FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT AUG 30 , 2006 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. 06- 10867 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 04 -027 14 -C V -P -S J E R O M E ( N M I ) B E N N E T T , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s C A R I M . D O M I N G U E Z , C h a irw o m a n , E q u a l E m p lo y m e n t O p p o r tu n ity C o m m is s io n , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e , F A N N I E T H O M A S , P e r s o n n e l O f

f ic e r( R e tir e d ) , D e f e n d a n t.

________________________ 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 rn D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 30, 2006)B e nn e tt alsoraise d a c laim und e r t

hePrivac y

Ac t of 19 74 , 5 U. S.C. § 5 52 a , f or thefirs t 1 time on appeal. Be causehe failed to raise the c laim beforethe district court, hehas waived it. Acc ess Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1331 ( 11th Cir. 2004). The re cord shows that the Birmingham district officeultimately rec eived greater hiring 2 authority and hire d eight new investig ators. 2 B efo re M A R C U S , W IL S O N an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: Je rom e B ennettappeal s, pro se, the di stri ctcourt ’ s gra ntof sum m ary j ud gm enti n favor of the E qu al E m pl oym entO pp ortun i ty C om m i ss i on (“ E E O C ”) i n hi s c i vi l a c t i on f

i l e d pur s ua ntt o the R e habi l i t a t i on A c t , 29 U . S . C . § 701 e ts e q. a nd the A m e r i c a ns w i th D i s abi l i t i e s A c t( “ A D A ” ) , 42 U . S . C . § 12101 e ts e q. T he d i stri ctco u rtp ro p erl y g ran t ed su m m ary j u d g m en tt o th e E E O C o n al l cl ai m s. 1 Th e r e f o r e , w e a f

f i r m. I . Ba c k g r o und O n M a r c h 3, 1999, B e nne ttr e s ponde d t o a va c a nc y a nnounc e m e ntf r om the EE OC’ s Bi r mi n g h a m, Al ab a mad i s tr i c to f f i c e s e e k i n g ap p l i c a n t s f o rtwo EE O in v e s tig a to rp o s itio n s . T h e a n n o u n c e m e n t n o te d th a t th e p o s itio n s w e r e a v a ilab le 2 unde ra c om pe t i t i ve , m e r i t - pr om ot i on pr oc e s s t o appl i c a nt s w ho w e r e r e i ns t a t e m e nt el i gi bl es or fr om the E E O C di stri ctoffi ce and federa l agenci es , and u nd era no ncom pet i t i ve process t o i nd i vi du al s w ho w er e e l i gi bl e f or appo i nt m ent s und er s p e c ia l h ir in g a u th o r itie s s u c h a s th e V e te r a n s ’ R e a d ju s tm e n t A c t, 3 8 U .S .C .3

§ 4214. A tthe t i m e of

the a nnounc e m e nt , f

e de r a l a ge nc i e s a l s o ha d the di s c r e t i on t o g i ve “ no ncom pet i t i ve appo i nt m ent s t o any vet er an w ho has ase rvi ce -c on nect ed di sabi l i ty of 30% or m ore. ” T he anno un ce m enti nform ed appl i ca nt s thatthey “d [ id ] n o t h a v e to r e q u e s t n o n c o m p e titiv e c o n s id e r a tio n ,” b u t in s tru c te d ap p lic a n ts s e e ki ng t o qua l i f

y f ornonc om pe t i t i ve s t a tus t o s ubm i tdoc um e nt a t i on ve r i f y i ng the i re l i gi bi l i ty . T he a nnounc e m e ntf ur the rnot i f

i e d appl i c a nt s tha t“ [ a ] ny d is ab ility - r e la te d in f

o r m a tio n p r o v id e d w ill b e k e p t c o n f id e n tia l in a c c o r d a n c e w ith l aw and regul at i on s. ” B ennettre qu es t ed thathe be consi dere d o n a com pet i t i ve basi s a s r e i ns t a t e m e nte l i gi bl e a nd w i th a t e n- poi ntve t e r a ns ’ pr e f e r e nc e a nd on a no ncom pet i t i ve basi s und erthe V R A autho ri ty a nd the 30 perc entor m ore di sabl ed vet er ans autho ri ty. H i s app l i ca t i on i ncl ud ed, i nt eral i a, (1) a n O ct ob er19 98 l ett er f r om the D e pa r tm e ntof

V e t e r a ns A f

f a i r s ( “ D V A ” ) c e r t i f

y i ng tha tB e nne tti s 30 pe r c e ntorm or e di s abl e d; ( 2) D e pa r tm e ntof D e f e ns e F or m 214, C e r t i f

i c a t e of R e le a s e o rD is c h a r g e f

r o m A c tiv e D u ty , d o c u m e n tin g B e n n e tt’s h o n o r ab le di s c ha r ge f

r om the A r m y a nd l i s t i ng “ phy s i c a l di s abi l i ty w i th s e ve r a nc e pa y ” a s the

