F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Jun e 21 , 2 005 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [D O NO T PU BL IS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ N o. 04- 1477 5 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 3- 22 22 6- CV-J LK
LAZET TE HORNE, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant,
ve rs us TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMP ANY, a fo re ignc or

por at ion , De fendant-Appellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (June 21, 200 5)

Be fo re A N D E RS O N , BL A CK

a nd KRA V IT CH , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

Plaintiff-Appellant Laze tte Horne appeals the di strict court’ s grant of summ ary j udgm ent in favor of Defendant-Appellee Turner Construction Com pany (“ Turner ”) on H or ne ’ s ge nde r dis cr im ina tio n c la im s un de r T itl e V II of the Ci vil Ri ght s A ct of 196 4 a nd t he F l or i da

C i vi l R i gh t s A c t . B e c aus e w e f i nd t ha tt he d i str i c tc ourt im prop er l y discredited both direct evidence of discrim ination and circum stantial
ev ide nc e of

pr et ex t, w e vac at e the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s r uli ng and r em an d th is c as e fo r furthe r pr oc ee din gs. I. Fa ct s O n T ur ne r’ s m oti on f

or sum m ar y j udgm en t the f

ac ts p re se nte d, ba se d on deposit ion testim ony , w ere as follows. Tur ner hired Ho rn e as a “ laborer”—an unsk illed job—on a construction site at the U niversity of Miam i. T urner’ s em

ploy ees claim ed that Horne’ s responsib ility wa s to do wha t ev er she was a sked, w hich pr im ar ily e nta ile d c le an ing up aro und the j ob s ite
. H or ne a sserts tha t sh e w as a lso
as k e d t o p e r f

o rm o t h e r t a s k s , s u c h a s u s i n g s o m e c o n s t r u c t i o n e qu i p m e n t , dig gin g ditches, constructing d oors and fixin g pipe. H orne’ s superviso r for m ost of her te nur e, G eo rg e Ch ee k, a nd anothe r supe rv iso r, A nge l C isn er os, a gr ee d th at H or ne did
som e co nstru ct ionw ork bu t t es tif ie d th at she w as hir ed

pr im ar ily

to do c le an -u

p
w ork. C he ek

sa id tha t this w as part ly

be caus e w om enw er e not str ong en oughf

or
som e co nstru ct ion wor k and d id a be tte r j ob a t c le an -u

p th anm en . A f

el low3

em plo y ee a t the sit e, D an ny L az o, te sti fi ed tha t Ho rn e’ s per fo rm an ce w as j ust a s go od
as a ny of the m enon the si te , a nd th at she did m an y oth er ta sks be sid es c le an ing
. L az o a dm itt ed , how ev er , that H or ne w as ne ve r put

to es pe ci al ly str enuous ta sks a nd ha d no c ar

pe ntr y ski lls
. A bout se ve n m onths a ft er

H or ne w as hir ed E ri c V al de rr am a w as tr an sf er re d to the pr oj ec t a s it s su

pe rv iso r, r ep la ci ng C he ek
. H or ne ’ s si ste r, Co lle tte E dw ar ds, w ho ha d w orke d at ano the r T ur ne r co nstru ct ionsit e unde r V al de rr am a, te sti fi ed that sh e had heard V alderram a say ing th at w om en could no t dig or m ove thin gs as quickl y as
m en , a nd tha t he pr ef

er re d to li m it wom en ’ s w ork to c le an ing
. B othH or ne a nd another em

ploy ee at the University of Miam i construction site, Lola D aniels, testified tha t C he ek

w ar ne d th em to stay out

of V al de rr am a’ s w ay

be ca use V al de rr am a did

not lik e w om en . On co m in g t o t he Uni ve rs it y of M ia m i s it e, Vald erra m a b ro ug ht wit h h im two ski lle d c ar

pe nte rs , G onz al ez a nd F er ra do, w ho wo re too l bel ts and w er e fam ili ar w ith the use of construction equipm ent. F erra do was a skilled carpenter , while G onzalez
w as ala bor er w ho h ad som e carp en tr

y ski lls
. A ft er V al de rr am a ha d be en at the sit e for about three w eeks, he term inated Horne, telling her that her position had been el im ina te d so that he co uld hir e m or e w orke rs ski lle d inc ar pe ntr y . B othCh ee k and V al de rr am a te sti fi ed tha t it w as ind ustry cu sto m fo r supe rv iso rs to br ing w orke rs w ith4

the m to a ne w j ob s ite , a nd tha t this som et im es le d to the te rm ina tio n of w orke rs w ho
we re a lready

em ploy ed there. H or ne f ile d ac ha rg e w iththe E E O C, w hic h in ve stiga te d he r ca se a nd subs eqently

