FIL ED U.S . C OUR T O F A PPE ALS ELE VEN TH CIRCUI T Jun e 1 0, 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HN CLE RK [DO NOT PUBLISH]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- 1576 4 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D.C . Do ck et No . 0 2 -0 2 8 6 3 -C V- NW RIL OU S PE RKINS , Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant,
ve rs us RIVERBEND CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALT H, INC., BRYAN LIBELL, D ef en dants -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 o rt h e rn D i s t r i c to f

A l ab a ma

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (June 10, 200 5) Be fo re CA RN E S, H U L L and M A RC U S, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Plaintiff Rilous Perkins appeals the district court’ s grant of summ ary j udgm ent to defendants Riverbend Center for Me ntal Hea lth, Inc. (“ Riverbend”)In the district court, Perkins raised a brea ch of contra ct claim under state law, but he has not 1 challeng ed its dismis sal on appe al. Acc ording ly , this iss ue i s d ee m ed waived a nd not discussed furth e r . Se e Ro w e v . Sc h r e ib e r , 1 3 9 F
. 3 d 1 3 8 1 , 1 3 8 2 n . 1 ( 1 1 Ci r . 1 9 9 8 ) ( an is s u e that appellant th fails to raise on a

ppeal is dee med aba

ndoned). 2 an d B ry anL ibe ll on h is c om pla int a lle gin g r ac ia l di sc ri m inatio n and d en ia l of due p r o c e s s . A f

t e r r e v i e w , w e a f

f i rm. 1 I. BACKGROUND Riverbend is a state-funded m ental health hosp ital in Alabam a. Per kins, an A fr ic an -A m er ic anm al e, w orke d f or Ri ve rb en d a s ahou se m an ag er be tw ee n 19 97
an d F eb ru ar

y of 200 2. B ef

or e Pe rk ins be gan w orkin g, Ri ve rb en d pr ovi de d hi m wit h a co py of Ri ve rb en d’s Pe rs on ne l Po li ci es an d P ro cedur es (“ th e Po li cy ”) . Ac cording to th e Policy , P erkins was an at-w ill em ploy ee who could be dism issed for any rea son, includin g any

behavior “ wher e the Chief E xecutive Off icer concludes th at im

m ediate dism issal is approp riate. ” A dditi onally , the P olicy state d: Em ploym ent and com

pensation are for no f

ixed per iod of tim e and can be te rm in at ed

w ithor w ith out c au se and w ithor

w ith out not ic e at any tim e, a t the opt ion of the e m plo y ee or Ri ve rb en d. N o r ep re se ntativ e of Ri ve r b e n d o t h e r t h a n t h e C h i e f E x e c u t i v e O f f i c e r h a s t h e au t h o r i t y

to en te r int o any ag reem en t f or e m plo ym en t f

or any spe ci fi ed pe ri od o f tim e or to m ak e an y

a gr ee m en t c ontrary

to the f or eg oin g. Ac cording to an October 14, 1997 Em ploy ee Confer ence For

m , A shley Cr ow , anothe r Ri ve rb en d e m plo y ee , r ep or

te d th at P er kin s be cam e host ile w ithaAlthough Per kins’s signat u re i s on the Octobe r 14, 1997 Employ ee Confe renc e F orm, he 2 denied sig ning the document. Howe ver, Per kins ag ree d that if such conduc t occur red, it would have been a terminable of

fense
. Although his sig nature is a lso on this document, Per kins denied sig ning the November 2, 3 20 00 Em plo y e e Con fe re nc e F or

m. 3 cl ie nt, r ai se d hi s vo ic e, use d f oul langua ge , and e ve ntu al ly gr ab be d th e cl ie nt b y h i s s h i rt . S ub s e qu e n t l y, aN o v e mb e r 2 , 2 0 0 0 E mp l o ye e C o n f

