FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IR C U IT Marc h 31, 2008 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. 05- 15538

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 04 -007 55 -C V -C C -1 G E E T H A S A M P A T H , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s I M M U C O R , 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 o rth e N o r th e r n D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( M ar c h 31, 2008) B efo re B IR C H , P R Y O R an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: P l a i nt i f f - a ppe l l a nt , G e e tha S a m pa th, a ppe a l s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s gr a ntof2

su m m ar y ju d g m en t i n fa v o r o f d ef en d an t-ap p ellee, Im m u co r, In c., as to S am p ath ’s em pl oym entdi sc ri m i nat i on cl ai m s. S am path argues thatthe di stri ctcourti gn ored evi dence thatw ou l d h ave dem on stra t ed pret extand i m prop er l y det erm i ned t hather d e m o t i o n d i d n o tc o n s t i tu t e a n a d v e r s e e m p l o y m e n ta c t i o n . We A F F I R M. I . B AC KG RO UN D I n 1999, S a m pa th be ga n w or k a s a c ontr a c tc ons ul t a ntf orI m m uc or . S he w a s hi r e d a s s upe r vi s orof s of tw a r e i n the i nf

or m a t i on s y s t e m s ( “ I S ” ) de pa r tm e nt i n Jul y 200 0. In A ug ust20 01 , she t oo k t he po si t i on of D i re ct or of the IS d e p a r tm e n t. S h e b e c a m e p r e g n a n t th e f o llo w in g N o v e m b e ra n d im m e d ia te ly i nform ed her s up ervi sor, S t eve R am se y, Im m ucor’ s c hi ef fi nanci al offi ce r. S a m p a th r e c e iv e d h e rf

ir s t p e r f o r m a n c e e v a lu a tio n f

r o m R a m s e y in D e c e m b e r2 0 0 1 . A lth o u g h R a m s e y to ld S a m p a th o r a lly th a t h e w a s p le a s e d w ith he rw or k a nd ha d r e c e i ve d onl y good r e por t s f r om othe r s , hi s w r i t t e n e va l ua t i on r a te d h e rp e r f

o r m a n c e a s b e lo w e x p e c ta tio n s . R a m s e y e x p la in e d th a t th is di s c r e pa nc y a r os e f

r om the f a c ttha tthe w r i t t e n e va l ua t i on w a s ba s e d upon the p e r f o rm a n c e o f

th e e n tir e I S d e p a r tm e n t. In M ay 20 02 , S am path w as re stri ct ed t o b ed re stby com pl i ca t i on s w i th h er pregnancy. A roun d thi s t i m e, E rnst& Y ou ng w as prepari ng t o p er form i t s a nn ual a u d it o f I m m u c o r . T h is a u d it in c lu d e d a n e x a m in a tio n o f s o f tw a r e ap p lic a tio n s toAc c ordingto C le ave land , when th ea udito rs indic ate d th at th e y wo uld ne e d a lis t of “ a ll 1 the cha ng es from J anuar

y to present in the B AAN a pplication so that [they

could] choose [their] sample from that selection,” Sampath showed them the He lpdesk and I ssue L ogon her computer, a

nd then, bec ause it wa s so ext ensive, volunteered to put the infor mation in a “more readable f ormat.” R-Exh. 117 at 39-40. 3 ensure the ac cura t e proces si ng of fi nanci al i nform at i on . W i th S am path atho m e, R a m s e y a s s ig n e d C a s e y B r o s t, a n I S e n g in e e r , to c o o r d in a te th e s o f tw a r e a u d it. A f t e ra n i ni t i a l m e e t i ng w i th J i l l C l e a ve l a nd a nd S a r a B a um hof e r , the s of tw a r e a udi t or s , B r os ta s s i gne d r e s pons i bi l i t i e s w i thi n the I S de pa r tm e ntf or p r o v id in g in f

o r m a tio n r e q u ir e d b y th e a u d ito r s . H e in tr o d u c e d th e a u d ito r s to V i cki F l i er , a m em ber of the IS t ea m , and t o S am path, w ho had report ed t o w ork f ora f e w hour s on he row n i ni t i a t i ve t o he l p a ns w e rque s t i ons the a udi t or s m i ght have abou tthe change contr ol do cum ent at i on for the B A A N fi nanci al softw ar e s y s t e m , a boutw hi c h s he kne w m or e tha n a ny one i n the de pa r tm e nt . F l i e ra nd S a m pa th s how e d the a udi t or s the H e l pde s k a nd I s s ue L og, both doc um e nt s us e d by I m m u c o rto tr a c k c h a n g e s m a d e to th e B A A N s y s te m . N e ith e rF lie rn o rS a m p a th re stri ct ed the audi t ors’ ac ce ss t o i nform at i on du ri ng thi s dem on stra t i on . H ow ever , beca use the i nform at i on cont ai ned i n t he H el pd es k and Is sue L og w as ext ensi ve, the audi t ors r equest ed a s um m ary of the softw ar e c hang es thathad a fi nanci al im p a c t. B r o s t te s tif

