gi naEln er, an d Lawre nc e Ly le ap pe al th e g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t o n t he ir c la im s o f rac e d is cri m in at io n, g en de r di sc riminat io n, an d ret al ia ti on un de r Tit le VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 20 00 e-2 (a), 3 (a), 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 81 , and 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3. No re ve rs ib le erro r ha s b een sh own ; we af firm . 1 2 Pl ai nt iff s, wh o wer e em

pl oyed i n t he Fu lt on Co un ty Info rm at io n Tech no lo gy dep art m en t, fi le d aco m pl ai ntag ai ns t Fu lt on Co un ty andRo be rt Tay lo r, Dan ny Trou tm an , andSal eem Say an i, al l s up erv is or s i n t he IT dep art m en t. Pl ai nt iff s al le ge d m an y

di sc riminat ory

an d re ta li at ory

em pl oym en t p ract ic es by Defen da nt s. Jo ne s ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredin gra nt in g s umm ary jud gm en t t o Fu lt on Co un ty on h er s ect io n 1 98 3 g en de r di sc riminat io n c la im ba se d o n h er n on Section 1983 is the exclusive remedy ag ainst state ac tors for violations of the rights 1 contained in se ction 1981. J ett v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 109 S.Ct. 2702, 2722 (1989). So, Plaintiffs’ section 1981 cla ims merg e into their sec tion 1983 claims. In addition, claims under Title VI Iand sec tion 1983 employ the same a

naly tical fra mework. See Koch v. Rug g , 221 F.3d 1283, 1297 n.31 (11th Cir. 2000). We reviewde novo the district cour t’s grant of summar

y judgme nt. Thomas v. Cooper 2 L ighting , Inc., 506 F .3d 1361, 1363 (11th Cir. 2007). And weview the e vidence in the light most favora

ble to the non-movingparty . I d. 2se le ct io n fo r a d ep uty di rect orpo si ti on . The d is tri ctco urt d et erm in edth atTay lo r, who sel ect edan ot he r ap pl ic an t fo r th e d ep ut y di rect orpo si ti on , was n ota fi na l po li cym ak er fo r th e Co un ty. Jo ne s co nt en ds th at , bec au se th e Co un ty didno t 3 arg ue th is reas on in th ei r su m m ary jud gm en t m ot io n, t he di st ric t co urt s ho ul d n ot ha ve co ns id eredit . The di stric t co urt m ad e n o e rro r ingra nt in g s umm ary jud gm en t o n t he no nse le ct io n c la im . It i s t ru e th atth e Co un ty didno t ar gu e, as a reas on to gra nt su m m ary jud gm en t o n the no n- se le ct io n c la im , th atTay lo r was no t a f in al po li cym ak er. Bu t a d is tri ctco urt h as th e p owe r to en te r su m m ary jud gm en t s ua sp on te . Burto n v . Cit y

of B el le Glad e, 17 8 F .3d11 75 , 12 03 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). In ge ne ral , th e lo si ng pa rty m us t b e p ro vi de d wi th su ffi ci en t n ot ic e to affo rdth at pa rty an o pp ortu ni ty to d em on strat e why su m m ary jud gm en t s ho ul d n otbe gr an te d. Id . at 1 20 4. Bu t fo rm al no ti ce m ay

no t b e n eces sa ry

wher e a l eg al is su e h as be enful ly de ve lo pe d a ndth e ev id en ti ary reco rdis co m pl et e. Arti st ic Ent m ’t, Inc., v . Cit y of W arn er Ro bb in s, 3 31 F.3d11 96 , 12 01 -0 2 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) . Whe th er a p arty is a

For a municipality

to be subject to sec tion 1983 liabili ty , the complained- of 3 discrimination must be a custom or policy of the g overnme ntal entity ; and only an off icer with final policy

makingauthority

may subject the municipality

to section 1983 liability . Church v. City of Huntsville, 30 F.3d 1332, 1342 ( 11th Cir. 1994). 3fin al po li cym ak er i s a que st io n o f la w. Doe v . Sch . Bd. o f Bro wardCo un ty,