e r e n c e F o rm, 2 de ta ile d th at

P er kin s w as : ( 1) f

re que ntl y unw ill ing to co m

m uni cate w ithc ow orke rs , the re by

c om pr om isi ng c lie nt c ar e; and ( 2) pr one to fr eq ue nt d isp lay s of dis ru pti ve , vol at ile e m oti ons. H ow ev er , P er kin s a lso r ec ei ve d nu m er ous posi tiv e 3
ev al ua tio ns f

ro m his sup er vis or s. For exam ple, in Se ptem

ber 1998, Va lerie W esson, Per kins’s supervisor, noted th at Per

kins was suppo rtive of other staff m em bers and alway s posi tive. I n Marc h 19 99, W es son not ed that P er kin s w as de pe nda

ble , tr ustw orthy , c oope rativ e
w ithoth er

m em be rs of the sta ff , and a lw ay s r ea dy

to vol unt ee r fo r ta sks
. W es son further stated that he w orked well w ith all em ploy ees and w as a team

leader. In May 200 0, W es son ga ve P er

kin s anothe r ex ce pti ona l sc or e an d c om m en te d th at

he
wa s dependable and trust worthy
. In May 2001 , R iverbend m anagem ent noted th at Perk in s was a ha rdwork er an d h adde ve lo pe d i nt o a n e xc el le nt tea m pl ay er. O n D ec em

be r 3, 200 1, Joann M cD ouga l, aRi ve rb en d e m plo y ee , f ile d a
co m pla int w ithRi ve rb en d m an ag em en t, a lle gin g P er kin s: ( 1) be cam e en ra ge d and4

scream ed at McD ougal; (2) called McD ougal nam es; (3) insinuated that Mc D ouga l r ec ei ve d ki ck

ba ck s f ro m apharm ac y

a t a sta ff m ee tin g; ( 4) r ef

use d to ap olo giz e; ( 5) c al le d c lie nts nam es and thr eate ne d to thr owone of f a bus if he did not sto p cough ing; (6) contacted a client at hom e to prevent him from reporting an incident in volv ing Perkins; and (7) uttered racia l rem arks, such as, “ when he see s a whi te wom an th atjus t m ean s t ro ub le forhi m .” O n D ec em

be r 4, 200 1, P er

kin s w as c al le d into spe ak w ithW es son, L iz Jam es, W esson’s supervisor, and Marty Sim s, the H um an Resources D irector at Ri ve rb en d. P er

kin s w as inf

orm ed of Mc D ouga l’ s c om

pla int and tha t S im s w oul d be inv es tig at ing the a lle ga tio ns. Si m s m et w ithe m plo y ee s, both f

orm er and c ur re nt, w ho h ad

w orke d w ith Pe rk ins and w er e m en tio ne d inMc D ouga l’ s c om pla int
. S im s’ s in ve sti ga tio n
re ve al ed that anothe r Ri ve rb en d e m plo y ee , Joan K ilb ur

n, f el t sc ar ed and int im idate d by

P er kin s. A cc or din g to K ilb ur n, a ft er she gave am es sa ge to Pe rk ins concerning the use of a note board, he said to her, “ [D ] on’t e ver tell m e w hat
an oth er sta ff m em be r ha s sa id. ” K ilb ur

n a sse rt ed

that P er kin s’ s si ze , pr es en ce , and de m ean orwere “ ov erp owe rin g a nd sca ry .” K ilb ur n f urthe r state d th at

G eo rg e Co le m an , ac lie nt, r ep orte d an a lte rc at ion
w ithP er kin s. A cc or din g to K ilb ur n, Co le m aninf

or m ed he r that w hil e he w as in a5

van with Per

kins, Perkins called him

a “ gigo lo” and threatened to throw him off the van if he did not sto p c ough ing
. P er

kin s th enc al le d C ole m ana t ho m e an d to ld him that he “ shou ldn ’ t be te lli ng this kin d of thi ng. ” K ilb ur

