FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT Januar y 3, 2007 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- 10332 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 8 0 8 2 7 - CV - W PD R O Y D I X O N , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s R I C L . B R A D S H A W , S h e r if f , o f P a lm B e a c h C o u n tyS h e r if f 's O f f 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 orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Jan u ar y 3, 2007) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B A R K E T T an dW IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

R oyD i xon, a c t i ng p ro se , appeal s the di stri ctcourt ’ s orderof sum m ary j ud gm enti n favor of hi s f orm erem pl oyer , the P al m B ea ch C ou nty S heri ff’ s O ff i ce , on hi s c l a i m s of

r a c e di s c r i m i na t i on, ne gl i ge ntm i s r e pr e s e nt a t i on a nd c ons truc t i ve d is c h a r g e b r o u g h t u n d e rT itle V I I o f th e C iv il R ig h ts A c t o f 1 9 6 4 , 4 2 U .S .C . § 20 00 e- 2(a) (1). T he S heri ff’ s O ff i ce deni ed D i xo n a transfe r t o a corr ec t i on al o f f ic e rp o s itio n in th e V e h ic le M a in te n a n c e D e p a rtm e n t a f te rh e w a s r a te dp o o r ly b ya n in te rv ie w p a n e l. D ix o n la te rq u it h is p o s itio n a f te rb e in g a s k e dto s u b s titu te for an o ff

i ce r i n V ehi cl e M ai nt enance. A ft era c ar ef ul re vi ew of the part i es ’ bri ef s a n dth e r e c o r d , w e a f

f irm th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d e c is io n . W e r e v ie w o r d e r s g r a n tin g s u m m a ryju d g m e n t de no vo . V es s e ls v . A tla n ta In dep . Sch . S

ys. , 40 8 F . 3d 76 3, 76 7 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ) ( per c uri am ). S um m ary j ud gm enti s app ropri at e w hen there i s no g enui ne i ss ue as t o any m at er i alfa ct e n titlin g th e m o v in g p a rtyto ju d g m e n t a s am a tte ro f la w . I d. U nd er McD on nel l

D ou glas C orp. v. G re en , 411 U . S . 792, 93 S . C t . 1817, 36 L . E d . 2 d6 6 8 ( 1 9 7 3 ) , o n c e D ix o n e s tab lis h e s th e p r im af a c ie c a s e f

o rd is p a r a te tr e a tm e n t, th e b u r d e n s h if ts to th e S h e r if

f’s O f f ic e to a rtic u la te ale g itim a te no nd i sc ri m i nat ory bas i s f or the em pl oym entac t i on . O nce the S heri ff’ s O ff i ce has m e t its b u r d e n , D ix o n th e n m u s t s h o w th e s e p r o f f e r e dr e a s o n s a r e p r e te x tu a l. See V es s e ls , 40 8 F . 3d at76 7-68 . E ven i f D i xo n i s c orre ctthatthe fa i l ure t o transfe r3

hi m w a s a n a dve r s e e m pl oy m e nta c t i on, he ha s f a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h pr e t e xtt o r e but the S heri ff’ s O ff

i ce ’ s proff

er ed l egi t i m at e r ea son thatanother off i ce r w as m ore qua l i f i e d be c aus e tha tof

f i c e rs c or e d hi ghe rdur i ng i nt e rvi e w s . D i xon poi nt s t o the u s e o f th e o r a l e x a m in a tio n p r o c e du r e a n da lte r a tio n s to h is s c o r e s h e e t a f te rh is i nt ervi ew ; ho w ever , there i s no evi dence thatei ther of these ac t i on s w er e m ot i vat ed b yr a c ia l a n im u s . D ix o n a ls o a lle g e s th a t tw o in te rv ie w e r s s c o r e dh im u n f a ir ly . E v en if th is is tru e, th er e is n o ev id en ce th at th is co n du ct w as b as ed o n D ix o n ’s r a c e . F i na l l y , D i xon’ s s ugge s t i on tha tM a nnyP e r e z ’ s s t a t e m e nt s a nd a c t i ons de m ons tr a t e pr e t e xti s w i thoutm e r i tbe c aus e P e r e z w a s notade c i s i onm a ke ri n the s e c o n din te rv ie w p r o c e s s . D i xon ha s f

a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h ane gl i ge ntm i s r e pr e s e nt a t i on c l a i m s i nc e he c a n ne i the rs how tha tthe H um a n R e s our c e de pa rtm e ntm a de s t a t e m e nt s w i th the kn ow l edge of thei r f

al si ty nor thatany i nj ury r es ul t ed fr om hi s r el i ance on such st at em en t s. Se e Sour an v . T r av e le rs I

ns ur anc e C o. , 98 2 F . 2d 14 97 , 15 03 (11th C i r. 1993) ( l i s t i ng the e l e m e nt s of ane gl i ge ntm i s r e pr e s e nt a t i on c l a i m unde rF l or i da l aw ). D i x o n si m i l arl y fai l edt o est ab l i sh a cl ai m fo r co n stru ct i v e d i sch arg e b ecau se he di d n otshow the cond i t i on s of hi s w ork env i ronm entw er e s o i nt ol er abl e that th e c o n d itio n s c o m p e lle dr e s ig n a tio n . See Hi l l v. W i nn -D i xi e Stores , Inc. , 934 F . 2d 15 18 , 15 27 (11th C i r. 19 91 ).4

A cc o rd in g ly, w e f

in dsu m m ary ju d g m en t w as ap p ro p riate o n D ix o n ’s cl ai m s, and w e a ff

i rm the di stri ctcourt ’ s order . AF F I RME D.