FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 20, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 13 62 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :1 0- cv -0 02 33 -MEF- W C MARTIN K. RUSSELL, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff - App el la nt , ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTIC E, BUREAU OF PRISONS, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll 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 Mi dd le Dis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma rch 20 , 20 12 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, PRYOR an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Tit le VII requi res th at“ [a]ll pe rs on ne l ac ti on s af fect in g e m

pl oyees o r ap pl ic an ts forem

pl oym en t . . . inex ecu ti ve ag en ci es . . . be m ad e fre e fro m an ydi sc riminat io n b as edonrace . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 2 00 0e -1 6( a). The di sp ut e in th is

cas e cen te rs on th e ch oi ce Darl en e Drew, Wardenof t he Bureauof P ris on s (“ BOP”) pri so n c am

p i n M on tg om ery, Alab am a, m ad e whe n s he sel ect edLeam on Je nk in s t o fi ll a va can t co rrec ti on al co un se lo r po si ti onat t he pri so n c am p. J en ki ns an d fo ur othe r can di da te s fo r th e p os it io n wer e o n t he “be stqu al ifi ed ” li stth e BOP pr ov id edDrew. Und er BOP p ro cedur es , sh e co ul d e it he r se le cton e o f th e fi ve on th e li stor l eav e th e p os it io n v acan t. Sh e p ur su edth e fi rs t o pt io n a ndch os e Je nk in s t o fi ll th e p os it io n. Ru ss el l M art in , who was o n t he li st , cla im s tha t Dre w, who is bl ack , cho se Jen ki ns be cau se he is bl ackan d re jecte d h im

be cau se he is whi te . In an effo rt t o ri gh t h is pe rcei ve d wro ng , Mart in bro ug htth is Tit le VII act io n, al le gi ng th atDrew, an d t he refo re the BOP, di sc riminat edag ai ns t h im ba se d on hi s ra ce. 1 BOP ad m it te d t ha t M art in m ad e o uta pr im a fac ie cas e o f Tit le VII li ab il it y , bu t as se rte d t ha t M art in co ul d n otpre va il be cau se th e rea so n Dre w gav e fo r se le ct in g J en ki ns for

th e p os it io n was leg it im at e an d n on -d is cri m in at ory an d Marti n c ou ldno t s ho w th atitwas apre te xtfor raci al di sc riminat io n. Th e BOP th eref or e m ov edth e d is tri ctco urt fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. The co urt g ran te d i ts
Russell sued BOP, Attorney Gene ral Eric Holder , the Depa rtment of Just ice, a

nd the 1 Bur eau of Prisons. W e re fer

to the defe ndants collec tively as B OP 2m ot io n a nden te redjud gm en t ac co rd in gl y . Mart in no w app eal s. 2

Drew ch os e Je nk in s ra th er than M art inor a ny of th e o th er cand id at es on th e

“be stqu al ifi ed ” li stbe cau se Jen ki ns was t he m os t qua li fie d. Th e ch oi ce co ns ti tu te d aleg it im at e, no n- di sc riminat ory reas on . It thu s b ecame Mart in ’s bu rd ento pro ve th atth e rea so n was a pr et ex t fo r il le ga l d is cri min at io n. McDo nn el l Do ug la s C

or p. v. Gr een , 41 1 U.S. 7 92 , 80 2- 04 , 93 S.Ct . 18 17 , 18 24
- 25 36 L. Ed.2d66 8 (1 97 3) . To pr ov e p ret ex t, Ma rti n h adto sh ow “b oth th atth e reas onwas fa ls e, an d th atdi sc riminat io n was th e rea l re as on .” Sp ri ng er v. Co nv er gys C us to mer Mgmt . Gro up Inc ., 50 9 F .3d13 44 , 13 49 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (quo tati onom it te d) (em

ph as is inth e o rig in al ). Mo reo ve r, th e d is parit y inMart in ’s an d J en ki ns ’s res pe ct iv e qua li fic at io ns m us t h av e b een“ of

su chweig htan d si gn ifi can ce tha t n o re as on ab le pe rs on , inth e ex erci se of i m pa rti al jud gm en t, co ul d h av e ch os en[Je nk in s] ov er the [Marti n].” Id . at 1 34 9 (i nt ern al qu ot at io n
We review de novo a district cour t’s grant of summar

y judgme nt. W

eek s v. Harden 2 Mfg. Corp. , 291 F.3d 1307, 1311 ( 11th Cir. 2002). Summ ary judgme nt is proper if the e vidence shows “that ther e is no g enuine issue a s to any materia l fac t and that the movant is entitled to judgme nt as a matter

of law.” Fe d. R. Civ. P . 56(a) . In deter mining whe ther a

materia l issue of fac ts ex ists, we consider the evidenc e in the re cord in the light most favorableto the non-movant, here Russell. Reynolds v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc
. , 989 F.2d 465, 469 ( 11th Cir. 1993). The evidenc e and f

actua l infere nces f

rom the evide nce a

re c onstrued fa

vorably to the party

opposing summary judgme nt. Id. To survive a motion for summary

judgme nt, more than a

“mer e scintilla” of evide nce must support the position of the non-movant; “the re must be e nough of a showingthat the jury

could re asonably

find for that party .” Brooks v. County Comm’ n , 446 F.3d 1160, 1162 (11th Cir. 2006) (interna l quotations and citation omitt ed). 3om itte d) .

Marti n a rg ue s, i n e ffec t, tha t n o re as on ab le pe rs on st an di ng inW ard en Drew’s sh oe s wo ul d h av e ch os enJen ki ns forth e p os it io n a t i ss ue be cau se , as a res ul t o f th e m ot or cy cl e acc id en t J en ki ns su ffer ed , he f ai le d t o m eetcert ai n ph y si cal requi rem en ts co nt ai ne d i n t he job de sc rip ti on forth e p os it io n. Th eref or e, Marti n c on cl ud es , he was m or e qua li fie d t ha n J en ki ns . The p ro bl em with h is arg um en t i s tha t h e fai le d t o p ro ve th atDrew was aware o f ei th er J en ki ns ’s acci de ntor t he ex te ntof t he in juri es Jen ki ns su ffer edwhen sh e se le ct edhi m for th e p os it io n. In sh ort, b ecau se Mart in fai le d t o s ho w th atDrew was aware o f a di sp ari ty betweenhi s an d J en ki ns ’s ph y si cal qu al ifi cat io ns , he n eces sa ril y fai le d to sh ow tha t h er re as on for pro m ot in g J en ki ns am ou nt edto a pr et ex t fo r di sc riminat io n. The di stric t co urt the refo re d idno t err in gra nt in g B OP su m m ary jud gm en t. Its jud gm en t i s, ac co rd in gl y , AFFIRMED.

4