“ narr at i ve re as on for s epar at i on ”; (3) S t andard F orm 50 , N ot i fi ca t i on of P er sonn el A ct i on , show i ng thatB ennettre si gn ed fr om hi s posi t i on as a C om m i ss ary S t ore M a n a g e rin S e p te m b e r1 9 9 0 a n d lis tin g th e r e a s o n f o rr e s ig n a tio n a s “r e tu rn in g toB e nn e tt re qu e ste d in hisa pp lic atio n th at hebec on side re d o n a c omp e titiveba sis a s a 3 re ins tate ment e lig ibl e . Tho ma s d e termine d th at B e nn e tt w a s n ot re ins tate ment e lig ibl e ; thus , Bennett was not considered on a c ompetitive basis. Bennett did not challeng e this determination in the district court or be forethis court. There fore , we do not determine whe ther the EE OC made the proper determination. 4 the S t a t e s f

orm e di c a l [ r ] e a s ons , t o unde r go r e c ons truc t [ i ve ] s ur ge ry ” ; ( 4) a t e np a g e n a rr a tiv e in w h ic h B e n n e tt d is c u s s e d h is e d u c a tio n a n d e x p e r ie n c e a n d th e ir re l evance t o the se l ec t i on cr i t er i a not ed on the vacancyanno un ce m ent ; and (5) a vo l un t ary B ac kg roun d S urvey Q uest i on nai re fr om the O ff i ce of P er sonn el M a na ge m e nt , i n w hi c h B e nne tta ns w e r e d y e s w he n a s ke d w he the rhe ha d a p h ysi cal d i sab i l i ty. T he B i r m i ngha m di s tr i c tof f i c e r e c e i ve d 146 appl i c a t i ons f orthe pos i t i on, a nd F a nni e T hom a s , the di s tr i c tof f i c e ’ s pe r s onne l of

f i c e r , r e vi e w e d the appl i c a t i ons t o de t e r m i ne w he the rthe appl i c a nt s m e tthe m i ni m um qua l i f i c a t i ons o n e ith e ra c o m p e titiv e , m e r it p r o m o tio n b a s is o ro n a n o n c o m p e titiv e b a s is . A ppl i c a t i ons f

r om c a ndi da t e s m e e t i ng the m i ni m um qua l i f i c a t i ons w e ntt o one of tw o pa ne l s c ha r ge d w i th m a ki ng hi r i ng r e c om m e nda t i ons t o C y nthi a P i e rr e , the E E O C ’ s D i s tr i c tD i r e c t orw i th ul t i m a t e hi r i ng a uthor i ty . O ne pa ne l c ons i de r e d the c om pe t i t i ve appl i c a nt s a nd the othe rpa ne l c ons i de r e d the nonc om pe t i t i ve appl i ca nt s. T ho m as re vi ew ed B ennett ’ s app l i ca t i on and d et erm i ned thathe w as el i g i b l e fo r sel ect i o n o n a n o n co m p et i t i v e b asi s b u tn o to n a co m p et i t i v e b asi s. 3Schedule A is a nother spec ial hiringauthority for disable d veterans. 4 Be causeBennett’s claims are ag ainst the EEOC and not Dominguez, the nominal 5 defendant, we refer to the EEOC rather than to Dominguez. 5 T hom a s s e ntappl i c a t i ons f r om B e nne tta nd s e ve n othe ri ndi vi dua l s w ho m e tthe m i ni m um qu al i fi ca t i on s f or no ncom pet i t i ve hi ri ng as V R A and S chedul e A ap p lic a n ts to th e ap p lic ab le r e c o m m e n d a tio n p a n e l. 4 A f ourm e m be rpa ne l of

W . D . F i l e s , M urr a y G os a , L e on K e nne dy , a nd S a m u e l H a ll e v a lu a te d th e ap p lic a tio n s f r o m B e n n e tt a n d th e s e v e n o th e rS c h e d u le A and V R A appl i ca nt s a nd m ade r ec om m endat i on s t o P i erre . T he panel r e c o m m e n d e d tw o o f

th e e ig h t ap p lic a n ts to P ie rr e b u t d id n o t r e c o m m e n d B e n n e tt. Pi e rr e c o n s i d e r e d o n l y th o s e ap p l i c a n t s w h o r e c e i v e d a r e c o mme n d a t i o n f r o m a p a n e l. A f t e rr e c e i vi ng not i c e tha the di d notr e c e i ve the i nve s t i ga t orpos i t i on a nd uns uc c e s s f

ul l y pur s ui ng E E O C a dm i ni s tr a t i ve r e m e di e s , B e nne ttf i l e d s ui ti n the U . S . D i stri ctC ou rtfor the S ou thern D i stri ctof G eorgi a a gai nstT ho m as and C ar i D o m in g u e z , c h a iro f

th e E E O C . S u b s e q u e n tly , th e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia tra nsfe rr ed venu e t o the U . S . D i stri ctC ou rtfor the N orthern D i stri ctof A l abam a, and the N orthern D i stri ctof A l abam a order ed B ennettt o fi l e a n am ended c om pl a i nt . B e nne ttf

i l e d a n a m e nde d pr o s e c om pl a i nta l l e gi ng f i ve c l a i m s . T he a m e n d e d c o m p la in t n a m e d D o m in g u e z a s th e s o le d e f e n d a n t. 5Bennett initially asser ted a Title VIIclaim for racial discrimination, but Benne tt moved 6 to withdraw that c laim beforethe ca se went to summ ary judgment. The district court grante d Bennett’s motion. 6 A l l f i ve c l a i m s c e nt e r e d on the a l l e ge d m i s ha ndl i ng of di s abi l i ty i nf