ie d th a t h e in s tru c te d S a m p a th a n d F lie rto c r e a te a s u m m a r y . 1 F l i ert es t i fi ed that , atS am path’ s i nstruct i on , she c re at ed a l i stof 11 softw ar eCleavela nd testified that, when they were hande d the Summary , she and B aumhofer had 2 understood it to be a summary of the entire population of individual chang es, not just a summary of ov e rall c ha

ng e s madeto B AA

N. Shea lso te sti fi e d th at sh eand B a umh of e r h a d s pe c if

ic a lly asked F lier or Sampath whether the document included all cha ng es and that they

had conf irmed that it did. Flier and Sampath, on the other ha nd, both testified that they believed theauditors had wa nted the information on chang es culled ba sed on whe ther there wa s any financ ial impact. Flier also testified that she g ave theauditors the He lpdesk, the modification spec ification book containingever

y chang e madeto the system, and the data migration protocol. 4 changes ent i t l ed “ S um m ary of F i nanci al C hang es i n B aa n IV C 4. ” R -E xh . 11 1 at 91, 104, 120, E xhs . 2, 3. F l i e rf ur the rt e s t i f

i e d tha ts he c ul l e d the i nf or m a t i on t o be i nc l ude d i n the S um m a r y on the gr ound s he ha d c l a r i f i e d w i th the a udi t or s a tthe be gi nni ng: w he the rthe r e w a s a “ f i na nc e i m pa c t ” r e l a t e d t o the c ha nge . I d. a t77- 78. A f t e rc r e a t i ng the S um m a r y , F l i e re m a i l e d i tt o both B r os ta nd S a m pa th f or r e v ie w . S a m p a th , w h o w a s b a c k a t h o m e , m a d e o n ly a f e w m in o rc h a n g e s to w o r d in g a n d s e n t th e d o c u m e n t o n to B r o s t o n ly tw e n ty m in u te s la te r , a s k in g h im to r e v ie w it. B r o s t te s tif ie d th a t h e d id n o t b e lie v e it w a s h is r e s p o n s ib ility to r e vi e w the S um m a r y f

orm or e tha n “ f

or m ” a nd “ s truc tur e . ” R - E xh. 116 a t153, E xh. 62. A c c or di ngl y , f ourm i nut e s a f

t e rr e c e i vi ng S a m pa th’ s r e vi s i on a nd ha vi ng had t he do cum entfor j ustun der hal f a n h ou r, B rostre spon ded t o F l i er ’ s ori gi nal m es sa ge thatthe S um m ary l oo ked fi ne. F l i ergave i tt o t he audi t ors. T he audi t ors 2 t es t ed the changes and foun d con trol s t o b e a dequ at e. S am path b egan her m at erni ty l ea ve on 16 June 20 02 . O n 1 Jul y, R am se y a n n o u n c e d a r e o r g a n iz a tio n o f th e I S d e p a r tm e n t u n d e rw h ic h S a m p a th w o u ld5

m anage the softw ar e s i de and B rostw ou l d m anage the hardw ar e s i de. R am se y ex p l ai n ed th atth e reo rg an i zat i o n w as o n l y t em p o rary an d w as d esi g n ed t o ad d ress pa r t i c ul a rne e ds f

ori m pr ove m e ntw i thi n the de pa r tm e nt . H e s t a t e d tha the e xpe c t e d S a m pa th w oul d r e a s s um e r e s pons i bi l i ty f orboth s e c t i ons w he n s he r e tu r n e d f

r o m m a te r n ity le a v e . H e rs a la r y , b e n e f its , a n d h o u r ly w o r k r e q u ir e m e n ts w e r e u n c h a n g e d b y th e r e o r g a n iz a tio n . H e rjo b title a ls o r e m a in e d u n c h a n g e d . A lth o u g h S a m p a th c o n te n d s th a t h e rtitle w a s c h a n g e d f r o m D ir e c to ro f

I S to M anager of So ftw ar e, she neverac tual l y w orked as M anager bec ause she w as t erm i nat ed w hi l e s he w as st i l l on m at erni ty l ea ve. A l so, she a ckno w l edges that bo th h erre sum e a nd her j ob appl i ca t i on for the po si t i on she c urre nt l y hol ds l i sther l a s tp o s i t i o n a tI mmu c o ra s D i r e c t o ro f I S. In m i d-Jul y, w i th t he fi nanci al audi ti n ful l -s w i ng , the audi t ors i nform ed L ynne John son, A ss i st antC on trol l erfor I m m ucor, thatthey r equi re d add i t i on al supp ortfor $50 0, 00 0 capi t al i ze d as s oftw ar e c ost s a t tri bu t abl e t o t he prog ra m c h a n g e s m a d e to B A A N . J o h n s o n c a lle d S a m p a th a t h o m e . T h e r e c o r d a c c o u n ts of the i rc onve r s a t i on va r y , buttha tJ ohns on r e por t e d he ra c c ountof the c onve r s a t i on t o R a m s e y by m e m o i s notdi s put e d. J ohns on’ s m e m o de s c r i be s how S a m p a th to ld J o h n s o n s h e h a d w o r k e d m a n y h o u r s ( o v e ra w e e k e n d , e tc .) re vi ew i ng and revi si ng the Is sue L og for the audi t ors bec ause she w as concernedRamsey repe atedly