n a lso state d th at

she
co ns id ered res ig ni ng he r po si ti on be cau se of t he work in g e nv iro nm en t. A cc or din g to S im s’ s in ve sti ga tio n, Re ne e Sm ith , af orm er Ri ve rb en d
em plo y ee , state d th at

she w itn es se d M cD ouga l’ s r ea ct ionto ana lte rc at ionw ith Perkins. Sm ith said th at McD ougal was so distraugh t that Sm ith tho ught she wa s suf fe ri ng f ro m astr oke
. A cc or din g to S m ith , P er kin s w as pr one to sudd enand
severe m ood swings , and that du ring one incid ent, he “ we nt off” on em ploy ee L ind a Bu lli ngt on, que sti oni ng h er on whe the r she w as f

ab ri catin g f

ood co unt s and ste al ing a llo catio ns. Sm itha lso a sse rt ed

that sh e int er

ve ne d inan a lte rc at ionbe tw ee n P er kin s
an d R an da ll Ri ch ar d, ac lie nt. A cc or din g to S m ith , P er kin s be cam e so v iol en t sh e fear ed for her self and Richard. Sm ith also st ated that at one tim e or another, P e rk i n s mad e e v e ry s i n g l e f e mal e s t a f

f memb e r c ry. Ac cording to J oy ce Ca

usly , an em

ploy ee at R iverbend, Pe rkins was
oc ca sio na lly

a cc usa tor

y and i rr at ion al
. A cc or din g to Ca usl y , on tw o oc ca sio ns, Perkins had unreasonable, em otion al rea ctions to j ob assig nm ents that she had g i v e n h i m.6

Although Per

kins d enied all of the above incidents o ccurre d, Sim s, af ter
co nf er ri ng w ithRi ve rb en d C E O , Br y anL ibe ll, w as ins tr

uc te d to te rm inate Pe rk ins ’ s e m

plo ym en t. II. THE DISTRICT COURT Pe rk ins f ile d th is l aw sui t, a sse rt ing that he w as te rm inate d be ca use of his
ra ce and tha t R ive rb en d ha d vi olate d hi s du e pr oc es s r igh ts b y not pr ovi din g hi m wit h a n o pp or tu ni ty to ad dr es s t he all eg at io ns pri orto hi s t erm in at io n. Sp ec if ic al ly , P er

kin s a sse rt ed

that the de fe ndants r ef

use d or f ai le d to c om

ply w ith
e mp l o yme n tp o l i c i e s r e g a r d i n g t e rmi n a t i o n an df a i l e dt o tr e a th i m i n th e s a me
m an ne r as oth er

e m plo y ee s. P er

kin s a sse rt ed

that he : ( 1) suf

fe re d di sc ri m inatio n based on hi s race , in violation o f 42 U. S. C. §§ 19 81, 1983, and 200 0e; and (2) that he was d en ie d e qu al pro te ct io n a nd du e p ro ces s, i n v io la ti on of 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 83
. Pe rk ins sou ght

r ei nst at em en t, ba ck

pay , dam ag es , a tto rn ey ’ s f ee s and c ost s. W ithr eg ar d to P er

kin s’ s T itl e V II ( 42 U
. S. C. § 20 00e ), and § § 19 81 and 1983 claim s, the district court concluded that Perkins produ ced no direct evidence of r ac ia l di sc ri m inatio n. A cc or din gly , the dis tr ic t c ourt e va luate d P er kin s’ s c la im
un de r McDo nn el l Do ug la s C or p. v . Green , 41 1 U.S. 7 92 , 93 S. Ct. 1 81 7 (1 97 3)
. Th e d i s t r i c tc o u rtd e t e rmi n e dth a tb e c au s e P e rk i n s c o u l dp o i n tt o n o s i mi l a r l ys i tu a t e de mp l o ye e s o u t s i d e h i s p r o t e c t e dc l a s s wh o we r e tr e a t e dmo r e f a v o r ab l y,“We re view a grant of summar y judgme nt de novo, usingthe same le g al standar d as the 4 district court.” Me rritt v. Dillard Paper Co., 120 F. 3 d 1181, 1184 (11 Cir. 1997). Summary th judgme nt is proper

