### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T A pr i l 14, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ 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. 04- 10046

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 98 -018 51 -C V -C O -E R O L L E N J A C K S O N , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s S T A T E O F A L A B A M A S T A T E T E N U R E C O M M I S S I O N , S T A T E O F A L A B A M A B O A R D O F E D U C A T I O N , P E G G Y C O N N E L L , S up er i nt endentof the T al l adega B oard of E du ca t i on i n h er in d iv id u a l a n d in h e ro f f ic ia l c ap a c ity , D e f e n d a n ts , T A L L A D E G A C O U N T Y B O A R D O F E D U C A T I O N , 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 r th e rn D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( A p r i l14, 2005)2

B efo re A N D E R S O N , C A RN E S an d R O N E Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C A RN E S , C i rc ui tJudg e: I n 1996 the T a l l a de gaC ounty B oa r d of E duc a t i on f

i r e d R ol l e n J a c ks on f

r om h is jo b a s aw e ld in g in s tru c to ra t P itta r d A r e aV o c a tio n a l H ig h S c h o o l. S h o r tly the r e a f t e r , J a c ks on f

i l e d al a w s ui ti n f

e de r a l di s tr i c tc our t . I n the e i ghty e a r s of l i t i g a t i o n th a tf

o l l o we d , h i s c a s e h a s b e e n b e f o r e f o u rd i s tr i c tc o u r tj u d g e s a n d two j uri es . Iti s now before thi s C ou rtfor the se cond and fi nal t i m e. I. S e ve r a l i nc i de nt s pr e c e de d J a c ks on’ s t e rm i na t i on. D ur i ng the l a tt e rpa r tof hi s ne a r l y tw e nty - y e a rt e nur e a s aw e l di ng i ns truc t or , J a c ks on s e ntnum e r ous i ns ul t i ng a nd de m e a ni ng l e tt e r s t o m e m be r s of the T a l l a de gaC ounty B oa r d of E d u cat i o n . S h o rt l y b efo re Jack so n w as t erm i n at ed , a stu d en ti n h i s w el d i n g cl ass w h o w a s n o t w e a r in g s a f e ty g lo v e s w a s b u rn e d o n h is h a n d b y aw e ld in g to r c h . J a c k s o n a ls o w e n t to aB o a r d m e e tin g a t w h ic h h e w a s n o t s c h e d u le d to p a r tic ip a te an d d i stri b u t ed co n fi d en t i al reco rd s reg ard i n g h i s sp eci al ed u cat i o n stu d en t s, ap p a r e n tly in a n a tte m p t to d e m o n s tr a te th a t th e c la s s e s w e r e o v e r c r o w d e d . O n O c t obe r25, 1996, aboutaw e e k a f t e rtha ti nc i de nta tthe B oa r d m e e t i ng, D r . P e ggy C onne l l , w ho w a s the n the S upe r i nt e nde ntof the B oa r d of

E duc a t i on, n o tif ie d J a c k s o n th a t th e B o a r d h a d d e c id e d to c o n s id e rte rm in a tin g h is3

e m p lo y m e n t. A p u b lic h e a r in g w a s h e ld a n d th e B o a r d v o te d to te rm in a te J a c ks on’ s t e a c hi ng c ontr a c t . J a c ks on f i l e d a n a dm i ni s tr a t i ve c om pl a i ntw i th the E E O C and, af

t erre ce i vi ng hi s r i gh t -t o-sue l ett er , he fi l ed thi s l aw sui ti n federa l di stri ctcourt . H i s l aw sui tcl ai m ed thatD r. C on nel l and the B oard: 1) had i mp e rmi s s i b l y f