Fl or id a, 60 4 F .3d12 48 , 12 64 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). Andhe re, tha t J on es co ul d h av e ap pe al edhe r no n- se le ct io n t hr ou gh th e Co un ty’ s g rie va nc e rev ie w pro ces s i s un di sp ut ed . 4 Mo reo ve r, al th ou gh Jo ne s ar gu es on ap pe al th atdi ffer en t ev id en ce was ne ces sa ry to de te rm in e whe th er Taylor was a fi na l p ol ic ym ak er fo r eac h o f th e al le ge d a ct s s he co m

pl ai ne d o f, sh e d oe s n otil lu st rat e h er p oi ntor i de nt ify any rel ev an t ev id en ce u nd erm in in g t he di st ric t co urt’s co nc lu si on th atTay lo r was no t a fin al po li cym ak er. See Res ti go uc he , Inc . v. Townof J up it er, 5 9 F .3d12 08 , 12 13 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 5) (whe re an ap pe ll an t fa il edto m ars ha l fa ct s an d a rg um en ts th at wou ldha ve pre cl ud edsu m m ary jud gm en t, an y

vi ol at io n o f su m

m ary jud gm en t no ti ce was ha rm le ss ). Jo ne s an d El ne r bo th arg ue th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredin gra nt in g s umm ary jud gm en t o n t he ir c la im s fo r di sc riminat ory an d re ta li at ory

term in at io n b ecau se th ey co ul d n otsh ow t ha t the Co un ty’ s re as on s fo r te rm in at in g t he m were pr et ex tu al . Becau se th is cas e is a ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce ca se , th e b ur de n- sh ift in g

And eve n still , the County did argue that Ta

ylor was not the f

inal policy

maker on many 4 of Jones’s other claims about a cts taken a g ainst her; thus, J ones had some notice that she nee ded to present pe rtinent evidenc e or a rgument controve rtingthe final policy maker asser tion. J ones failed to c halleng e this assertion in her response to the County ’s summary judgme nt motion. 4fram ewo rk

est ab li sh edinMcDo nn el l Do ug la s C or p. v . Green , 93 S.Ct . 18 17 (1 97 3) , app li es . Und er thi s fr am ewo rk , when anem pl oyer off

ers leg it im at e, no nd is cri m in at ory

reas on s fo r anall eg eddi sc riminat ory or r et al ia to ry

term in at io n, pl ai nt iff m us t the n p ro ve th atth e rea so n o ffer edwas am ere p ret ex t fo r anil le ga l m ot iv e. Id . at 1 82 4- 25 . If th e rea so n o ffer edby defen dantis on e th atmig ht m ot iv at e a rea so nabl e em pl oyer, th enpl ai nt iff

“ m us t m eetth atreas on he adon an d reb utit .” Ch ap m anv. AI Tran sp ., 22 9 F .3d10 12 , 10 30 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). The Co un ty ass ert edth atTrou tm anreco m m en de d J on es ’s term in at io n be cau se of p oo r job pe rfo rm an ce, p art ic ul arl y on th e im

pl em en ta ti on of ane w tax syste m . To sh ow p ret ex t, J on es si m pl y arg ue s tha t s he was n otres po ns ib le forth e ta x s y st em

to “ go li ve ” an d a ss ert s tha t s he di d e ve ryth in g s he co ul d t o m an ag e th e pr ojec t. J on es can no t es tabl is h p ret ex t m erel y be cau se sh e b el ie ve d t ha t s he was pe rfo rm in g h er job well . See Ho li fie ldv. Re no , 11 5 F .3d15 55 , 15 65 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th atth e p ret ex t i nqui ry is ab ou t the em

pl oyer’s per cep ti on of pl ai nt iff’s per fo rm an ce, n otth e em pl oyee’s ownpe rcep ti on s) . Evenwhen th e fact s ar e v ie wedin th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to he r, Jo ne s was th e m an ag er res po ns ib le forim