if the plea dings, de positions, and affidavits show that ther e is no g enuine issue of mater ial fac t and that the movingparty is entitled to judgme nt as a matter of law. See Ce lotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 2552 (1986). The evidence , and all infe renc es dr aw nf r o mth e f

a c t s , mu s tb e v i e w e d

i nth e l i g h tm o s tf

av o r a b l e t o th e n o n - m o v i n gp arty. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Ze nith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S. C t. 1348, 1356 (1986). In o rd e r t o de fe at summa ry jud g me nt, ho we ve r, the no n- mov ingpa rt y “ mus t do mor e tha

n s imp ly show that there is some metaphy sical doubt a s to the materia l f acts.” I d. at 586, 106 S. Ct. at 1356. The non-movingparty

must ma ke a suf

ficient showingon eac h essential ele ment of the c ase f or which he ha s the burden of proof. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S. C t. at 2552.

7 he failed to m ake a prim a fa cie ca se. Further, the district court concluded th at even if Pe rkins could sustain a prim a fa cie ca se, he failed to produce any evidence to s howthe r ea sons giv enby Ri ve rb en d f

or his te rm inatio n w er e a pr et ex t f or
ra ci al dis cr im inatio n. W ith regard to Per

kins’s equal protection claim , the district court concluded that be ca use P er kin s c oul d no t e sta

bli sh tha t he w as tr eate d di ff er en tly f ro m si m il arl y -s it ua te d e m

pl oyees wh o wer e n ot Afric an -Am eri can , hi s cl ai m fai le d. As to P er kin s’ s du e pr oc es s c la im , the dis tr ic t c ourt c onc lud ed that be ca use P er kin s
was an at- wil l em

pl oyee, he h adno pro pe rty int eres t i n h is co nt in ue d e m pl oym en t. A cc or din gly , the dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d su m m ar y j udgm en t t o th e de fe ndants . 4 III. DISC USSION A. Dire ct E vidence Perkins first ar gues that the dis trict court er red in finding th at he presented no d ir ec t e vid en ce of

r ac ia l di sc ri m inatio n. “ D ir ec t e vid en ce of dis cr im inatio n isTo succe ed with his discriminatory discharg e claim, Perkins had to showthat: (1) he w as 5 a member of a pr otected minority ; (2) he was qua lified for the job from which he was discha rg ed; (3) he was discha

rg ed; and ( 4) he was treated less favorably than a similarly

situated individual outside his protected c lass or his former position was filled by

a non-minority . May

n ar d v . Bd. of Reg ents, 342 F.3d 1281, 1289 ( 11 Cir. 2003). th 8 ev ide nc e w hic h, if

be lie ve d, w oul d pr ove the e xis te nc e of af ac t [ in i ssu e] w ith out inf er en ce or pr es um pti on. O nly

the m ost blatant r em ar

ks, w hose int en t c oul d be noth ing ot her than to discrim inate on the basis o f [r ace]
. . . constitu te direct
ev ide nc e of

dis cr im inatio n. ” Ba ss v . Bd
. of Co unty Co m m s. , 256 F
. 3d 1 095, 110 5 (11 Cir. 2001 ) (internal quotation m arks and citations om itted). th Pe rk ins ’ s on ly

pr of fe re d di re ct

e vid en ce of

dis cr im inatio n is ac onve rs at ion he ha d w ithV al er ie W es son. A cc or din g to P er kin s, W es son as ke d hi m

if he tho ught she w as the ty

pe of pe rs on who w oul d c al l anothe r pe rs on “ nig ge r, ” an d that the other person would “ j ust have to take it.” H owever , P erkins testified that he did not be lie ve that hi s c onve rs at ionw ithW es son w as ina ppr opr ia te , and h e ha d ne ve r w itn es se d or

he ar d anythi ng at R ive rb en d th at w as r ac ia lly

of fe nsi ve or ina ppr opr ia te . T hus, w e ag re e w iththe dis tr ic t c ourt tha t P er kin s pr es en te d no
ev ide nc e of

dir ec t r ac ia l di sc ri m inatio n. B. Circum stantial Evidence U nde r the Mc D onne ll D ougl as /B ur din e fr am ew ork, P er kin s m ust f ir st establish a prim a fa cie ca se of discrim ination
. McD onnell Dougl as, 411 U. S. at 59