or m a t i on i n B e nne tt ’ s appl i c a t i on f orthe i nve s t i ga t orpos i t i on. T he f i r s tc l a i m s t a t e d tha tthe E E O C m a d e a n u n la w f

u l d is c lo s u r e o f

c o n f id e n tia l m e d ic a l d is ab ility m a te r ia ls in v i o l at i o n o f 4 2 U . S . C . § § 1 2 1 1 2 (d )(3 )(B ) an d (4 )(C ) b y fai l i n g t o k eep th o se m a t e r i a l s i n a s e pa r a t e f ol de rdur i ng the pr e - e m pl oy m e ntpr oc e s s . T he s e c ond cl ai m st at ed thatthe E E O C vi ol at ed 42 U . S . C . § 1 21 12 (d)( 2) by m aki ng an u n la w f u l p r e - e m p lo y m e n t e x a m in a tio n o f c o n f id e n tia l m e d ic a l d is ab ility in f o r m a tio n . T h e th ir d a n d f o u r th c la im s a lle g e d th a t B e n n e tt s u f f e r e d d is p a r a te tre atm entand d i sc ri m i nat i on i n the appl i ca t i on proces s bec ause he w as di sc ri m i nat ed agai nstbase d o n h i s di sabi l i ty, i n v i ol at i on of 42 U . S . C . §§ 12 11 2(a) an d (b )(1 ). F i n al l y, B en n ettcl ai m ed th ath e ex p eri en ced u n l aw fu l seg reg at i o n as a j ob appl i ca ntdu ri ng the se l ec t i on proces s, i n v i ol at i on of 42 U . S . C . § 1 21 12 (d)( 3). 6 A ft erthe E E O C answ er ed, B ennettfi l ed a m ot i on for part i al sum m ary j udgm e nt . B e nne tta r gue d tha the w a s e nt i t l e d t o s um m a ry j udgm e nta s t o ( 1) the unl a w f ul di s c l os ur e of

m e di c a l di s abi l i ty doc um e nt a t i on, i n vi ol a t i on of the R ehabi l i t at i on A ctof 19 73 and 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 21 12 (d)( 4); (2) the un l aw ful pree m p lo y m e n t in q u iry , in v io la tio n o f R e h ab ilita tio n A c t o f

1 9 7 3 a n d 4 2 U .S .C .Bennett also discussed the a pplication of another individual, Manuel R. Valenzuela, 7 who applied f

or a nonc ompetitive appointment based on his disability . Bennett alleg ed that the pa ne l madeun lawf

ul p re -empl oy

ment inq uirie s into V alenzu e la ’sdis a bil ity . Co ntrary

to Bennett’s asser

tion, however , the EEOC pre sented documentation that showed that the pa nel 7 § 1 21 12 (d)( 2)(A ); and (3) the fa i l ure t o separ at e hi s m edi ca l re cords f rom other pe r s onne l r e c or ds dur i ng the s e l e c t i on- s c r e e ni ng pr oc e s s , i n vi ol a t i on of the r e gul a t i ons pr om ul ga t e d unde rthe A D A , 29 C . F . R . §§ 1614. 203( e ) ( 4) a nd 1 6 3 0 .1 4 ( c ) . B e nne tts uppor t e d hi s s um m a ry j udgm e ntm ot i on w i th the doc um e nt a t i on tha the a tt a c he d t o hi s c om pl a i nt , pa r t i c ul a r l y f oc us i ng on the i nf

or m a t i on he s ubm i tt e d t o ve r i f

y hi s di s abi l i ty s t a tus . B e nne tta r gue d tha tthe f or m s he s u b m itte d th a t d o c u m e n te d h is m e d ic a l d is ab ilitie s w e r e n o t s u b m itte d v o lu n ta r ily because the E E O C re qu i re d al l V R A appl i ca nt s t o p rovi de do cum ent at i on that s how e d the y qua l i f

i e d a s V R A appl i c a nt s . B e nne ttc ont e nde d tha te ve n though the E E O C c oul d pe rm i s s i bl y r e vi e w hi s di s abi l i ty i nf or m a t i on dur i ng the s c r e e ni ng p r o c e s s , th e E E O C v io la te d f e d e r a l la w w h e n T h o m a s f o rw a r d e d th e d is ab ility i nform at i on t o the sc re eni ng panel and w hen the panel cond uct ed an un l aw ful pree m p lo y m e n t in q u iry b y e x a m in in g th e d is ab ility in f o r m a tio n . A c c o r d in g to B ennett , he and seven ot her app l i ca nt s qual i fi ed for non com pet i t i ve hi ri ng un der the V R A and S chedul e A and p as se d the i ni t i al sc re eni ng , bu tno ne of them w as co n si d ered i n th e seco n d ro u n d o f th e sel ect i o n p ro cess. 7selec ted Valenzuela for c onsideration. 8