i r e d h i m o n a c c o u n to f

h i s r a c e , i n v i o l a t i o n o f Ti t l e V I I , 4 2 U . S. C. § 2 00 0e etse q. , 42 U . S . C . §§ 19 81 , 19 81 (a ), and 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 98 3 (“ the ra ce d is c r im in a tio n c la im ” ) ; 2 ) h a d d o n e s o in r e ta lia tio n f o rh is s p e e c h in o p p o s itio n to r a c i a l d i s c r i mi n a t i o n , i n v i o l a t i o n o f Ti t l e V I I , 4 2 U . S. C. § 2 0 0 0 e e ts e q . , 4 2 U . S. C. §§ 1981, 1981( a ) , a nd 42 U . S . C . § 1983 ( “ the s t a tut ory r e t a l i a t i on c l a i m ” ) ; a nd 3) ha d a l s o done s o i n r e t a l i a t i on f orJ a c ks on’ s e xe r c i s e of hi s F i r s tA m e ndm e ntr i ght t o f r e e s pe e c h, i n vi ol a t i on of the F i r s tA m e ndm e nta nd 42 U . S . C . § 1983 ( “ the F i rs tA m endm entcl ai m ”) . T he di stri ctcourt , Judg e P ropstpres i di ng , grant ed sum m ary j ud gm entt o D r. Co n n e l l a n d th e Bo a r d o n a l l c o u n t s . W i th r e g a r d t o th e r a c e d i s c r i mi n a t i o n c l a i m, the c our tde t e rm i ne d tha tJ a c ks on ha d pr e s e nt e d no di r e c te vi de nc e of di s c r i m i na t i on, buttha the ha d pr e s e nt e d s uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e t o e s t abl i s h age nui ne is s u e o f m a te r ia l f

a c t a s to th e e x is te n c e o f ap r im af

a c ie c a s e u n d e rM c D o n n e ll D o u g l as C o rp . v . G reen , 4 1 1 U . S . 7 9 2 , 9 3 S . C t . 1 8 1 7 (1 9 7 3 ). T h e co u rtal so de t e rm i ne d tha tthe B oa r d ha d pr of f e r e d al e gi t i m a t e non- di s c r i m i na t ory r e a s on f or4

Ja ckson’ s t erm i nat i on . T he di stri ctcourtconcl ud ed, as w el l , thatJa ckson h ad f a i l e d t o c r e a t e age nui ne i s s ue of m a t e r i a l f

a c tr e ga r di ng w he the rthe r e a s on pr of f e r e d by the B oa r d f

orhi s t e rm i na t i on w a s pr e t e xtua l . F orthos e r e a s ons , the courtgrant ed sum m ary j ud gm enti n favor of D r. C on nel l and the B oard on the ra ce d is c r im in a tio n c la im . R egar di ng Ja ckson’ s s t atut ory r et al i at i on cl ai m , the di stri ctcourtdet erm i ned th a tJ a c k s o n ’ s s p e e c h a c t i v i t i e s w e r e p r o t e c t e d a n d th a th e h a d e s t ab l i s h e d ap r i ma f a c i e c a s e of

r e t a l i a t i on. H ow e ve r , be c a us e the di s tr i c tc our tde c i de d tha tJ a c ks on had fai l ed t o cre at e agenu i ne i ss ue of fa ctre gardi ng w hether the B oard’ s proff er ed r e a s o n f o rd is c h a r g e w a s ap r e te x t, it g r a n te d s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t to D r . C o n n e ll a n d th e B o a r d o n th e s ta tu to ry r e ta lia tio n c la im . A s f orJ a c ks on’ s F i r s tA m e ndm e ntc l a i m , the di s tr i c tc our tappl i e d the a na l y s i s s e touti n P i c ke r i ng v. B oa r d of E duc a t i on, 391 U . S . 563, 88 S . C t . 1731 (196 8) and B ry son v . C i ty of W ay cr oss, 88 8 F . 2d 15 62 (11th C i r. 19 89 ). It d et erm i n ed th atJack so n ’ s sp eech w as a m att er o f p u b l i c co n cern , th ath i s i n t erest i n s pe a ki ng outw e i ghe d the gove rnm e nt ’ s i nt e r e s ti n pr e ve nt i ng hi m f r om doi ng s o, a nd tha thi s s pe e c h pl a y e d as ubs t a nt i a l r ol e i n hi s t e rm i na t i on. N one the l e s s , the di stri ctcourtgrant ed sum m ary j ud gm enti n favor of D r. C on nel l and the B oard5

