FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT N ove m be r 7, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ 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- 12573 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 03 -001 30 -C V -J E C -1 C H A R L E S W H I T E , J R ., P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s J O H N E . P O T T E R , P o s tm a s te rG e n e r a l, U n ite d S ta te s P o s ta l S e rv ic e , 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 rth e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 7, 2006) B efo re B L A C K , B A R K E T T 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:2 I. C ha r l e s W hi t e , J r . appe a l s the j udgm e ntof the di s tr i c tc ourta f

t e rabe nc htr i a l f i ndi ng tha the f

a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h tha the w a s di s c r i m i na t e d a ga i ns tba s e d upon hi s a ge . W hi t e a l s o appe a l s the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de c i s i on nott o r e f e rthe c a s e t o a s pe c i a l m a s t e r ’ s he a r i ng pr i ort o tr i a l , the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de c i s i on t o c onduc tanonj ury tri al , and the di stri ctcourt ’ s di sm i ss al of hi s r et al i at i on cl ai m atsum m ary ju d g m e n t. W hi t e, bo rn i n 1 94 4, has bee n em pl oyed by the U ni t ed S t at es P ost al S ervi ce s in c e S e p te m b e r1 9 6 9 . I n 1 9 9 0 , h e b e g an w o rk in g a t th e N o rth M e tr o m a il p r o c e s s in g f

a c ility in D u lu th , G e o r g ia , a n d , b y 1 9 9 3 , h a d b e e n p r o m o te d to M anager of M ai nt enance O pera t i on s ( “ M M O ”) , a posi t i on thati ncl ud ed a pay grade of E A S -20. In N ov em ber 199 8, another M M O po si t i on beca m e a vai l abl e a t th e C r o w n R o a d m a il p r o c e s s in g f a c ility w ith ah ig h e rp a y g r a d e o f E A S - 2 2 . W h ite ap p lie d f

o rth e p o s itio n a n d w a s r a te d q u a lif ie d f o rth e v a c a n c y . J i m m y D a v e n p o rtw a s th e S e l e c t i n g O f f i c i a l f o rth e C r o w n R o a d MMO v acan cy, an d h i s d u t i es i n cl u d ed rev i ew i n g th e ap p l i cat i o n s referred t o h i m b y a s c r e e ni ng pa ne l , c onduc t i ng i nt e rvi e w s of c a ndi da t e s , a nd r e c om m e ndi ng one cand i dat e f

or se l ec t i on . D avenpo rthad k no w n W hi t e s i nce 199 0 w hen h e had been W hi t e ’ s i m m e di a t e s upe rvi s or . G e or ge M a rt i n, D a ve nport ’ s i m m e di a t e s upe rvi s or3

a nd the l e a d pl a ntm a na ge rf orthe A t l a nt am e tr opol i t a n a r e a , w a s the C onc urr i ng O ff i ci al for the C row n R oad M M O vaca ncy, and i tw as hi s r es po nsi bi l i ty t o revi ew th e s e le c tio n b y D a v e n p o rt a n d , if h e a g r e e d , c o n c u rw ith th e d e c is io n s o a s to m a k e it f in a l. T h e s c r e e n i n g p a n e l r e f e rr e d f i v e ap p l i c a t i o n s t o Da v e n p o rtf o rr e v i e w, i ncl ud i ng W hi t e’ s. A m on g the other app l i ca t i on s w as thatof S ean A nd re w s, bo rn in 1 9 6 4 . A n d r e w s h a d b e e n ap o s ta l e m p lo y e e f o r1 8 y e a r s a n d , a t th e tim e o f h is appl i c a t i on f

orthe M M O va c a nc y , w a s a n M M O i n A l buque r que , N e w M e xi c o, w i th a pay grade of EA S -18. T hrou gh hi s part i ci pat i on i n the N at i on al M ai nt enance Leaders hi p P rogram (“N M L P ”) , ho w ever , a program t o i dent i fy p o te n tia l c a n d id a te s f

o rs u c c e s s io n in to m a in te n a n c e d e p a rtm e n t le a d e r s h ip po si t i on s, A nd re w s w as det ai l ed t o an M M O po si t i on i n N ew Je rs eyw i th a pay gr a de of E A S - 23 a tthe t i m e of

hi s c ons i de r a t i on f

orthe C r ow n R oa d pos i t i on. D a ve nportc onduc t e d i nt e rvi e w s of both W hi t e a nd A ndr e w s a nd consi dere d them cl ose c andi dat es w i th equ al cr edent i al s. S ub se qu ent l y, D avenpo rt se l ec t ed W hi t e f