pl em en ti ng th e syst em ; an d s he can no t s ho w pre te xtbe cau se he r em pl oyer ch os e to ho ldhe r res po ns ib le when th atim pl em en ta ti on fai le d. Se e Ch ap m an , 22 9 F .3dat 1 03 0 (n ot in g t ha t p la in ti ff ca nn otest ab li shpre te xtby 5qu es ti on in g t he wis do m of h er em

pl oyer’s reas on as l on g a s t he reas on is on e th at m ig htm ot iv at e a rea so nabl e em pl oyer). Abo utEln er, h er s up erv is or , Say an i, t es ti fie d t ha t h e was up se t wi th Eln er’s pe rfo rm an ce i n a n i nc id en t i nv ol vi ng a vi de o a rrai gn m en t s y st em : Eln er g av e th e jud ge th e im

pr es si on th atth e syst em

was n otfun ct io ni ng pro pe rly whenitwas a nd sh e d idno t fo ll ow t he pro pe r he lp de skpro cedur es forha nd li ng su ch si tu at io ns . Afte r th is in ci de nt , Eln er was term in at ed . Eln er h as no t p res en te d s uf fic ie ntev id en ce t o s ho w th atth e cri ti ci sm s o f he r pe rfo rm an ce dur in g t he co urtro om in ci de ntwere a p ret ex t fo r ei th er d is cri m in at io n orret al ia ti on . Whi le Eln er’s d ep os it io n t es ti m on y rai se s a que st io n abo utth e co rrec tn es s o f th e fac ts un de rlyin g S ay an i’s an d Taylor ’s cri ti ci sm s o f he r pe rfo rm an ce, i t d oe s n otsh ow t ha t the y di d n otho ne st ly bel ie ve th atsh e h ad at te m pt edto fix equi pm en t wi th whi ch sh e was un fam il ia r orth atsh e h adfai le d t o fo ll ow p ro pe r pr oc edur es by not ifyin g t he he lp de sk . Her tes ti m on y is in su ffi ci en t to est ab li sh pre te xt . See Elr odv. Se ars , Roe bu ckan d C o., 9 39 F.2d14 66 , 14 70 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 1) (ex pl ai ni ng th atpl ai nt iff can no t cr eat e a triabl e p ret ex t i ss ue by rai si ng a qu es ti on ab ou t the co rrec tn es s o f th e fac ts un de rlyin g a n e m pl oyer’s ex pl an at io n wi th ou t i m

pu gn in g t he em

pl oyer’s ho ne stbe li ef tha t tho se fact s ar e tru e). 6Eve n i f Eln er h adest ab li sh edpre te xtab ou t the co urtro om in ci de nt , sh e st il l wou ldno t b e en ti tl edto su m m ary jud gm en t u nl es s s he est ab li sh edth atall of Defen da nt s’ pro ffer edreas on s wer e p ret ex tu al . See Ch ap m an , 22 9 F .3dat 1 03 7 (if th e em pl oyer off

ers m or e th anon e le gi ti m at e, no n- di sc riminat ory reas on , pl ai nt iff m us t re bu t ea ch of t ho se reas on s t o s urvi ve su m m ary jud gm en t). Bo th Tay lo r an d S ay an i t es ti fie d t ha t t he co urtro om in ci de ntwas m erel y

th e la stin a lo ng li ne of p erfo rm an ce p ro bl em s. Onap pe al , Eln er h as do ne no th in g -- ot he r th anoff er co nc lu so ry

all eg at io ns -- to sh ow p ret ex t. See Mayfiel d v . Pat te rs on Pu m p C o., 1 01 F.3d13 71 , 13 76 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ). Pl ai nt iff Ly le arg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt erredin gra nt in g s umm ary jud gm en t o n h is cla im

th athe was s us pe nd edin ret al ia ti onforen ga gi ng in pr ot ect edact iv it y