b e c a u s e th e r e w a s n o g e n u i n e d i s p u t e th a tth e Bo a r d w o u l d h a v e ma d e th e s a me e m p lo y m e n t d e c is io n r e g a r d le s s o f J a c k s o n ’s s p e e c h . J a c k s o n ap p e a le d to th is C o u r t, a n dw e a f f irm e d in p a r t a n d r e v e r s e d in p a r t. S e e J a c ks on v. A l a . S t a t e T e nur e C om m ’ n, N o. 99- 15123 ( 11th C i r . F e b. 21, 2 0 0 1 ) . W e h e ld th a t s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t in f a v o ro f D r . C o n n e ll w a s ap p r o p r ia te o n all claim s b ec au se sh e w as n o t a d ec isio n m ak erw ith re g ar d to Ja ck so n ’s t e rm i na t i on. H ow e ve r , w e r e ve r s e d the gr a ntof s um m a ry j udgm e nti n f a vorof the B o a r d o n th e r a c e d i s c r i m i n a t i o n a n d s t a tu t o ry r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m s b e c a u s e we c o n c lu d e d th a t th e B o a r d h a d n o t a r tic u la te d , a s r e q u ir e d b y M c D o n n e ll D o u g la s , a n o n - d is c r im in a to ry r e a s o n , o ra n y r e a s o n a t a ll, f o rJ a c k s o n ’s te rm in a tio n . S i m i l a r l y , w e r e ve r s e d a s t o the F i r s tA m e ndm e ntc l a i m be c a us e the B oa r d, not ha vi ng a r t i c ul a t e d a ny r e a s ons f orJ a c ks on’ s t e rm i na t i on, ha d note s t abl i s he d the M t . H e a l thy de f

e ns e tha ti tw oul d ha ve m a de the s a m e de c i s i on t o f i r e J a c ks on re gardl es s of hi s s peec h. S ee M t . H ea l thy C i ty S ch. D i st . B d. of E du c. v. D oyl e, 4 2 9 U .S . 2 7 4 , 9 7 S . C t. 5 6 8 ( 1 9 7 7 ) . O n r e m a nd t o the di s tr i c tc our t , the c a s e w a s a s s i gne d t o J udge B uttr a m a nd tri ed before aj ury. T he j ury f ou nd i n favor of the B oard as t o the ra ce di s c r i m i na t i on a nd F i r s tA m e ndm e ntc l a i m s ; buti tr e turne d ave r di c ti n f a vorof J a c k s o n o n th e s ta tu to ry r e ta lia tio n c la im a n d a w a r d e d h im $ 3 6 ,0 0 0 in6

com pensat ory dam ages and $ 15 0, 00 0 i n p un i t i ve dam ages . A ft erthe verdi ctw as r e nde r e d, i tw a s di s c ove r e d tha tone of the j ur or s ha d f

a l s e l y a ns w e r e d que s t i ons abouthe rc r i m i na l hi s t ory , ha vi ng f a i l e d t o di s c l os e tha ts he w a s c onvi c t e d f or ki l l i ng one of

he rc hi l dr e n. F ortha tr e a s on, ane w tr i a l w a s gr a nt e d. J udge B u ttr a m r e c u s e d h im s e lf b e f o r e th e s e c o n d tr ia l, a n d th e c a s e w a s r e a s s ig n e d to J u d g e N e ls o n . B e f or e the s e c ond tr i a l , J udge N e l s on gr a nt e d s um m a ry j udgm e ntt o the B oa r d on both the r a c e di s c r i m i na t i on a nd the s t a tut ory r e t a l i a t i on c l a i m s , l e a vi ng onl y J a c ks on’ s F i r s tA m e ndm e ntc l a i m . I n r e s ol vi ng thi s ty pe of F i r s tA m e ndm e nt c la im , af