or the C row n R oad v ac ancybecause the po si t i on had b ee n o pen f o rs ix m o n th s a n d W h ite w a s alo c a l c a n d id a te w h o c o u ld f ill th e p o s itio n q u ic k ly . D a ve nportthe n de l i ve r e d hi s s e l e c t i on, a l ong w i th the appl i c a t i ons of a l l f i ve can d i d at es, t o M art i n fo r rev i ew . M art i n d i d n o tk n o w W h i t e o r A n d rew s an d al so4

di d n otkn ow thei r r es pect i ve ages . D uri ng the t i m e per i od i n w hi ch M art i n w as r e v ie w in g D a v e n p o rt’s d e c is io n , h e s p o k e w ith th e p la n t m a n a g e ro f th e N o rth M e tr o f a c ility , D a v id W illia m s , a s p a rt o f an o rm a l d a ily d is c u s s io n . D u r in g th is di sc ussi on , M art i n asked abou tW hi t e, and the pl antm anager t ol d M art i n h e w as im p r e s s e d w ith W h ite ’s a n a ly tic a l ab ilitie s , b u t n o t h is ab ility to s u p e rv is e h is s ubor di na t e s . S e ve r a l w e e ks a f t e rha vi ng m a de hi s r e c om m e nda t i on a nd subsequentt o M art i n’ s di sc ussi on w i th the N orth M etro pl antm anager, D avenpo rt d is c u s s e d th e s e le c tio n w ith M a rtin . D a v e n p o rt s e n s e d th a t M a rtin w a n te d h im to re consi der A nd re w s f

or the po si t i on . A ft erfurther c on si dera t i on , D avenpo rt s e le c te d A n d r e w s a n d M a rtin c o n c u rr e d . W he n W hi t e l e a rne d he ha d notr e c e i ve d the pos i t i on i n M a y 1999, he re qu es t ed i nform al coun se l i ng for, am on g o ther thi ng s, age di sc ri m i nat i on . In 2 0 0 0 , W h ite w a s u p g r a d e d to th e E A S - 2 2 p a y g r a d e . H e w e n t o n d is ab ility in 2 0 0 1 a n d r e tir e d in 2 0 0 2 . O n J a nua ry 16, 2003, W hi t e f i l e d ac om pl a i nta l l e gi ng e m pl oy m e nt di s c r i m i na t i on f

orr a c e a nd c ol ora nd r e t a l i a t i on i n vi ol a t i on of T i t l e V I I of

the C i vi l R i gh t s A ctof 19 64 , as am ended, 42 U . S . C . §§ 20 00 e e t s e q. (“ T i t l e V II ”) , a n d a g e d is c r im in a tio n in v io la tio n o f th e A g e D is c r im in a tio n in E m p lo y m e n t A c t, 29 U . S . C . §§ 621 et

se q . (“ A D E A ”) . O n S ept em ber 24, 20 04 , the di stri ctcourt5

a dopt e d ar e porta nd r e c om m e nda t i on f r om the m a gi s tr a t e j udge gr a nt i ng the P o s ta l S e rv ic e ’s m o tio n f o rs u m m a ry ju d g m e n t a s to W h ite ’s c la im o f r e ta lia tio n . W hi t e’ s r et al i at i on cl ai m st em m ed fr om hi s a ct i on s on b ehal f of a no ther e m pl oyee a tth e N o rth M e tr o f

a c i l i ty , Ea r l Bl e v i n s . A c c o r d i n g t o W h i t e , Bl e v i n s w a s a ts o me poi ntr e m ove d f

r om hi s pos i t i on a s M a na ge rof M a i nt e na nc e , butr e turne d i n 1997 a f t e ra n E E O a c t i on. U pon hi s r e turn, W hi t e a l l e ge s tha tB l e vi ns w a s ha r a s s e d by W i l l i a m s . W hi t e a r gue s tha the unde rt ook e f f ort s t o he l p B l e vi ns ke e p hi s j ob a nd o p p o s e d e f

f o rts b y W illia m s to f

ir e o ld e re m p lo y e e s w h o w e r e n e a rr e tir e m e n t. W h ite a ls o a lle g e s th a t h e a s s is te d B le v in s w ith a n E E O c h a r g e b y p r o v id in g h im m a t e r i a l s upport , s uc h a s s uppl y i ng r e port s tha ts how e d the f a c i l i ty w a s pe r f

orm i ng w el l and speaki ng up for hi m atm ee t i ng s. W hi t e c l ai m s thatthese ac t i on s r es ul t ed i n hi s be i ng r e t a l i a t e d a ga i ns tby notbe i ng s e l e c t e d f orthe M M O pos i t i on a tthe C r o w n R o a d f