issued a letter determ ining that there was rea sonable cause to believe that ge nde r dis cr im im at ionha d oc curr ed
. A ft er a tte m pts to rec onc ile the part ie s, the E E O C i ssu ed

ar igh t t o su e le tte r. H or ne th en fi le d ati m el y

c om pla int a lle gin g vio la tio n of

he r ri ght s un de r T itl e V II of the Ci vil Ri ght s A ct

of 196 4 and the F lor ida Civil Rights Ac t. Af

ter deposit ions w ere taken of all the witnesses discussed abo ve, T ur ne r m ove d f

or sum m ar y j udgm en t. T ur ne r’ s su m m ar y j udgm en t m ot io n all eg ed , int er a lia , ( 1) that the re w as no direct evidence of discrim ination because any statem ents proffere d by form er
em ploy ees w ere inadm issib le hearsay , irrelevant, m ade w ithou t personal kno wledge, and wer e taken out of context and (2) that Horne c ould not establis h circum stantial
ev i d en ce o f d i s cr i m i n at i o n b ec au s e s h e c o u l dn o tp ro d u c e e v i d en ce t h at Tu rn er ’s l e gi t i m at e , n on di sc r i m i na

t or y r e a sons for f

iring Horne—industry

custom and the need for skilled workers on the site—we re a pretext for discrim ination
. Turner also m oved t o ex c l u d e E d wa rd s ’ an dDa n i el s ’ de p o s i t i o n t es t i m o n y ab o u tVa l d er ra m a’s
com m ents as inadm issib le hearsay , ir relevant, and m ade w ithou t pe r so na l k no w l e dg e.5

T he dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d bo th s um m ar y j udgm en t and the m oti on t o e xc lud e Ed w a r d s ’ a n dDa n i e l s ’ t e s t i mo n y. H or ne the n m ove d f

or r ec onsi de ratio n, as sertin g th at the c ourt ha d f

ai le d to
co nsi de r the E E O C’ s c onc lus ionthat the re w as e vid en ce of dis cr im ina tio n, a nd attaching an affidavit in which D aniels stated that Cheek h ad wa rn ed Daniels that V al de rr am a w oul d f

ir e H or ne be ca use he did

not w an t w om en on the sit e. T he dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d th e m oti on f or rec onsi de ratio n, a nd s tr uc k th e af

fi da vit on T ur ne r’ s m oti on. H or

ne the n ti m el y

f ile d th e ins tant a

ppe al
. II
. A na ly sis W e re vie w the dis tr ic t cour t’ s grant of sum

m ar y j udgm en t de nov o, vie w ing the
ev ide nc e in the li ght

m ost f av or ab le to the party

opp osi ng the m oti on. W ils on v. B/ E A er ospa ce , 376 F
. 3d 1 079, 1085 (1 1th Ci r. 2004 ). S um m ar y j udgm en t i s a

ppr opr ia te if the r ec or d sh ow s th at

the re is no g enuin e iss ue of m at er ia l f

ac t and tha t the m ovi ng pa rty is t he refo re en ti tl edto jud gm en t as a m at te r of law. Fed . R. Civ . P. 56 (c). T itl e V II of

the Ci vil Ri ght s Ac t of 1964 pr ohi bit s disc ri m ina tio n onthe ba sis of ge nde r. 42 U
. S. C. § 20 00e ; M cD onnell Dou gl as Co rp . v. G re en , 411 U
. S. 792 , 800 (1 973)
. A s H or

ne ’ s c om pla int a lso a lle ge s ac la im

und er the F lor ida

Ci vil Ri ght s A ct , w e not e tha t su chc la im s are a na ly ze d inthe sa m e m an ne r as T itl e V II c la im s. Bass v . B d. of C ount y

Com m ’ ers, 256 F.3d 1095 , 1105 (11th Cir. 2001). Aplaintiff6

m ay p r o v e d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n t w o w a y s : t h r o u g h d i r e c te v i d e n c e , o r t h ro ugh ci rc um stanti al ev ide nc e tha t cr ea te s an inf er en ce of dis cr im ina tio n. Ba ss, 256 F. 3d at 110 5. A. Direct E

vidence D ir ec t e vid en ce of

dis cr im ina tio n is “ ev ide nc e w hic h, if be lie ve d, w oul d pr ove the e xis te nc e of

af ac t [ in i ssu e] w ith ou t in fere nc e or pr es um pti on. ” E ar le y

v. Ch am pio n Int’ l C or

p. , 907 F
. 2d 1 077, 108 1 ( 11th C ir
. 199 0) ( ci ta tio n and e m pha sis
om itt ed ). T o c onst itu te dir ec t e vid en ce of dis crim ina tio n, astate m en t of discrim inatory