o u r - s te p a n a ly s is ap p lie s , o n e s te p o f w h ic h r e q u ir e s th e c o u r t to d eter m in e w h eth erth e e m p lo ye e’s in tere st in sp ea k in g o u tw eig h s th e g o v er n m en t’ s le g itim a te in te r e s t in p r e v e n tin g th e s p e e c h in o r d e rto p r o m o te e f f ic ie n t p u b lic s e rvi c e , a n i nqui ry know n a s P i c ke r i ng ba l a nc i ng. S e e P i c ke r i ng, 391 U . S . a t568, 88 S . C t . a t1734–35; B e c kw i th v. C i ty of D a y t onaB e a c h S hor e s , 58 F . 3d 1554, 15 63 –6 4 (11 th C i r. 19 95 ); B ry son, 88 8 F . 2d at15 65 . If the P i cker i ng bal ance w ei g h s i n fav o r o f th e g o v ern m en t , th e em p l o yee can n o tp rev ai l o n h i s F i rst A m e n d m e n t c la im , a n d th e r e is n o p o in t in s u b m ittin g it to aju ry . B r o c h u v . C ity o f R iv ie r aB e a c h , 3 0 4 F .3 d 1 1 4 4 , 1 1 5 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) .7

I n de ny i ng s um m a ry j udgm e nton the F i r s tA m e ndm e ntc l a i m , J udge N e l s on no t ed thati n the proceedi ng s bef ore J ud ge P ropstthe di stri ctcourthad fou nd that th e P ic k e r in g b a la n c e w e ig h e d in f a v o ro f J a c k s o n . Ju d g e N e ls o n h e ld th a t, b e c a u s e th is C o u r t d id n o t d is tu rb th o s e f in d in g s o n ap p e a l, n e ith e rw o u ld h e in rul i ng on the B oa r d’ s m ot i on f ors um m a ry j udgm e nt . S o the F i r s tA m e ndm e nt c la im w a s h e a r d b y a n o th e rju ry in as e c o n d tr ia l. A f t e rthe c l os e of

e vi de nc e a nd be f

or e the j ury i ns truc t i ons w e r e gi ve n, the B oa r d r e m i nde d the di s tr i c tc our ttha tP i c ke r i ng ba l a nc i ng i s t o be done by the c our t( J udge P r ops tha d done i t ) . O n tha tba s i s , the B oa r d r e ne w e d i t s m ot i on f or j udgm e nta s am a tt e rof l a w unde rF e d. R . C i v. P . 50, a r gui ng tha tthe ba l a nc i ng sh o u ldb e d ec id ed b y th e c o u rt in it s f av o r. Ju d g e N elso n o v er ru led th e B o ar d ’s m o tio n a n d , p a r tin g w a y s w ith J u d g e P r o p s t’s d e c is io n , in s tru c te d th e ju ry to perf orm the P i cker i ng bal anci ng . T hatw as error i n l i gh tof the w el l -e st abl i shed c a s e l a w di c t a t i ng tha tthe c our t , notthe j ury , m us tc onduc tthe P i c ke r i ng ba l a nc i ng. S e e B r oc hu, 304 F . 3d a t1157; B e c kw i th, 58 F . 3d a t1563–64; B ry s on, 8 8 8 F .2 d a t 1 5 6 5 . W hi l e the j ury w a s de l i be r a t i ng, J udge N e l s on r e a l i z e d hi s m i s t a ke a nd t ook s te p s to c o rr e c t it. H e c a l l e d i n the j ury a nd e xpl a i ne d t o i ttha t : “ [ P i c ke r i ng b a la n c in g ] is n o t aq u e s tio n f o rth e ju ry ; it’s aq u e s tio n f o rm e , o n e th a t I h a v e to8