B ennettatt ac hed the fol l ow i ng do cum ent s i n sup po rtof hi s m ot i on : (1) a r e s pons e f

r om P i e rr e t o que s t i ons by the E E O C ’ s C om pl a i ntP r oc e s s i ng a nd C o m p li an ce D iv isio n , i n w h ich sh e s tated th at sh e d id n o t rev iew B en n ett’ s appl i c a t i on, w a s notuna w a r e tha the ha d appl i e d, a nd s e l e c t e d appl i c a nt s ba s e d on ex p er ien ce an d ed u ca ti o n ; (2 ) th e B irm in g h am D istrict O ff ice’s s elec ti o n p an el’s r e s p o n s e to th e E E O C ’s C o m p la in ts P r o c e s s in g a n d C o m p lia n c e D iv is io n , in w h i ch i tst at ed th atth e p an el m em b ers sel ect ed can d i d at es w h o w ere th e m o st qua l i f i e d ba s e d on e xpe r i e nc e a nd e duc a t i on a nd tha tB e nne ttl a c ke d the pr i or re lated in v es ti g ativ e e x p er ien ce th at o th erap p li ca n ts p o ss es se d ; (3 ) G o sa ’s r e s pons e t o B e nne tt ’ s i nt e rr oga t or i e s , i n w hi c h he s t a t e d tha the r e c a l l e d s e e i ng s om e doc um e nt a t i on aboutB e nne tt ’ s di s abi l i ty buttha tthe doc um e nt a t i on di d not d e n o te th a t B e n n e tt m e t th e A D A ’s d e f in itio n f o rd is ab le d ; ( 4 ) F ile s ’s r e s p o n s e to B e n n e tt’s in te rr o g a to r ie s , in w h ic h h e s ta te d th a t h e d id n o t n o tic e a n y r e f e r e n c e to B e nne tt ’ s di s abi l i ty i n the appl i c a t i on a nd tha the f oc us e d on the r e l e va ntpa s tj ob experi ence ; (5) K ennedy’ s r es po nse t o B ennett ’ s i nt errogat ori es , i n w hi ch he st at ed tha the di d notr e c a l l s e e i ng a ny i nf or m a t i on r e l a t i ng t o B e nne tt ’ s di s abi l i ty ; a nd (6 ) th e E E O C ’s ap p ellate d ec isio n af firm in g th e A d m in istrativ e L aw Ju d g e’s de c i s i on t o de ny B e nne tt ’ s c l a i m be c a us e he w a s notdi s abl e d w i thi n the m e a ni ng9

of the A D A , and, m oreover, because the E E O C had art i cul at ed l egi t i m at e, no nd i sc ri m i nat ory r ea sons (“ L N D R ”) for notse l ec t i ng B ennettand B ennettfa i l ed t o s how tha tthos e r e a s ons w e r e a pr e t e xtf ordi s c r i m i na t i on. T he E E O C r e s ponde d w i th i t s ow n m ot i on f ors um m a ry j udgm e nt . T he E E O C h ig h lig h te d th a t th e v a c a n c y a n n o u n c e m e n t lis te d “a b ility to c o m m u n ic a te in w r itin g ” a s o n e o f

th e f o u rc r ite r ia u s e d to e v a lu a te a n ap p lic a n t. I n a d d itio n to the i nform at i on abou tthe hi ri ng proces s di sc usse d ear l i er , the E E O C as se rt ed that al tho ug h T ho m as deem ed B ennettel i gi bl e a s ano ncom pet i t i ve ca nd i dat e, the panel ul t i m at el y r ej ec t ed hi s app l i ca t i on because i tcont ai ned “ nu m er ou s a nd pervas i ve” g ra m m atical an d sp elli n g er ro rs . M o re o v er , th e E E O C co n ten d ed th at B en n ett’ s i nve s t i ga t i ve e xpe r i e nc e w a s nota s c urr e nta s tha tof othe rc a ndi da t e s . A c c or di ng t o the E E O C , e ve n i f

B e nne ttc oul d e s t abl i s h a pr i m a f a c i e c a s e of

di s c r i m i na t i on, i t s tw o rea sons for nothi ri ng hi m w er e L N D R s a nd B ennettcoul d n otshow that th e y w e r e a p r e te x t f

o rd is c r m in a tio n . A s f orB e nne tt ’ s c l a i m tha tthe E E O C vi ol a t e d 42 U . S . C . § 12112( d) , the E E O C a s s e r t e d tha tthi s s t a tut ory pr ovi s i on di d nota ddr e s s the i nf or m a t i on tha tthe E E O C r e qui r e d, a nd, a ta ny r a t e , B e nne ttvol unt a r i l y s ubm i tt e d the i nf or m a t i on abouthi s di s abi l i ty i n or de rt o ga i n a n a dva nt a ge i n the appl i c a t i on pr oc e s s . T he E E O C cl ai m ed thatthe on l y i nform at i on i tre qu i re d w as do cum ent at i on that10

s how e d tha tthe appl i c a ntm e tthe e l i gi bi l i ty r e qui r e m e nt s of the V R A . R e ga r di ng th e a lle g e d v io la tio n o f

§ 1 2 1 1 2 ( d ) ( 3 ) ( B ) , th e E E O C a r g u e d th a t th is s u b s e c tio n d id n o t ap p ly to B e n n e tt b e c a u s e th e p la in la n g u a g e lim ite d th e s u b s e c tio n ’s r e a c h to