clarified that his decision to terminate Sampath was not based in a ny 3 way on J ohnson’s memo, which ser ved only as a “red f

lag ” initiating his fur

ther investig ation. R-Exh. 115 at 151-52, 284. 6 tha ti tc ont a i ne d i nf

or m a t i on tha tw oul d l ook ba d t o a n I S pr of e s s i ona l . J ohns on r e por t e d tha tS a m pa th ha d s ugge s t e d tha tbe f or e J ohns on ga ve a c opy of the I s s ue L o g to E r n s t & Y o u n g , s h e s h o u ld “h id e ” th e “R e a s o n ” c o lu m n o n th e s p r e a d s h e e t. R - E xh. 114 a tE xh. 50. R am se y t es t i fi ed thatJohn son’ s r eportof thi s c on vers at i on ac t ed as a “ re d fl ag” a nd thathe ca l l ed the audi t ors t o ask for acopy of al l i nform at i on thathad b e e n p r o v id e d r e g a r d in g s o f tw a r e . R - E x h . 1 1 5 a t 8 7 , 1 5 2 . T h e o n ly th in g E r n s t &

3 Y oung ga ve hi m w a s a c opy of the S um m a r y . R a m s e y a nd M a r t i n P i nne , the s of tw a r e a udi tm a na ge rf

r om E r ns t& Y oung, s a tdow n t oge the ra nd c om pa r e d the S um m ary t o t he H el pd es k and Is sue L og . T he tw o o f them concl ud ed thatthere w ere m aj o r ch an g es n o trefl ect ed i n th e S u m m ary. B ased o n th ese d i screp an ci es, P i nne t ol d R a m s e y tha tthe a udi t or s w oul d ne e d t o r e t e s tthe I S de pa r tm e nt c o n tr o ls . A f t e rdi s c ove r i ng the om i s s i ons i n the S um m a r y , R a m s e y a s ke d C l e a ve l a nd w h ic h m e m b e ro f

th e I S d e p a r tm e n t h a d p r o v id e d h e rth e d o c u m e n t. S h e to ld h im tha ti tha d c om e f

r om F l i e r . R a m s e y e xpl a i ne d tha tbe c a us e S a m pa th w a s the e xpe r ton B A A N a nd di r e c t l y s upe r vi s e d F l i e r , he be l i e ve d the doc um e ntt o ha ve7

b e e n c r e a te d a t S a m p a th ’s d ir e c tio n a n d th a t s h e w a s r e s p o n s ib le f o rth e o m is s io n s . D ur i ng the r e - a udi t , F l i e re m a i l e d R a m s e y t o e xpl a i n tha tC l e a ve l a nd a nd B au m h o fer h ad req u est ed o n l y ch an g es th ath ad a fi n an ci al i m p actan d th atE rn st & Y o u n g h ad b een sen tth e H el p d esk al o n g w i th th e S u m m ary. F l i er al so e xpl a i ne d tha tS a m pa th ha d c r e a t e d a r e por tf r om the H e l pde s k ba s e d on the c r ite r ia g iv e n b y th e a u d ito r s . R a m s e y te s tif ie d th a t h e n e v e rd is c u s s e d th is e m a il w i th F l i e r , tha the di d notbe l i e ve s he w a s “ c a pa bl e ” of c r e a t i ng the S um m a r y on h e ro w n , a n d th a t h e d id “n o t tru s t [ h e r ].” R - E x h . 1 1 5 a t 2 1 9 , 2 2 9 , 2 3 5 . A c c or di ngl y , he di d notc ons i de rhe re m a i l i n m a ki ng hi s de c i s i on r e ga r di ng S a m pa th. O n 6 A ugus t2002, B r os ts e ntR a m s e y a m e m o s t a t i ng tha tS a m pa th a nd F l i erhad b ee n t as ked w i th g atheri ng the re qu i re d i nform at i on re l at ed t o B A A N . In the m em o, he al so, i ncorrec t l y, st at ed thathe had n otre vi ew ed the S um m ary bef ore i thad b ee n g i ven t o t he audi t ors. H e l at erse ntanot her m em o t o R am se y expl ai ni ng thatE rnst& Y ou ng had exp re ss ed thei r di sc om forti n d ea l i ng further w i th S am path, bu tno t ed thatthey w er e qui t e w i l l i ng t o t rusti nform at i on prov i ded by hi m . R a m s e y t e s t i f