a ns w e r . . . . [ B ] e c a us e I a m goi ng t o a ns w e rque s t i on num be rthr e e [ , w he the rthe P ic k e r in g b a la n c e f

a v o r s J a c k s o n ,] ‘n o ,’ th e n th a t m e a n s th e r e is n o th in g f o ry o u to do . ” A ft erdi sm i ss i ng the j ury, Judg e N el son d i re ct ed Ja ckson t o sub m i tan i nd ex o f in s ta n c e s J a c k s o n c o n te n d e d w e r e p r o te c te d s p e e c h ; h e a ls o in s tru c te d b o th part i es t o b ri ef

the B oard’ s R ul e 50 m ot i on , even tho ug h h e had al re ady a nn ou nced hi s i nt ent i on t o g ra nti t . Judg e N el son d i ed before he c ou l d ent era w ri tt en fi nal ju d g m e n t. T he c a s e w a s the n a s s i gne d t o J udge C oogl e r , w ho de t e rm i ne d tha tJ udge N e l s on ha d or a l l y gr a nt e d the B oa r d’ s R ul e 50 m ot i on f orj udgm e nta s am a tt e rof l aw and h ad st at ed hi s r ea sons for doi ng so i n o pen cou rt . Judg e C oo gl erdeci ded th atF ed . R . C i v . P . 6 3 d i d n o treq u i re h i m t o h ear th e t est i m o n y o f an y w i tn esses, b e c a u s e in d e c id in g aR u le 5 0 m o tio n , w h ic h is w h a t J u d g e N e ls o n h a d d o n e , a c o u r t is n o t a llo w e d to m a k e c r e d ib ility d e te rm in a tio n s a n d m u s t d r a w a ll r e a s onabl e f

a c tua l i nf

e r e nc e s i n f

a vorof the nonm ovi ng pa r ty . S e e R e e ve s v. S a nde r s on P l um bi ng P r ods . , I nc . , 530 U . S . 133, 150–51, 120 S . C t . 2097, 2110 ( 2000) . J udge C oogl e rc om pl e t e d w ha the vi e w e d a s the “ m i ni s t e r i a l t a s k” of f o rm a lly e n te r in g ju d g m e n t in f a v o ro f th e B o a r d .9 II. J a c ks on r a i s e s s e ve r a l i s s ue s i n thi s appe a l . F i r s t , he c ont e nds tha tthe pr i or d e c is io n o f

th is C o u r t r e v e r s in g J u d g e P r o p s t’s g r a n t o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t in f a v o ro f th e B o a r d e s tab lis h e d a s la w o f th e c a s e th a t J a c k s o n h a d s a tis f ie d c e r ta in e le m e n ts o f

h is F ir s t A m e n d m e n t a n d s ta tu to ry r e ta lia tio n c la im s . A s ar e s u lt, ac cordi ng t o Jac kson , Judg e N el son v i ol at ed the l aw of the ca se do ctri ne by re e va l ua t i ng thos e e l e m e nt s , w hi c h l e d i tt o gr a ntboth the B oa r d’ s m ot i on f or s um m a ry j udgm e nton the s t a tut ory r e t a l i a t i on c l a i m a nd i t s R ul e 50 m ot i on f or ju d g m e n t a s am a tte ro f la w o n th e F ir s t A m e n d m e n t c la im . S e c ond, J a c ks on c ont e nds tha te ve n i f the l a w of

the c a s e doc tr i ne di d not bar J ud ge N el son’ s R ul e 50 d ec i si on , there w er e s ub si di ary i ss ues of f ac tthat s houl d ha ve be e n de c i de d by the j ury be f or e the c our tunde r t ook the P i c ke r i ng bal anci ng . Itw as error, he ar gu es , t o t ake the ca se aw ayfr om the j ury bef ore i thad d e c id e d th o s e s u b s id ia ry f a c t is s u e s . T hi rd, Ja ckson con t ends thatR ul e 63 requi re d Jud ge C oo gl er , w ho i nh er i t ed the c a s e f