“ ap p l i c a n t s wh o h a v e b e e n o f f e r e d a j o b ” a n d “ e x i s t i n g e m p l o y e e s . ” T h e E E OC c ont e nde d tha tE l e ve nth C i r c ui tpr e c e de nthol ds tha ti nf or m a t i on a n appl i c a ntor e m p l o y e e v o l u n t a r i l y d i s c l o s e s i s n o tp r o t e c t e d u n d e rth i s s e c t i o n o f th e AD A, C as h v . S m i th, 23 1 F . 3d 13 01 (11th C i r. 20 00 ). M oreover, the E E O C ar gu ed that thi s s ubs e c t i on s houl d notpr ovi de a pr i va t e r i ghtof a c t i on w he n, a s he r e , the pl ai nt i ff w as no ti nj ured by any al l eged di sc l osure. F i nal l y, the E E O C as se rt ed that B en n ett ’ s cl ai m u n d er § 1 2 1 1 2 (d ) sh o u l d b e d i sm i ssed b ecau se h e fai l ed t o ex h au st h i s a d mi n i s tr a t i v e r e me d i e s a s t o th a tc l a i m. T he E E O C att ac hed severa l exhi bi t s, i ncl ud i ng : (1) the vacancy a nnounc e m e nt , w hi c h l i s t e d “ abi l i ty t o c om m uni c a t e i n w r i t i ng” a s one of the f our se l ec t i on cr i t er i a; (2) B ennett ’ s app l i ca t i on , w hi ch cont ai ned n um er ou s e rr ors s uch a s ru n - o n s e n te n c e s , s e n te n c e f r a g m e n ts , ty p o g r ap h ic a l e rr o r s , a n d la c k o f s u b je c tve rb a gr e e m e nt ; ( 3) tr a ns c r i pt s of the he a r i ng be f

or e the E E O C a ddr e s s i ng B ennett ’ s A D A cl ai m s; and (4) a m em orandu m fr om the se l ec t i on panel t o P i erre r e c om m e ndi ng s e ve r a l c a ndi da t e s f orc ons i de r a t i on, i nc l udi ng tw o V R A a nd S c h e d u le A ap p lic a n ts .11

T he tra nscr i pt s f

rom the E E O C hear i ng i ncl ud ed the t es t i m on y of s ever al pa ne l m e m be r s . I n hi s t e s t i m ony , F i l e s r e c ount e d the e rr or s i n the f i r s tna rr a t i ve p a r a g r ap h o f

Be n n e tt ’ s ap p l i c a t i o n a n d c o n c l u d e d th a th e w o u l d h a v e h a d p r o b l e ms w ith B en n ett’ s a b il ity to co m m u n icate in w riti n g . G o sa testified th at B en n ett’ s ap p l i c a t i o n w a s d i s o r g a n i z e d , c o n t a i n e d n u me r o u s e rr o r s , a n d “ j u mp e d o u ta th i m” be c a us e of

the e rr or s . B e nne ttr e s ponde d t o the E E O C ’ s m ot i on by pr e s e nt i ng the s a m e a r g u m e n ts h e h a d p r e s e n te d in h is in itia l m o tio n f o rs u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. T he di s tr i c tc our tde ni e d B e nne tt ’ s m ot i on f ors um m a ry j udgm e nta nd grant ed the E E O C ’ s m ot i on for s um m ary j ud gm ent . T he courtconsol i dat ed B e n n e tt’s p r o s e c o m p la in t in to th r e e c la im s : ( 1 ) d is c r im in a tio n b a s e d o n d is ab ility in v io la tio n o f

th e R e h ab ilita tio n A c t a n d A D A ; ( 2 ) a p r e - e m p lo y m e n t d is ab ility i nqui ry i n vi ol a t i on of

42 U . S . C . § 12112( d) ( 2) ; a nd ( 3) a vi ol a t i on of the c onf i de nt i a l i ty pr ovi s i ons of § 12112( d) ( 3) dur i ng the s e l e c t i on pr oc e s s . A s f or B e n n e tt’s d is c r im in a tio n c la im , th e c o u r t h e ld th a t e v e n a s s u m in g th a t B e n n e tt coul d est abl i sh a pri m a f ac i e c as e, the E E O C offe re d an L N D R and B ennettfa i l ed t o s how tha tthe L N D R w a s a pr e t e xtf ordi s c r i m i na t i on. T he c our tf ound tha tthe r e c or d s uppor t e d the E E O C ’ s L N D R be c a us e the va c a nc y a nnounc e m e ntl i s t e d the

“ abi l i ty t o c om m uni c a t e i n w r i t i ng” a s one of the f ours e l e c t i on c r i t e r i a a nd B ennett ’ s app l i ca t i on w as re pl et e w i th g ra m m at i ca l errors . T he courtre j ec t ed12