intent “ m

u s t b e m ade by

a person involv ed in the challenged de ci sio n. ” T ro tte r v. Bd
. of T ru ste es , 91 F
. 3d 1 449, 145 3- 54 ( 11th C ir
. 1996 ). Ina
ca se w he re the pla int if

f pr of fe rs dir ec t e vid en ce of

dis cri m ina tio n, “ the tr ia l j udge
m ust ini tially

m ake a c redibility

findin g as to whether or not pl aintiff’ s proffer ed dir ec t e vid en ce of

dis cr im ina tio n is to be be lie ve d. ” H ay ne s v. W
. C. Cay e & C o. , 52 F. 3d 92 8, 931 (11th Cir. 1995) (citation om itted). W e have found direct evidence w here “ actio ns or statem ents of an em ploy er
re fl ec t[ ] adis cr im ina tor

yor r et al ia tor y a tti tud e co rr el at ing to the dis cr im ina tio n or retaliation com

plained of by

the em ploy ee. ” Caban-Wheeler, 904 F. 2d a t 1555
. In gender discrim ination cases, we have held a ll of the following statem ents to be direct
ev i d en ce : “ a w om an wa s not com petent enoug h to do this job,” Haynes, 52 F. 3d at7

930; “ no w om anw oul d be na m ed to a B sc hedul ed

j ob, ” Burn s v. G ad sde n S ta te Com m unityCollege, 908 F. 2d 15 12, 1518 (11t h Cir. 1990 ); “ we can’ t have wom en in m anagem ent,” Sennello v. Rese rve L ife Ins. Co., 872 F. 2d 39 3, 394, 395 (11th Cir. 1989 ). Inthe c as e at

bar, H or ne a nd D an ie ls both te sti fi ed tha t Che ek , a n e m plo y ee of T ur ne r, to ld th em

that V al de rr am a ha d sa id h e dis lik ed w om enon the j ob s ite , a nd tha t V al de rr am a w oul d f ir e H or ne be ca use she is a w om an . A lth oughcred ib ili ty de te rm ina tio ns are nor

m al ly le ft

to the f ac tf ind er , our

pr ec ed en t e xpl ai nin g th e
m eaning of direct evidence in the discrim ination context requires the conclusio n that the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed
. T he pla int if f’ s pr of fe re d e vid en ce of

Ch ee k’ s st at em en ts i s suf fi ci en t t o es ta

bli sh dir ec t ev ide nc e of dis cr im ina tio n an d th er ef or e to w ith stand a
m oti on f or sum m ar y j udgm en t. The E EO C’ s finding that there w as rea sonable cause to believe that discrim ination occurre d bols ters o ur co nclusio n. W e p reviously have held that such
anE E O C f

ind ing is adm iss ibl e ev ide nc e in a be nc h tr ia l, an d the dis tr ic t co urt sh oul d ha ve ta ke n it

int o c onsi de ratio n inthi s su m m ar y j udgm en t pr oc ee din g a s w el l. Barf ield v. O range County , 911 F. 2d 6 4 4 , 650 (11th Cir. 1990). The district court
er re d inf ai lin g to do s o.8

Furtherm ore, Tur

ner’ s claim

that the statem ents upon which Horne relies ar e i n ad m i s s i b l e h ea rs ay fa i l s . Al t h o u g h Va l d er ra m a’s s t at emen t s t o Ch ee kan dCh ee k ’s subs eque nt s ta te m en ts t o H or ne a nd D an ie ls a

ppe ar to fal l within the de fi nit ionof he ar say a s “ a sta te m en t, oth er than one m ad e by the de cl ar an t w hil e te sti fy ing a t the trial or hear ing, offer ed in evidence to prove the truth of the m atter a sserted,” Fed. R. E vid
. 801 (c ), both le ve ls o f sta te m en ts f al l w ith in the he ar say ex cl usi on f or sta te m en ts m ad e “ by [a ] pa rty ’ s ag en t or se rv an t c onc er nin g am at te r w ith in the sc ope of the agency or em

ploy m ent, m ade d uring the existence of t he relationship ,” which
ar e de em ed

a dm iss ion s by

aparty opp one nt. F ed
. R. E vid
. 801 (d) (2 )( D ). O n th is ba sis , w e hav e hel d pre vio usl y tha t sta te m en ts m ad e by a supe rv iso r w ho h as ar ole in the decision -m aking process are g enerally adm issib le. See , e .g. , Miles v. M.N .C. Corp., 750 F .2d 867, 873-75 (11t h Cir. 1985 ). Both Cheek and Va lderram a w ere supe ri nte nde nts w ith au tho ri ty to hir e an d f ir e em plo y ee s onthe c onstru ct ionsit e, a nd t h e i r s t a t e men t s we r e t h e r e f

o r e mad e wi t h i n t h e s c o p e o f t h e i r au t h o r i t y. B. Circumstantial