i e d tha the di d notr e l y on the i nf or m a t i on i n e i the rof B r os t ’ s m e m os w he n he m a de hi s de t e r m i na t i on a boutS a m pa th be c a us e he c o n s id e r e d it to b e “s e lf - s e r v in g .” I d . a t 1 8 1 - 8 2 . R a m s e y a ls o e x p la in e d th a t,S amp athdi s p ut es th i s . Ho we v er , as th e M agi s trat e Ju dge c o rr ec t l y o b s erv ed , al th o u gh 4 Sampath makes much of

discrepa ncies in testimony

reg ardingthe 9 August conferencecall, the actual difference s come to only minor variations in expression. Although Cleaveland never testified spec ifically

that she had told Ramsey she believe d she had be en “ste ere d awa y” from the Helpde sk data, she did e xplain, in answer to a question reg ardingher be liefs about Sampath’s intent, that she had told Ramsey she could not imag ine that Sampath didn’t realiz e she w as g iving the a

uditors less than complete infor mation. R-Ex h. 117 at 229-30. This is consistent with Ramsey ’s statement, albeit worded slightly differently . It is certainly not a denial thereof. S i m i l arl y, C l e av e l an d ’ s t e s t i m o ny th ats h et o l d R am s e y th ea

u di t o r s “ di d

n o tf e e ll i k e[ th e y] were g iven what [they] were a sking f or from this . . . whole situation,” id. at 226, and that they “nee ded . . . to che ck into ever y avenuethat [they] felt possibl e that [Sampath] or [Flier], for that matter . . . c ould have done ,” id. at 228-29, is not inconsistent with the asser tion that she had t o l d h i m“ S amp athw a s r e s p o n s ib l ef o r m i s l e a di n gth ea

u di t o r s . ”Ap p e l l ant ’ s B r . at3 3 . F i n a l l y, although Cleavela

nd’s testimony

(taken over two year s after the conversation at issue) doe s not 8 al tho ug h h e w as aw ar e thatB rosthad actual l y r evi ew ed the S um m ary bef ore i thad g o n e to th e a u d ito r s , h e w a s c o n v in c e d , g iv e n B r o s t’s lim ite d e x p e r ie n c e w ith B A A N , tha tB r os t ’ s r e vi e w ha d be e n onl y “ c ur s or y . ” I d. a t188. T h e r e - a u d it s h o w e d n o s ig n if ic a n t p r o b le m s w ith I m m u c o r ’s c o n tr o ls . A f t e r w a r ds , a c c or di ng t o C l e a ve l a nd’ s de pos i t i on, dur i ng a 9 A ugus t2002 confere nce c al l w i th R am se y a nd the ot her a ud i t ors, C l ea vel and t ol d R am se y that sh e b el i ev ed th e au d i t o rs h ad i n i t i al l y b een g i v en i n co m p l et e i n fo rm at i o n . S h e al so e xpl a i ne d tha t , be c a us e S a m pa th ha d be e n thr ough a udi t s be f or e , a nd be c a us e the a udi t or s ha d c l a r i f

i e d w hi c h i nf

or m a t i on the y w a nt e d, the y di d nots e e how S am path cou l d n othave kn ow n t hatshe had no tgi ven t hem everythi ng they r e que s t e d. R - E xh. 117 a t230. R a m s e y t e s t i f i e d tha tC l e a ve l a nd t ol d hi m , dur i ng thi s c a l l , tha ts he thoughtS a m pa th ha d s t e e r e d the a udi t or s a w a y f r om the H el pd es k and Is sue L og w i th t he S um m ary. R -E xh . 11 5 at13 7. H e e xp l ai ned 4re fl e c t th at sh ee ver spe c if ic a lly tol d Ra msey that Ern st &Yo un gwo uld , f ro m th e n o n, tre at all inf or matio n re c e ive d f

ro m Sampa

th w ithsu sp ic ion , s hedid te sti fy that sh etol d h im that Ern st & Youngwould “tre at every thing kind of under a microscope.”R-Ex h. 117 at 229.

9 th a t h e th e n c o n c lu d e d , b a s e d o n “[ h is ] in v e s tig a tio n a n d d is c u s s io n s w ith E r n s t & Y oung, ” tha tS a m pa th ha d gi ve n the a udi t or s m a t e r i a l l y i nc om pl e t e i nf or m a t i on, a n d th a t s h e n e e d e d to b e te r m in a te d f o rth a t r e a s o n . I d . a t 1 5 2 . R am se y t erm i nat ed S am path’ s e m pl oym enton 16 A ug ust20 02 . H e e xpl a i ne d tha the di d nota l s o t e r m i na t e F l i e rbe c a us e he be l i e ve d he ri nvol ve m e nt h ad b een o n l y “ m i n o r. ” Id . at2 8 0 . S i m i l arl y, h e d i d n o tt erm i n at e B ro stb ecau se he be l i e ve d B r os t ’ s r e vi e w of the S um m a r y ha d be e n onl y “ c ur s or y . ” I d. a t226, 280. R a m s e y pr om ot e d B r os tt o r e pl a c e S a m pa th i n he ror i gi na l pos i t i on on 2 S e pt e m be r2002. A f t e rpur s ui ng a c ha r ge thr ough the E E O C , S a m pa th f i l e d a c om pl a i nt agai nstIm m ucor un der T i t l e V II , 42 U . S . C . § 2 00 0e etse q. S he com pl ai ned t hat s he ha d be e n di s c r i m i na t e d a ga i ns tbe c a us e s he w a s pr e gna nt . A f t e rr e c e i vi ng a re po rtand recom m endat i on fr om the m agi stra t e j ud ge, the di stri ctcourtfoun d t hat S a m pa th ha d f