B e n n e tt’s a tte m p t to s h o w p r e te x t b y a lle g in g th a t n o n e o f th e V R A a n d S c h e d u le A appl i c a nt s w a s i nt e r vi e w e d be c a us e the undi s put e d e vi de nc e s how e d tha tthe p a n e l r e c o m m e n d e d tw o V R A a n d S c h e d u le A ap p lic a n ts . A s f orB e nne tt ’ s c l a i m unde r§ 12112( d) ( 2) , the c our tf i r s tnot e d i t s “ s e r i ous doubt s ” tha tthe i nf

or m a t i on r e qui r e d by the E E O C f e l l w i thi n the pa r a m e t e r s of thi s s e c t i on a nd the n f

ound tha tB e nne ttw a s notf or c e d t o di s c l os e i nf

or m a t i on re l at ed t o h i s di sabi l i ty. T he courtst at ed thatB ennettchose t o see k nonc om pe t i t i ve s t a tus a nd the r e by c hos e t o di s c l os e tha the ha d a di s abi l i ty . T he co u rt n o ted th at o u r d ec isio n in C as h h eld in sim il arcirc u m stan ce s th at a p lain ti ff’s v o lu n ta ry d is c lo s u r e o f

d is ab ility in f

o r m a tio n is n o t g o v e rn e d b y § 1 2 1 1 2 ( d ) ( 2 ) . F i na l l y , the c our tr e

j e c t e d B e nne tt ’ s f

i na l c l a i m be c a us e i tf

ound tha t§ 12112( d) ( 3) w as i napp l i cabl e t o B ennettbecause he w as nei ther a“ j ob appl i ca ntt o w ho m an o ffer h ad b een m ad e” n o r an “ em p l o yee. ” M o reo v er, th e co u rtfo u n d th atC ash a ls o d ic ta te d th a t v o lu n ta ry d is c lo s u r e s w e r e n o t w ith in th e s c o p e o f § 1 2 1 1 2 ( d ) ( 3 ) . B e n n e tt n o w ap p e a ls . II . S tan d ard of R evi ew W e r e vi e w “ the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s gr a ntof s um m a ry j udgm e ntde novo, v i ew i n g th e m at eri al s p resen t ed an d d raw i n g al l factu al i n feren ces i n th e l i g h tm o st f a vor abl e t o the non- m ovi ng pa r ty . ” D ’ A nge l o v. C onA gr a F oods , I nc . , 422 F . 3d13

12 20 , 12 25 (11th C i r. 20 05 ) ( ci t at i on om i tt ed). S um m ary j ud gm enti s proper w hen

“ there i s no g enui ne i ss ue as t o any m at er i al fa ct ” a nd “ the m ov i ng party i s e nt i t l ed t o j udgm e nta s a m a tt e rof l a w . ” F e d. R . C i v. P . 56( c ) . “ T he m ova ntbe a r s the b u rd en o f d em o n strat i n g th e sat i sfact i o n o f th i s st an d ard , b y p resen t i n g ‘ p l ead i n g s, de pos i t i ons , a ns w e r s t o i nt e rr oga t or i e s , a nd a dm i s s i ons on f i l e , t oge the rw i th the af fi davi t s, i f a ny’ thates t abl i sh the abse nce of any genui ne, m at er i al fa ctual di s put e . ” B oc he s e v. T ow n of P onc e I nl e t , 405 F . 3d 964, 975 ( 11th C i r . 2005) (quo t i ng F ed. R . C i v. P . 56 (c )) . W e c on strue pro se bri ef s l i bera l l y butw i l l no tac t as de fa ct o cou nsel for apro se l i t i gant . G JR Invs. , Inc. v. C ou nty of E sc am bi a, 1 3 2 F .3 d 1 3 5 9 , 1 3 6 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) . I I I . D i s c u s s i on O n ap p e a l, B e n n e tt a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in c o n c lu d in g th a t: ( 1) the E E O C di d notvi ol a t e the R e habi l i t a t i on A c ta nd the A D A by s ubj e c t i ng B e nne ttt o di s c r i m i na t i on ba s e d on hi s di s abi l i ty s t a tus ; ( 2) the E E O C di d not v i o l at e § 1 2 1 1 2 (d )(2 ) w h en i tm ad e a p re-em p l o ym en ti n q u i ry ab o u th i s d i sab i l i ty; a nd ( 3) the E E O C di d notvi ol a t e § 12112( d) ( 4) w he n i tf a i l e d t o ke e p r e c or ds c ont a i ni ng i nf

or m a t i on aboutB e nne tt ’ s di s abi l i ty s e pa r a t e f r om the r e m a i nde rof h is ap p lic a tio n . B e n n e tt a ls o r e f e r s to a c la im u n d e rth e P r iv a c y A c t, 5 U .S .C . § 5 52 a, bu tas no t ed ea rl i er , B ennetthas w ai ved any cl ai m re l at ed t o the P ri vacy14

A c t. “T h e R e h ab ilita tio n A c t p r o h ib its f e d e r a l a g e n c ie s f

r o m d is c r im in a tin g in e m pl oy m e nta ga i ns ti ndi vi dua l s w i th di s abi l i t i e s . ” E l l i s v. E ngl a nd, 432 F . 3d 13 21 , 13 26 (11th C i r. 20 05 ) ( ci t at i on s om i tt ed). W hen d et erm i ni ng l i abi l i ty und er the R ehabi l i t at i on A ct , w e use the sa m e s t andard w e use un der the A D A , and cas es i n t erp ret i n g each are p reced en tfo r th e o th er. C ash , 2 3 1 F . 3 d at1 3 0 5 . B ecau se B e n n e tt p r im a r ily d is c u s s e s th e A D A , w e r e f e rto th e A D A r a th e rth a n to b o th a c ts . T h e A D A p r o v id e s th a t “[ n ]o c o v e r e d e n tity s h a ll d is c r im in a te a g a in s t a q u a lif ie d in d iv id u a l w ith a d is ab ility b e c a u s e o f th e d is ab ility o f