be cau se he fai le d t o e st ab li sh a cau sa l co nn ect io n b etweenhi s su sp en si on an d a ny pro te ct edact iv it y . To es tabl is h apri m a fac ie cas e o f ret al ia ti on , Ly le ha d t o s ho w th at(1) he en ga ge d i n s ta tu to ril y pro te ct edact iv it y ; (2 ) he su ffer eda m at eri al ly adv ers e em pl oym en t ac t; an d (3 ) th e ad ve rs e em pl oym en t ac t was cau sa ll y rel at edto hi s p ro te ct edact iv it y . Gol ds m it h v . Bag by Elev at orCo ., Inc ., 51 3 F .3d12 61 , 12 77 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). Ly le pa rti ci pa te d i n agro up co m pl ai ntag ai ns t Taylor . Butth is co m pl ai nt was no t fi le d wi thth e Equ al Em pl oym en t Op po rtu ni ty Comm is si on an d, t hu s, was

7no t co ve redby T it le VII’s pa rti ci pa ti onclaus e. EEOC v. Tot al Sy s. Se rv s., In c.,

22 1 F .3d11 71 , 11 74 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ) (Tit le VII’s pa rti ci pa ti on claus e o nl y ap pl ie s to act iv it ie s t ha t o ccu r in co nju nc ti on with o r aft er the fil in g o f a fo rm al ch arg e wit h t he EEOC). Even if Ly le ’s gro up co m pl ai ntco ns ti tu te d p ro te ct edco nduc t 5
un de r Tit le VII’s op po si ti on claus e -- wh ic h s erv es to pro te ctact iv it y th atoc cu rs be fo re the fil in g o f a fo rm al ch arg e wit h t he EEOC -- he can no t s ho w a cau sa l co nn ect io n b etweenth atco m pl ai ntan d h is su sp en si on . Ly le can no t s ho w a co nn ect io n b as edon tem po ral pro xi m ity

be cau se alm os t se ve n m on th s s ep arat edhi s g ro up co m pl ai ntfro m

hi s s us pe ns io n. Se e Hig do n v . Ja ck so n, 3 93 F.3d12 11 , 12 20 -2 1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 4) (expl ai ni ng th ata th ree- m on th in te rv al be twee n p ro te ct edact iv it y an d a dv ers e act , st an di ng alo ne , is to o l on g t o es tabl is h a n i nf

eren ce o f ret al ia ti on ). Ly le m ay est ab li shth e requi si te cau sa l co nn ect io n t hr ou gh ev id en ce tha t h is em pl oyer kn ew of

a pr ot ect edact iv ity

an d th ata se rie s o f ad ve rs e em pl oym en t ac ts co m

m en cedalm os t i m

m ed ia te ly th erea fte r. W id em anv. Wal-M artSto res , Inc ., 14 1 F .3d14 53 , 14 57 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ). Bu t i nt erv en in g re ta li at ory act s m us t b e m at eri al (orsubs ta nt ia l) t o b e co ns id ered . See Bu rli ng to n N. & Sa nt a Fe Ry. Co. v . W hi te , 12 6 S .Ct. 2 40 5,

Lyle’s cha

rg e made to the EEOC occ urre d afte r his suspension; so this complaint cannot 5 be ca usally connec ted to his suspension. 824 14 -1 5 (2 00 6) . Andhe re, the act s Ly le co m pl ai ne d o f -- i nc lu di ng be in g a sk ed to writ e rep orts witho utth e n eces sa ry res ou rces an d t im e to do so , bei ng ask edto acco un t fo r hi s t im e in an othe r em pl oyee’s off

ic e, an d b ei ng th reat en edwith di sc ip li ne forth e ti m e sp en t i n t he em pl oyee’s off

ic e -- ar e in su ffi ci en tl y subs ta nt ia l; th es e act s wo ul d n otpre ve nta reas on ab le em pl oyee fro m

m ak in g o r supp orti ng a ch arg e o f di sc riminat io n. Id . at 2 41 5. Insu m , Pla in ti ffs fai l t o s ho w erro r in th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t t o Def

en da nt s; an d we a ffi rm . AFFIR MED.

9