a i l e d ( 1) t o s how tha ts he ha d s uf f e r e d a n a dve r s e e m pl oy m e nt a c tio n d u r in g th e r e s tru c tu r in g o f th e I S d e p a r tm e n t, a n d ( 2 ) to r e b u t th e le g itim a te no n-di sc ri m i nat ory r ea son g i ven b y I m m ucor for her t erm i nat i on – t hatR am se y b e lie v e d S a m p a th h a d in te n tio n a lly p r o v id e d m a te r ia lly in c o m p le te in f o r m a tio n to10

the a udi t or s . T he di s tr i c tc our tthe r e f or e gr a nt e d s um m a r y j udgm e nti n f a vorof I m m u c o r . O n a ppe a l , S a m pa th a r gue s tha t( 1) the r e c or d s how s R a m s e y ’ s r e a s ons f or t e r m i na t i ng he rw e r e pr e t e xtua l be c a us e s he w a s nota c tua l l y r e s pons i bl e f orthe S um m a r y a nd the r e f

or e R a m s e y c oul d notha ve he l d a good- f a i th be l i e f

i n the l egi t i m ac y of hi s r ea sons; (2) other e m pl oyee s – part i cul ar l y B rostand F l i er– w er e s uf f i c i e nt l y s i m i l a r l y s i tua t e d t o S a m pa th f orthe purpos e of

de m ons tr a t i ng di s pa r a t e tr e a tm e nt ; a nd ( 3) he ra s s i gnm e ntdur i ng the t e m por a r y r e or ga ni z a t i on of th e I S d e p a r tm e n t c o n s titu te d a s e p a r a te a d v e r s e e m p lo y m e n t a c tio n . I I . DI S CUS S I ON W e r e vi e w a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s gr a ntof s um m a r y j udgm e ntde novo. D ur l e y v. A P A C , I n c ., 2 3 6 F .3 d 6 5 1 , 6 5 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . S u m m a r y ju d g m e n t is a ppr opr i a t e w he n “ the r e i s no ge nui ne i s s ue a s t o a ny m a t e r i a l f a c ta nd . . . the m ov anti s e nt i t l ed t o j ud gm entas a m att erof l aw . ” F ed. R . C i v. P . 56 (c ). “ In e xa m i ni ng the r e c or d, w e vi e w the e vi de nc e i n the l i ghtm os tf a vor a bl e t o the nonm ov i ng party. ” W i l son v . B / E A er ospace , Inc. , 37 6 F . 3d 10 79 , 10 85 (11t h C i r. 20 04 ). F o ra p r e g n a n c y d is c r im in a tio n c la im , w e u s e “th e s a m e ty p e o f a n a ly s is us e d i n othe rT i t l e V I I s e x di s c r i m i na t i on s ui t s . ” A r m i ndo v. P a dl oc ke r , I nc . , 209A prima facie c ase of discrimination is established when a plaintiff shows that she: (1) 5 wa s a me mber o f a

prote c te d c la ss, (2 ) w a s q ualif ie d f or thejobsh ehe ld, (3 ) s uf

fere d a n adv e rs e employ ment action, and ( 4) suffered f rom a diff

erential application of wor k or disciplinary

rules. Spivey v. Beverly

Enters., Inc., 196 F .3d 1309, 1312 (11th Cir. 1999). Sampath was pregnant and thus protec ted ag ainst discrimination on the basis of her sex, as defined under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k) . Thereis no dispute over her qualifications for the job she held. She wa s discharg ed. No on ee lseinv olv e d w iththeprod uc tio n o f t

heSummary

wa s disc ha

rg e d. F inally, Sampath was replace d by

Brost, who was not pre gnant. Immucor does not dispute that Sampath has thereby established a prima fac ie ca se of pregnancy discrimination. 11 F .3 d 1 3 1 9 , 1 3 2 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) . A s in o th e rT itle V I I c a s e s , a p la in tif f m a y u s e e ith e rd ir e c t o rc ir c u m s ta n tia l e v id e n c e to e s ta b lis h d is p a r a te tr e a tm e ntdi s c r i m i na t i on. W i l s on, 376 F . 3d a t1085. W hen a di spar at e tre atm entcl ai m i s s up po rt ed by ci rc um st ant i al evi dence, w e e val uat e i tac cordi ng t o “ the fr am ew ork est abl i shed . . . i n M cD on nel l D ou gl as C orp. v. G r e e n, 411 U . S . 792, 93 S . C t . 1817 ( 1973) , a nd T e xa s D e pa r tm e ntof C om m uni ty A f