r om J udge N e l s on, t o r e try i ti ns t e a d of s i m pl y e nt e r i ng j udgm e nt , a nd a l s o tha tF e d. R . C i v. P . 52 r e qui r e d J udge C oogl e rt o m a ke f i ndi ngs of

f a c ta nd c o n c lu s io n s o f

la w . F o u r th , J a c k s o n c o n te n d s th a t th e ju d g m e n t in th e f ir s t p o s tr e m a n d tr ia l ( th e o n e p r e s id e d o v e rb y J u d g e B u ttr a m ) w a s im p r o p e r ly v a c a te d .10

F i f th, J a c ks on c ont e nds tha tJ udge N e l s on e rr e d by gr a nt i ng the B oa r d’ s m ot i on f or s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t o n h is r a c e d is c r im in a tio n c la im . W e w i l l a ddr e s s e a c h of J a c ks on’ s c ont e nt i ons i n turn.

III. J a c k s o n r a is e s tw o a r g u m e n ts th a t r e ly o n th e la w o f th e c a s e d o c tr in e . F ir s t, h e a s s e r ts th a t th is C o u r t’s d e c is io n r e v e r s in g th e g r a n t o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t in f a vorof the B oa r d on hi s F i r s tA m e ndm e ntc l a i m e s t abl i s he d tha tthe P i c ke r i ng ba l a nc e f a vor s hi m . A s ar e s ul t , J a c ks on a r gue s , J udge N e l s on w a s ba rr e d by the l a w of the c a s e doc tr i ne f

r om de c i di ng the P i c ke r i ng ba l a nc e i s s ue i n f a vorof the B oard. S ec on d, Ja ckson argues thatou r pre vi ou s dec i si on al so es t abl i shed that there i s agenu i ne i ss ue of m at er i al fa ctw i th regard t o Jac kson ’ s s t atut ory r e t a l i a t i on c l a i m . A c c or di ngl y , he a r gue s tha tJ udge N e l s on vi ol a t e d the l a w of the c a s e d o c tr in e b y g r a n tin g s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t in f a v o ro f th e B o a r d o n th a t c la im . A . I n o r d e rto e s tab lis h th a t h e w a s f ir e d in v io la tio n o f

th e F ir s t A m e n d m e n t, J a c k s o n f

ir s t h a d to d e m o n s tr a te th a t h is s p e e c h in v o lv e d am a tte ro f p u b lic c onc e rn. S e e B ry s on, 888 F . 2d a t1565. S e c ond, he ha d t o e s t abl i s h tha tthe

“ ba l a nc e be tw e e n the i nt e r e s t s of the t e a c he r , a s ac i t i z e n, i n c om m e nt i ng upon11

m a tte r s o f

p u b lic c o n c e rn a n d th e in te r e s t o f th e S ta te , a s a n e m p lo y e r , in p ro m o t i n g th e effi ci en cy o f th e p u b l i c serv i ces i tp erfo rm s th ro u g h i t s em p l o yees” w ei gh ed i n h i s f

avor. S ee P i cker i ng , 39 1 U . S . at56 8, 88 S . C t . at17 34 –3 5; se e a l s o B ry s on, 888 F . 2d a t1565. T hi s s t e p i s know n a s P i c ke r i ng ba l a nc i ng. T hi r d, Ja ck so n h ad to sh o w th at h is sp ee ch p laye d a s u b stan ti al p ar t i n th e B o ar d ’s de c i s i on t o f