a c ility . O n O ct ob er13 , 20 05 , the di stri ctcourti ss ued a no t i ce of tri al . W hi t e then obj ec t ed t o the di stri ctcourt ’ s proce edi ng w i tho utfi rs torderi ng thata s peci al m a s te r ’s h e a r in g b e h e ld . T h is o b je c tio n w a s o v e rru le d . W h ite la te rv o lu n ta r ily w i thdr e w hi s c l a i m s ba s e d on r a c e a nd c ol or . P r i ort o the c om m e nc e m e ntof the tri al on the re m ai ni ng i ss ue of age di sc ri m i nat i on , the P ost al S ervi ce no t ed that W hi t e’ s di sm i ss al of hi s r ac e and col or cl ai m s r endered m oo thi s dem and for a j ury6

tr i a l . T he di s tr i c tc ourta gr e e d a nd pr oc e e de d w i th abe nc h tr i a l . O n M a r c h 30, 2006, the di s tr i c tc ourte nt e r e d i t s O r de ra nd opi ni on gr a nt i ng j udgm e nti n f a vorof th e P o s tm a s te rG e n e r a l. W h ite n o w ap p e a ls . II . O n appe a l f

r om adi s tr i c tc ourtor de ra f t e rabe nc h tr i a l , w e r e vi e w the d i s tr i c tc o u rt ’ s c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w de no vo a n d its f

in d in g s o f

f a c t f o rc le a re rr o r . H G I A s s o c s ., I n c . v . W e tm o r e P r in tin g C o ., 4 2 7 F .3 d 8 6 7 , 8 7 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . T hi s c ourtr e vi e w s the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s e xe r c i s e of di s c r e t i on i n de c l i ni ng t o r e f e rthe c a s e f o ras p e c i a l m a s t e r ’ s h e a r i n g u n d e rth e ab u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n s t a n d a r d . B r o wn v. B l ue C ross and B l ue S hi el d o f A l abam a, Inc. , 89 8 F . 2d 15 56 n. 1 (11 th C i r. 1990) ( “ [ T ] he s t a nda r d of r e vi e w i n di s c r e t i ona ry s i tua t i ons [ i s ] abus e of d is c r e tio n .” ) . A d is tr ic t c o u rt’s o r d e ro n am o tio n f o rs u m m a ry ju d g m e n t is r e vi e w e d de no vo . S e e C a rt e rv. G a l l ow a y , 352 F . 3d 1346, 1348 ( 11th C i r . 2003) (“ [A ] p p l yi n g th e sam e l eg al st an d ard s th atb o u n d th e d i stri ctco u rt . ”); see al so N u n n a lly v . E q u if

a x I n f o rm a tio n S e rv ic e s , L L C , 4 5 1 F .3 d 7 6 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) .

II I. F ir s t, W h ite a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr e d in f in d in g th a t h e f

a ile d to p r o v e a g e d is c r im in a tio n . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t th e d e c is io n to p r o m o te A ndr e w s , i ns t e a d of

W hi t e , w a s notm ot i va t e d i n a ny r e s pe c tby c ons i de r a t i ons ofIt appea rs that though Whit e did not specific ally cite to I OP 920-2(a)in his brief, he 1 quotes from this provision and incorrectly attributes it to I OP 905-5. 7 A nd re w ’ s or W hi t e’ s a ge. A ft ercare ful re vi ew of the re cord as a w ho l e, w e a gree w ith th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s c o n c lu s io n th a t th e r e w a s in s u f f ic ie n t f a c tu a l e v id e n c e to p r o v e ac la im o f

a g e d is c r im in a tio n . S e c ond, W hi t e a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourte rr e d i n de c l i ni ng t o r e f e rthe ca se for aspec i al m as t er ’ s heari ng before tri al . W hi t e argues thathe w as prej ud i ce d b y the di stri ctcourt ’ s dec i si on and con t ends thatsuch re fe rr al w as re q u ired b ec au se o f th e d istrict co u rt’s re fe re n ce to In tern al O p er atin g P ro ce d u re ’s for the N orthern D i stri ctof G eorgi a ( “ IO P ”) se ct i on 90 5-5 i n i t s orderdat ed N ove m be r4, 2004 a nd be c aus e of I O P s e c t i on 920- 2( a ) . I O P s e c t i on 905- 5, 1 ho w ever , i s i napp l i cabl e t o thi s c as e bec ause thatprov i si on al l ow s f or tri al before a m a gi s tr a t e j udge onl y i f the pa rt i e s c ons e nt . A s s t a t e d i n W hi t e ’ s ow n br i e f , the part i es i n thi s a ct i on di d n otconsentt o tri al before a m agi stra t e j ud ge. W i th regard t o I O P s e c t i on 920- 2( a ) , thi s pr ovi s i on appl i e s onl y t o c a s e s tha ta r e br ought p u r s u a n tt o 4 2 U. S . C . § 2 0 0 0 e - 2 ( T i t l e VI I o f th e C i v i l R i g h t s Ac to f 1 9 6 4 ) . As W h i t e’ s cl ai m fo r d i scri m i n at i o n i s b ro u g h tag ai n stan ag en cy o f th e U n i t ed S t at es, h o we v e r , i ti s b r o u g h tp u r s u a n tt o 4 8 U. S . C . § 2 0 0 0 e - 1 6 . F u rth e rm o r e , e v e n i f I OP se ctio n 9 2 0 -2 (a ) w er e a p p li ca b le h er e, p ar t (b ) o f th e p ro v isio n states th at “[a]n i n d i v i d u a l j u d g e ma y w i th d r a w a n y r e f e r e n c e ma d e u n d e rth i s ru l e a ta n y t i meTh eS u p rem eC o urtre c ently