s u c h in d iv id u a l in r e ga r d t o j ob appl i c a t i on pr oc e dur e s , the hi r i ng, a dva nc e m e nt , ordi s c ha r ge of e m pl oy e e s , e m pl oy e e c om pe ns a t i on, j ob tr a i ni ng, a nd othe rt e r m s , c ondi t i ons , a nd p r i v i l e g e s o f

e m p l o y m e n t . ” 4 2 U. S . C . § 1 2 1 1 2 ( a ) . F o rc l a i m s u n d e rth e AD A, we appl y the f

a m i l i a rM c D onne l l D ougl a s bur de n s hi f t i ng f r a m e w or k. D ur l e y v. A P A C , I nc . , 236 F . 3d 651, 657 ( 11th C i r . 2000) ( c i t i ng M c D onne l l D ougl a s C orp. v . G r e e n , 4 1 1 U .S . 7 9 2 , 8 0 2 ( 1 9 7 3 ) ) . F ir s t, th e p la in tif

f m u s t e s tab lis h a p r im a f a c ie c a s e u n d e rth e A D A . C le v e la n d v . H o m e S h o p p in g N e tw o r k , I n c ., 3 6 9 F .3 d 1 1 8 9 , 1 1 9 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . I f the pl a i nt i f

f s uc c e s s f ul l y s how s a pr i m a f

a c i e c a s e , the bur de n s hi f t s t o the e m p lo y e rto r e b u t th e p r e s u m p tio n o f d is c r im in a tio n b y p r o d u c in g e v id e n c e th a t it15

had an L N D R for i t s a ct i on . Id. If the em pl oyerproffe rs an L N D R , the pl ai nt i ff m u s t s h o w th a t th e L N D R is a p r e te x t f o rd is c r im in a tio n . I d . T o s how pr e t e xt , the pl a i nt i f f m us t“ de m ons tr a t e tha tthe pr of f e r e d r e a s on w a s n o t th e tru e r e a s o n f o rth e e m p lo y m e n t d e c is io n . T h e p la in tif f m a y s u c c e e d in thi s e i ther di re ct l y by per suadi ng the courtthata di sc ri m i nat ory r ea son m ore than li k ely m o ti v ated th e e m p lo ye r o r in d irec tl y b y s h o w in g th at th e e m p lo ye r’s proffe re d exp l anat i on i s unw orthy of cr edence. ” J ac kson v. A l a. S t at e T enure C om m . , 40 5 F . 3d 12 76 , 12 89 (11th C i r. 20 05 ) ( qu ot at i on and al t er at i on s om i tt ed); W a s c u r a v . C ity o f

S o u th M ia m i, 2 5 7 F .3 d 1 2 3 8 , 1 2 4 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) .

“ C o n cl u so ry al l eg at i o n s o f d i scri m i n at i o n , w i th o u tm o re, are i n su ffi ci en tt o rai se an i nfer ence of pret extor i nt ent i on al di sc ri m i nat i on w hen a defendanthas off er ed ext ensi ve evi dence of [LN D R s] for i t s a ct i on s. ” I se nb er gh v. K ni gh t -R i dd er N e w s pape rS a l e s , I nc . , 97 F . 3d 436, 444 ( 11th C i r . 1996) ( c i t a t i on a nd a l t e r a t i on o m itte d ) . E ve n a s s um i ng, a s the di s tr i c tc our ta nd E E O C di d, tha tB e nne ttpr e s e nt e d a p r im a f a c ie c a s e , th e E E O C p r o v id e d a n L N D R f o rits d e c is io n n o t to h ir e B e n n e tt a nd B e nne ttf

a i l e d t o s how tha tthe L N D R w a s a pr e t e xtf ordi s c r i m i na t i on. T he E E O C cont ends thati tdi d n otse l ec tB ennettbecause hi s app l i ca t i on dem on stra t ed thathe di d n otm ee tatl ea ston e of the four se l ec t i on cr i t er i a l i st ed on the vacancyTo thee xtent th at B e nn e tt a rgue s th at th epa

ne l’ s d e c isi on

no t to re c omm e nd

any VR A 8 and ScheduleA applica

nts for the ne x t stag e of theselec tion process is evidenc e of discrimination, the rec ord does not support B ennett’s a ssertion. As noted ea rlier, the pa

nel rec ommend two VRA and Sche dule A applica nts for the ne x t stag e. 16 anno un ce m ent : “ the abi l i ty t o com m un i ca t e i n w ri t i ng . ” B ennett ’ s app l i ca t i on w as re pl et e w i th typog raph i ca l errors , run-on se nt ence s, and sent ence fr agm ent s that m a d e th e ap p l i c a t i o n d i f f i c u l tt o u n d e r s t a n d . B e n n e ttr e s p o n d s th a tth e E E OC d iscr im in ated ag ain st h im , b u t h e f ails to o ff

eran y e v id en ce th at th e E E O C ’s L N D R w a s a p r e te x t f

o rd is c r im in a tio n . T h e r e f o r e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t p r o p e r ly 8 g r a n te d s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t in f a v o ro f th e E E O C . N e xt , B e nne tta r gue s tha tthe E E O C vi ol a t e d 42 U . S . C . § 12112( d) ( 2) by m a k in g a p r e - e m p lo y m e n t d is c lo s u r e o f h is d is ab ility . T itle 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 2 1 1 2 (d )(2 ) p ro v i d es: (d) M edi ca l exam i nat i on s a nd i nq ui ri es