f a i r s v. B ur di ne , 450 U . S . 248, 101 S . C t . 1089 ( 1981) . ” W i l s on, 376 F . 3d a t1087. T he r e unde r , a pl a i nt i f f m us tf i r s te s t a bl i s h a pr i m a f

a c i e c a s e of di sc ri m i nat i on . Id. T hi s c re at es a r ebut t abl e pre sum pt i on of i l l egal ac t i on w hi ch 5 s hi f t s the bur de n t o the e m pl oy e rt o pr oduc e one orm or e l e gi t i m a t e , nondi sc ri m i nat ory r ea sons for the offendi ng ac t i on s. Id. P rodu ct i on of a l egi t i m at e, n o n - d is c r im in a to ry r e a s o n s h if ts th e b u r d e n o f

p r o d u c tio n b a c k to th e p la in tif f to offe r e vi dence thatthe proffer ed re as on i s, i n fac t , pret extfor i l l egal di sc ri m i nat i on . Id. T o sho w pret ext , a pl ai nt i ff m ustdem on stra t e “ such w e a k n e s s e s , im p la u s ib ilitie s , in c o n s is te n c ie s , in c o h e r e n c ie s , o rc o n tr a d ic tio n s in12

th e e m p lo y e r ’s p r o f

f e r e d le g itim a te r e a s o n s f o rits a c tio n th a t a r e a s o n a b le fact fi n d er co u l d fi n d th em u n w o rth y o f cred en ce. ” C o m b s v . P l an t at i o n P at t ern s, 106 F . 3d 1519, 1538 ( 11th C i r . 1997) ( quot a t i on om i t t e d) . U l t i m a t e l y , i f “ the proffe re d rea son i s one thatm i gh tm ot i vat e are as on abl e e m pl oyer , [the pl ai nt i ff ] m us tm e e ttha tr e a s on he a d on a nd r e buti t . C ha pm a n v. A I T r a ns por t , 229 F . 3d 10 12 , 10 30 (11t h C i r. 20 00 ) ( en banc). A . T e r m i na t i on I n th is c a s e , r a th e rth a n d is p u tin g S a m p a th ’s e s ta b lis h m e n t o f a p r im a f

a c ie ca se of di sc ri m i nat i on , Im m ucor as se rt s thatR am se y t erm i nat ed S am path for a l e gi t i m a t e , non- di s c r i m i na t or y r e a s on: pr ovi di ng i nc om pl e t e a nd m i s l e a di ng i nf or m a t i on t o the E r ns t& Y oung a udi t or s . T he r e f or e w e a r e l e f

tt o de t e r m i ne w he the rS a m pa th ha s s how n tha tthi s r e a s on w a s a c tua l l y pr e t e xtf ordi s c r i m i na t i on b ased o n h er p reg n an cy. Ini t i al l y, w e observe thatm ostof S am path’ s a rgum ent s a dd re ss the ac cura cy of R am se y’ s det erm i nat i on thatshe w as m at er i al l y i nv ol ved i n t he audi tra ther than R a m s e y ’ s good- f

a i th be l i e f

r e ga r di ng he ri nvol ve m e nt . S he poi nt s out , f or in s ta n c e , th a t B r o s t h a d a m p le o p p o r tu n ity to r e v ie w th e S u m m a r y b e f o r e it w e n t to th e a u d ito r s a n d th a t F lie rw a s la r g e ly r e s p o n s ib le f o rth e S u m m a r y ’s c r e a tio n . H ow e ve r , the que s t i on i s notw he the rB r os torF l i e rw e r e m or e r e s pons i bl e f or13

in a c c u r a c ie s o rin c o m p le te n e s s th a n S a m p a th , b u t w h e th e rR a m s e y h o n e s tly be l i e ve d tha tS a m pa th w a s pr i m a r i l y r e s pons i bl e . S a m pa th’ s e vi de nc e of the gr e a t e ri nvol ve m e ntof

B r os ta nd F l i e rdoe s notr e buthe a d on R a m s e y ’ s t e s t i m ony thathe bel i eved (1) thatB rost s’ s r evi ew w as on l y c ursory and (2) thatF l i erw as in c a p a b le o f

h a v in g g e n e r a te d th e S u m m a r y o n h e ro w n . S e e id . a t 1 0 3 0 . S a m p a th p o i n t s t o n o ev i d en ce t o est ab l i sh th atR am sey h ad actu al k n o w l ed g e o f th e p reci se l e ve l of i nvol ve m e ntof

e i the rB r os torF l i e r . A c c or di ngl y , S a m pa th f a i l s t o s how di s c r i m i na t or y i nt e ntby poi nt i ng outR a m s e y ’ s di s pa r a t e tr e a tm e ntof B r os ta nd F l i er . S ee N i x v . W L C Y R adi o/ R ahal l C om m c’ ns, 73 8 F . 2d 11 81 , 11 86 (11t h C i r. 19 84 ) ( “ If