addre s s e d

th ere t al i at o r

y ac te l em ento f

a T i tl eV II 2 retaliation claim in Burlington N. & Santa FeRy . Co. v. White, 548 U.S. —, 126 S.C t. 2405, 165 8 w hen i n the j ud ge’ s di sc re t i on the i ss ues are un i qu e, no vel , or such w i thd raw al w ou l d o therw i se be i n the pu bl i c i nt er es t . ” F i nal l y, W hi t e w i thd re w hi s T i t l e V II c la im s p r io rto tr ia l. A s s u c h , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in r e f

u s in g to r e f

e rth e c a s e to as p e c ia l m a s te r . T hi rd, W hi t e argues thatthe di stri ctcourti m prop er l y c on du ct ed a bench tri al on the i s s ue of

a ge di s c r i m i na t i on be c aus e the P os t a l S e rvi c e ha d not , pr i ort o the m orni ng of tri al , cont es t ed W hi t e’ s r i gh tt o p l ac e thi s i ss ue before aj ury. A s an in it ial m atter, itap p ea rs th at th e P o stm as ter G en er al h ad o b jected to W h it e’s re qu es tt o p l ac e the age di sc ri m i nat i on i ss ue before aj ury pri or t o tri al i n w ri tt en o b je c tio n s o n N o v e m b e r2 8 , 2 0 0 5 . N e v e rth e le s s , W h ite v o lu n ta r ily w ith d r e w h is T itle V I I r a c e a n d c o lo rc la im s s h o rtly b e f o r e th e c o m m e n c e m e n t o f th e tr ia l, l e a vi ng onl y the a ge di s c r i m i na t i on c l a i m . A s the r e i s no r i ghtt o tr i a l by j ury f or f e d e r a l e m p lo y e e s b r in g in g s u it u n d e rth e A D E A , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt c o rr e c tly cond uct ed a bench tri al . S ee L ehm an v. N akshi an, 4 5 3 U .S . 1 5 6 ( 1 9 8 1 ) . F i na l l y , W hi t e a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourte rr e d i n di s m i s s i ng hi s r e t a l i a t i on cl ai m atsum m ary j ud gm ent . T o est abl i sh a pri m a f ac i e c as e of r et al i at i on un der T i t l e V I I , apl a i nt i f

f m us tpr ove ( 1) tha the pa rt i c i pa t e d i n a n a c t i vi ty pr ot e c t e d by T i t l e V II , (2) thathe suff er ed an adverse ac t i on , and (3) thatthere i s acausal 2L .Ed.2d 345 (2006). TheCourt held that “the sc ope of [Title VII ’s] anti-retaliation provision

extends beyond workplac e-related or employ ment-re lated retaliatory

acts a nd harm”and there fore , “is not limi ted to discriminatory actions that af

fect the terms and c onditions of employ ment.” Id. at 2412-14. 9 co n n ect i o n b etw een th e p art i ci p at i o n i n th e p ro t ect ed act i v i ty an d th e ad v erse deci si on . P i pk i ns v. C i ty of T em pl e T erra ce , 26 7 F . 3d 11 97 , 12 01 (11th C i r. 20 01 ). W hi t e a l l eges thathe re as on abl y bel i eved thathe w as engaged i n p rot ec t ed a c t i vi ty a nd tha tthe r e w a s ac aus a l c onne c t i on be tw e e n the pr ot e c t e d a c t i vi ty a nd hi s notre ce i vi ng the prom ot i on ati ss ue here. A ft ercare ful re vi ew of the re cord as a w ho l e, w e c on cl ud e thatthere w as i nsuffi ci entfa ctual evi dence t o sup po rt W h ite ’s c la im o f

r e ta lia tio n . A cc ordi ng l y, w e A F F I R M.