Ev idence Courts u se a burden-shiftin g ana lysis to evalua te discriminatio n claims based on cir cu m stanti al ev ide nc e, fi rs t desc ri be d in Mc D onne ll D ougl as , 411 U
. S. 792
. T he plaintiff m

ust first establish a prim a fa cie ca se of di s cr i m i nation, which T urner concedes that Horne did for purposes of this appeal. The b urden of productio n then9

shi ft s to the e m

plo y er to showale git im at e, non -d isc ri m ina tory reas on for the
em ploy er’ s actions. McD onnell Dougl as, 411 U. S. at 8 02-04, 807. If the em ploy er doe s so , the f

ina l burd enof

pr oof the n r es ts w iththe pla int if f, w ho m ust the n sh ow that the em

ploy er’ s reason wa s a m ere pretext for discrim ination
. Id. If the plaintiff fails to offer

sufficient evi d en ce of pre text, the em ploy er is entitled to summ ary j udgm ent in its favor. Chapm an v. AI Transport, 229 F. 3d 10 12, 1025 n .11 (11th Cir. 2000 ) (e n banc). The court m ust evaluate whether the plaintiff dem onstrated “ such
w eakne sse s, im

pla usi bil iti es , inc onsi ste nc ie s, inc ohe re nc ie s, or c ontra dic tio ns i n th e
em ploy er’ s proffer ed legitim ate re asons for its actions th at a reasonable factfinder
co uld f ind the m unw orthy

of c re de nc e.” Co m

bs v
. P lanta tio n P at te rn s, 106 F
. 3d 1519 , 1528 (11th Cir. 1997). In the pr es en t ca se , H or

ne , D an ie ls, a nd L az o te sti fi ed that H or ne ’ s du tie s on the j ob site cons isted of m ore th an j ust cleaning. L azo stated that Horne had worked with him , that she did her j ob as well as any of the m en on the site, and that she had
as sis te d hi m

w ithput tin g up f

en ci ng, dig gin g ho le s, spr ea din g so il, r ak ing , f ixi ng pip es , c onstru ct ing doo rs , m ixi ng c em en t, a nd u si ng a dr ill
. O n th e oth er hand, Va lderram a testified that Hor ne lacke d t h e q ualifications to d o the work he needed of ala bor er , a nd b ro ught

in a la bor er w ithsom e carp en tr

y ski lls fr om

a nothe r sit e to replace her. Sever al other Turner em ploy ees expressed their personal opinio ns that10

wom en had a lim ited role on a construction site, and that they would not ask wom en to d o c er ta in t as ks. A num

be r of w itn es se s te sti fi ed

that V al de rr am a ha d m ad e sta te m en ts que sti oni ng w om en ’ s a bil iti es . F urthe rm or e, T ur ne r em plo y ee s C isn er os, La zo, and Cheek all testif i ed that wom en shoul d not d o strenuou s work and that
w om en ar e bette r sui te d for cl eanin g wor k. E vid en ce of

the ir a tti tud es is pr oba tiv e of pr et ex t, tho ugh it cannot se rv e as dir ec t ev ide nc e. T he dis cr ep an cy be tw ee n th e t es t i m o n y o f H o rn e, Da n i el s , a n dLa zo an dt h at o f V al d er ra m a a s t o H o r n e’s qualifications creates a genuine issue of m aterial f

act sufficie nt to preclude summ ary j udgm en t i n li ght

of the oth er e vid en ce of

pos sib le pr et ex t. W e not e tha t “ ne pot ism ” is p er m itt ed und er T itl e V II I. Se e Pl atne r v. Ca sh & Thom as Contractors, Inc. , 908 F. 2d 90 2, 905 (11th Cir. 1990). I n the present case, how ev er , V al de rr am a te sti fi ed tha t he w oul d no t have r ep la ce d an e m plo y ee w itha
worke r f r om a no t he r si t e i f t he e m pl oy e e w a s qu a l i f

i e d a nd abl e t o do t he work
re qui re d. T his c uts a ga ins t T ur ne r’ s arg um en t tha t i t w as i nd us tryc ust om to br ing
em ploy ees fr om

a superintendent’s pre viou s job site. Fo r the f

or eg oin g r ea sons , w e V A CA T E the dis tr ict co urt’ s r uli ng and RE MA N D f or f urthe r pr oc ee din gs c onsi ste nt w iththi s op ini on.