. . . . ( 2) P r e e m pl oy m e nt (A ) P rohi bi t ed exam i nat i on or i nq ui ry E xc e pta s pr ovi de d i n pa r a gr aph ( 3) , a c ove r e d e nt i ty s ha l l not c onduc ta m e di c a l e xa m i na t i on orm a ke i nqui r i e s of a j ob appl i c a nta s t o w he the rs uc h appl i c a nti s a n i ndi vi dua l w i th a d i sab i l i ty o r as t o th e n atu re o r sev eri ty o f su ch d i sab i l i ty. (B ) A cc ept abl e i nq ui ry A c ove r e d e nt i ty m a y m a ke pr e e m pl oy m e nti nqui r i e s i nt o the ab i l i ty o f an ap p l i can tt o p erfo rm j o b -rel at ed fu n ct i o n s. 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 2 1 1 2 ( d ) ( 2 ) ( A ) - ( B ) . T h e E E O C r e g u la tio n s a ls o a llo w e m p lo y e r s toDe sp iteB e nn e tt’ s arguments , Ca shdo e s n ot dic tatea dif ferent re sult. B e nn e tt c or re c tly 9 contends that heand Cash differ bec ause hewas a n applicant a

nd Cash was a

n employee. Ca sh, 231 F.3d at 1303. This dist inction is irreleva nt, however , when determiningwhether 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)( 3) has be en violated. Thepertinent inquiry is into whether the disclosureof the plaintiff’s disability

resulted f rom an impermissible inquiry or medical examination. I d. at 1307. As in Cash, this case involved a voluntary

disclosure of disa

bility information. I d. There fore , Cash compels the re sult we reach here. 17 i nv i t e i nd i vi du al s t o i dent i fy them se l ves a s i nd i vi du al s w i th d i sabi l i t i es as re qu i re d t o s a t i s f y th e a f f i r ma t i v e a c t i o n r e q u i r e me n t s o f th e Re h ab i l i t a t i o n A c t . 2 9 C. F. R. P t . § 1 63 0, A pp . (a dd re ss i ng § 1 63 0. 14 (a )) . W e h a v e n o t d e c id e d a n d d o n o t d e c id e n o w w h e th e ra p la in tif f h a s a p r iv a te ri g h to f act i o n u n d er 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 2 1 1 2 (d )(2 ). E v en assu m i n g th atB en n etth as a p r iv a te r ig h t o f

a c tio n u n d e rth is s u b - s e c tio n , th e s u b - s e c tio n is in ap p lic ab le h e r e . As e v i d e n c e d b y th e v a c a n c y a n n o u n c e m e n ta n d B e n n e tt ’ s ap p l i c a t i o n , th e E E OC n e v e rin q u ir e d in to w h e th e rB e n n e tt h a d a d is ab ility o ra s to th e n a tu r e o rs e v e r ity of the di s abi l i ty tha tqua l i f i e d B e nne ttf

orthe V R A pr ogr a m . T he onl y i nf or m a t i on aboutB e nne tt ’ s di s abi l i ty c a m e f r om hi s vol unt a ry di s c l os ur e , w hi c h i s not c ove r e d by 42 U . S . C . § 12112( d) ( 2) . T he r e f or e , the E E O C di d notvi ol a t e 42 U . S . C . § 1 21 12 (d)( 2). 9 F i na l l y , B e nne ttc ont e nds tha tthe E E O C vi ol a t e d 42 U . S . C . § 12112( d) ( 3) a n d ( 4 ) . W e d o n o t h a v e a n y c o n tr o llin g p r e c e d e n t in th is c ir c u it d e a lin g w ith th o s e s u b s e c tio n s , b u t b y th e irp la in la n g u a g e , th e y d o n o t ap p ly to B e n n e tt. S ubs e c t i on ( d) ( 3) appl i e s onl y t o j ob appl i c a nt s t o w hom “ a n of f e rof e m pl oy m e ntIn pertinent pa rt, 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(3) reads: “A covered entity may requirea 10 me dic al e xaminatio n a ft e r a n o ff e r o f empl oy

ment h a s b e e n madeto a

joba pp lic ant a nd prior to the commenc ement of theemploy ment duties of such a

pplicant . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)( 3) (emph a sis a dd e d) . In p e rtinent p art , 4 2 U .S. C. § 12 11 2( d) (4 )(A) re a ds : “ A c ov e re d entity sh all not requirea medical examination and shall not m ake inquirie s of an employee a s to whether such employee is a

n individual with a disability or as to the nature or severity of the disability

. . . .” 42 U.S.C. § (d)(4) (A) ( emphasis adde d). 18 has bee n m ade” and (d)(4) appl i es on l y t o em pl oyee s. B ec ause , the E E O C never 10 o ffered B en n ettem p l o ym en tan d h e n ev er b ecam e an em p l o yee o f th e E E O C , th ese s u b - s e c t i o n s d o n o tap p l y t o h i m. F o rth e f o r e g o in g r e a s o n s , w e a f f ir m th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. AF F I R ME D.