802, 93 S. C t. at 1824 ; see H olifield v. Reno, 115 F.3d 155 5, 1561-62 (11 Cir. th 1997 ). I f Pe rk ins e sta

bli she s apr im a fa ci e ca se , the bur de n sh if ts t o th e de fe ndants to “ ar

tic ulate som e le git im at e, non dis cr im inator y r ea son” f or his te rm inatio n. Mc D onne ll D ougl as , 411 U
. S. a t 80 2; 9 3 S
. Ct
. a t 18 24. P er kin s
m ust then s how that the proffer ed rea son is m erely a prete xt for rac ial dis cr im inatio n. T ex as D ep ’ t of Co m m uni ty A ff ai rs v. Burd ine , 450 U
. S. 248 , 253 , 101 S. Ct. 1089 , 1093 (1981). T o sh owthe pr of

fe re d r ea son is m er el y

apr et ex t, P er

kin s m ust de m onstrate that the pr of fe re d r ea son w as not

the tr ue r ea son fo r the em ploym ent decision. T he plaintiff m ay succeed in this either directly by persuading th e court that a discrim inatory rea son m ore lik el y m oti va te d th e em

plo y er or ind ir ec tly

by sho w ing that the em ploy er’ s proffer ed explanation is unworthy of cre dence. Ja ck son v. A la

ba m a St at e T enur e Co m

m . , – F
. 3d – , 200 5 W L 851 935, a t *1 2 ( 11 th Ci r. Apr . 14, 200 5) ( int er na l qu otatio n m ar

ks, br ac ke ts, e lli pse s, and c itatio ns
om itt ed ). P er

kin s m ust pr oduc e suf

fi ci en t e vid en ce to al lowar ea sona ble f ind er of fa ct to co nc lud e the de fe ndants ’ art ic ulate d r ea sons are not be lie vable
. I d. T his
can be a cc om

pli she d by

poi nti ng t o “ w eakne sse s, im pla usi bil iti es , inc onsi ste nc ie s, incoherencies, or contradictions ” in the proffer ed explanation. Id. (internal quot ation m arks and citations om itted).Perkins’s equa l protection and due proce ss claims are without meri t an d n o t discussed 6 further
. 10 W e concluded that the dis trict court properly determ ined that Perkins failed to e sta bli sh a pr im a fa ci e ca se of

r ac ia l di sc ri m inatio n. F urthe r, e ve n a ssu m ing Pe rk ins ha s e sta

bli she d apr im a fa ci e ca se of dis cr im inatio n, he ha s f

ai le d to pr oduc e an y

e vid en ce to showthat the de fe ndants ’ r ea sons f or his te rm inatio n
we re p re t ex tu al . Th e f

ac tre m ai n s th at Mc Do u g al co m p l ai n ed ab o u tPe rk i n s ’s ina ppr opr ia te be ha vio r to m an ag em en t. R ive rb en d c ondu ct ed atho ro ugh inv es tig at ion , and d ec ide d to te rm inate P er kin s on ly a ft er m an y of the c harg es in the c om pla int w er e subs tanti at ed

by oth er c ur re nt and f orm er e m plo y ee s. P er

kin s offer s no eviden ce or e ven an assertion that oth er, sim ilarly -situated em ploy ees
we re not term inated. Consequently , the district court properly granted summ ary j udgm en t t o th e de fe ndants . 6 AFFIR MED.