an em pl oyerappl i es a rul e di ff er ent l y t o p eopl e i tbel i eves ar e di f f e r e nt l y s i tua t e d, no di s c r i m i na t or y i nt e ntha s be e n s how n. ” ) ( quot a t i on a nd a lte r a tio n o m itte d ) . S am path al so att ac ks the l egi t i m ac y of R am se y’ s bel i ef thati nform at i on w as i nt e nt i ona l l y ke ptf

r om the a udi t or s . S he f oc us e s on tw o pr i m a r y pi e c e s of evi dence: the t i t l e of the S um m ary a nd F l i er ’ s e m ai l t o R am se y. H ow ever , nei ther m akes i ti m po ss i bl e f

or R am se y t o h ave bel i eved thatthe S um m ary w as i nt ended to k e e p in f

o r m a tio n f

r o m th e a u d ito r s . T o th e c o n tr a r y , f ir s t, th e te r m S u m m a r y is a m bi guous . I tc oul d ha ve i ndi c a t e d a r e por tc ont a i ni ng a s um m a r i z e d l i s t i ng f or e a c h c h a n g e , o ra s h o r te rlis t o f o n ly th e m o s t im p o r ta n t c h a n g e s a c c o r d in g toAlthough Johnson and Sampath’s ac counts of their phoneconver sation vary, they agree 6 that J ohnson called Sampath beca use the a uditors claimed not to have all the information they neede d. 14 ce rt ai n cri t er i a. S ec on d, no thi ng i n F l i er ’ s e m ai l nece ss ar i l y pre cl ud es a bel i ef that th e S u m m a r y w a s in te n d e d to h id e in f o r m a tio n . A d d itio n a lly , th e in f o r m a tio n in th e e m a il r e g a r d in g w h a t h a d b e e n p r o v id e d to th e a u d ito r s d ir e c tly c o n f lic ts w ith w ha tR a m s e y ha d be e n t ol d by P i nne , C l e a ve l a nd, a nd e ve n J ohns on ( a n I m m uc or em pl oyee ). F i nal l y, the re cord ref l ec t s thatthe audi t ors t ol d R am se y thatthey had 6 a t t e m pt e d t o c onf

i r m tha tthe S um m a r y i nc l ude d a l i s tof the t ot a l popul a t i on of changes, thatthey had been ass ured by S am path o r F l i erthati tdi d, and h ad l at er le a r n e d th a t it a c tu a lly h a d n o t. T he evi dence t o w hi ch S am path p oi nt s a l so fa i l s t o est abl i sh thati tw as i m po ss i bl e f

or R am se y i n g oo d fai th t o h ave bel i eved thatS am path w as r e s p o n s ib le f

o rth e m is s in g in f

o r m a tio n . A lth o u g h R a m s e y d id k n o w th a t S a m p a th w as no ton si t e duri ng the m aj ori ty of the audi t , he t es t i fi ed thathe bel i eved F l i er w as w orki ng un der S am path’ s c l ose di re ct i on . S am path p oi nt s t o n o evi dence that R am se y had ac tual kn ow l edge cont ra di ct i ng thi s bel i ef . F urther, S am path w as hers el f i n t he offi ce for s ever al ho urs w hi l e the audi t ors w er e pre se ntand R am se y ha d r e c e i ve d a r e por tf

r om J ohns on, w he the rtrue ornot , tha tS a m pa th ha d s pe nt s e ve r a l hour s w orki ng on a doc um e ntf orthe a udi t or s . A s f

orB r os t , a l though15

R am se y w as aw ar e thatB rosthad revi ew ed the S um m ary, he al so un ders t oo d t hat B rost ’ s kno w l edge of B A A N w as l i m i t ed, there by l ea di ng t o R am se y’ s bel i ef that B r o s t ’ s r e v i e w o f

th e S u m m a r y h a d b e e n o n l y c u r s o r y . F i n a l l y , th e r e c o r d s h o ws th at th e a u d it o rs ex p lain ed to R am se y th at th ey d id n o t see h o w , g iv en S am p ath ’s ext ensi ve hi st ory of par t i ci pat i ng i n E rnst& Y ou ng ’ s pre vi ou s aud i t s of I m m ucor, she w ou l d n othave kn ow n t he S um m ary di d n otcont ai n al l the re qu es t ed i nf or m a t i on. R - E xh. 117 a t226, 230. S i m i l ar l y, the re cord fai l s t o sup po rtS am path’ s a ss er t i on thati tw as R am se y w ho f i r s ts ugge s t e d t o the a udi t or s tha tS a m pa th w a s r e s pons i bl e f orw i thhol di ng i nf or m a t i on, the r e by bi a s i ng hi s ow n i nve s t i ga t i on. T he di s c r e pa nc i e s i n the v a r io u s a c c o u n ts o f

th e 9 A u g u s t c o n f

e r e n c e c a ll a r e m in o ra n d in s u f f ic ie n t to cr ea t e aqu es t i on of fa ctas t o w hether R am se y a ctual l y bel i eved S am path h ad w i thh el d i nform at i on . F or al l of these re as on s, w e a gree w i th t he di stri ctcourtthat S am p ath fai l ed t o p o i n tt o “ w eak n esses, i m p l au si b i l i t i es, i n co n si st en ci es, i nc ohe r e nc i e s , orc ontr a di c t i ons ” s uf f i c i e ntt o r e butthe l e gi t i m a t e r e a s ons gi ve n by Im m ucor for her t erm i nat i on . S ee C om bs, 10 6 F . 3d at15 38 ; C hapm an, 22 9 F . 3d at 1030. B . D e pa r tm e nt a l R e or ga ni z a t i on S a m pa th a l s o a r gue s tha the rr e a s s i gnm e nta s m a na ge rof the s of tw a r e s i de16

o f th e IS d ep artm en td u ri n g i t s t em p o rary reo rg an i zat i o n co n st i tu t ed an ad v erse e m pl oy m e nta c t i on, a nd the r e by pr ovi de s a s e pa r a t e gr ound f orhe rdi s c r i m i na t i on claim . T o sh o w an ad v er se em p lo ym en t actio n , an em p lo ye e m u st d em o n stra te “a se ri ou s a nd m at er i al change i n t he t erm s, cond i t i on s, or pri vi l eges of em pl oym ent . ” D a vi s v. T ow n of

L a ke P a r k, F l a . , 245 F . 3d 1232, 1239 ( 11th C i r . 2001) . “ [ T ] he e m pl oy e e ’ s s ubj e c t i ve vi e w [ of thi s ] i s notc ontr ol l i ng. ” I d. R a the r , the e m p lo y m e n t a c tio n a t is s u e “m u s t b e m a te r ia lly a d v e r s e a s v ie w e d b y a r e a s o n a b le pe r s on” unde rthe s a m e c i r c um s t a nc e s . I d. ; s e e a l s o D oe v. D e ka l b C ounty S c hool D is t., 1 4 5 F .3 d 1 4 4 1 , 1 4 5 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) ( “A n y a d v e r s ity m u s t b e m a te r ia l; it is note nough tha ta tr a ns f e ri m pos e s s om e de m i ni m i s i nc onve ni e nc e ora l t e r a t i on of r e s p o n s ib ilitie s .” ) ( a d d r e s s in g a n A D A c la im ) . S am path d oes notdi sput e thather s al ary, benefi t s, and h ou rs re m ai ned unc ha nge d. T he c ha nge i n he rj ob r e s pons i bi l i t i e s w a s m i nor . S he w oul d ha ve s u p e r v is e d o n ly th r e e f

e w e re m p lo y e e s u n d e rth e n e w s tru c tu r e , w h ic h w a s o n ly i nt ended as t em po ra ry i n t he fi rs tpl ac e. A l tho ug h she as se rt s thather t i t l e w as c h a n g e d , th e r e c o r d r e f

l e c t s n o s u c h c h a n g e . Un d e rth e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , we c o n c lu d e th a t th e c h a n g e in S a m p a th ’s e m p lo y m e n t w a s n o t s u f f ic ie n tly s e r io u s to c o n s titu te a n a d v e r s e e m p lo y m e n t a c tio n . A c c o r d in g ly , h e rd is c r im in a tio n c la im f a ils o n th is g r o u n d a s w e ll.17 I I I . CONCL US I ON S a m p a th a p p e a ls th e g r a n t o f s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t in f a v o ro f I m m u c o ra s to h e re m p lo y m e n t d is c r im in a tio n c la im s . F ir s t, b e c a u s e n o n e o f th e e v id e n c e to w hi ch S am path p oi nt s w ou l d g o t o d em on stra t e thatR am se y w as aw ar e that S am path’ s r es po nsi bi l i ty f or the sum m ary w as l es s than h e bel i eved or thathe w as aw ar e thatB rostor F l i erpl ay ed m ore s i gn i fi ca ntrol es than h e bel i eved, w e a gree w i th the di s tr i c tc our ttha tS a m pa th ha s f a i l e d t o s how tha tR a m s e y ’ s r e a s ons f or d i sm i ssi n g h er w ere p ret ex tu al . S eco n d , b ecau se S am p ath ’ s sal ary, b en efi t s, h o u rs, and m ostof her j ob re spon si bi l i t i es w er e unchang ed by the t em po ra ry re o rg an izatio n o f th e I S d ep ar tm en t, w e a g re e w ith th e d istrict co u rt th at S am p ath ’s assi g n m en td u ri n g th e reo rg an i zat i o n d i d n o tri se t o th e l ev el o f an ad v erse em pl oym entac t i on . A cc ordi ng l y, w e AF F I RM the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s gr a ntof s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t.