i r e hi m . S e e B ry s on, 888 F . 2d a t1565–66. F i na l l y , e ve n i f J a c ks on w e r e abl e t o e s t abl i s h a l l thr e e of thos e e l e m e nt s , hi s c l a i m w oul d s t i l l f a i l i f the B o a r d p r o v e d b y ap r e p o n d e r a n c e o f th e e v id e n c e th a t it w o u ld h a v e f ir e d h im r e g a r d le s s o f

h is s p e e c h . S e e id . a t 1 5 6 6 . T h is la s t p o s s ib ility is k n o w n a s aM t. H e a l thy de f

e ns e . S e e M t . H e a l thy , 429 U . S . a t274, 97 S . C t . a t568. W h en th i s case w as fi rstb efo re th e d i stri ctco u rt(w i th Ju d g e P ro p st p r e s id in g ) , s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t w a s g r a n te d in f a v o ro f th e B o a r d o n a ll th e c la im s . In the course of addres si ng the F i rs tA m endm entcl ai m , the di stri ctcourtdeci ded th a t J a c k s o n ’s s p e e c h w a s o f p u b lic c o n c e rn , th a t th e P ic k e r in g b a la n c e w e ig h e d in h is f a v o r , a n d th a t h is s p e e c h p la y e d as u b s ta n tia l r o le in h is b e in g f ir e d . D e s p ite tha t , the c our tul t i m a t e l y he l d tha tthe B oa r d w a s e nt i t l e d t o s um m a ry j udgm e nt b e c a u s e it f

o u n d th a t “th e o n ly s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e is th a t th e s a m e a c tio n w o u ld have been t aken” re gardl es s of J ac kson ’ s s peec h. In other w ords, the di stri ctcourt foun d thatthe B oard had m ou nt ed a s ucce ss ful M t . H ea l thy defe nse.12

O n appe a l , w e r e ve r s e d the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de c i s i on on tha tc l a i m , e xpl a i ni ng tha t : “ the B oa r d ha s f

a i l e d t o a r t i c ul a t e a ny r e a s on f orJ a c ks on’ s t e rm i na t i on a nd, th e r e f o r e , c a n n o t y e t e s tab lis h th a t J a c k s o n w o u ld h a v e b e e n te rm in a te d ab s e n t h is p ro tected sp ee ch . A cc o rd in g ly, su m m ar y ju d g m en t fo r th e B o ar d o n Ja ck so n ’s F i r s tAm e n d m e n tc l a i m wa s i m p r o p e r . ” I n th e c o u r s e o f o u rd i s c u s s i o n , we r e c o u n te d w h a t “[ t]h e d is tr ic t c o u r t f o u n d ,” b u t w e d id n o t c o m m e n t o n a n y o f its f i ndi ngs orc onc l us i ons othe rtha n t o poi ntouttha ti tha d e rr e d i n f i ndi ng tha tthe B o a r d h a d e s tab lis h e d aM t. H e a lth y d e f e n s e . No n e th e l e s s , J a c k s o n a r g u e s th a t , b y d e c i d i n g th e Mt . He a l th y i s s u e , we i m pl i c i t l y he l d i n hi s f

a vorr e ga r di ng the othe re l e m e nt s of hi s F i r s tA m e ndm e nt c l a i m , i n c l u d i n g th e P i c k e r i n g b a l a n c e . T h a tm e a n s , J a c k s o n s a y s , th a twe e s t abl i s he d a s l a w of

the c a s e tha tthe P i c ke r i ng ba l a nc e f a vor e d hi m , a nd on re m and the di stri ctcourt(thi s t i m e w i th Jud ge N el son p re si di ng ) vi ol at ed the l aw of the c a s e doc tr i ne by rul i ng tha tthe P i c ke r i ng ba l a nc e w e i ghe d i n f a vorof the B oard. T hatrul i ng w as cruci al t o the grantof the m ot i on for j ud gm entas a m att er o f la w to th e B o a r d o n th a t c la im . “U n d e rth e la w o f

th e c a s e d o c tr in e , b o th th e d is tr ic t c o u r t a n d th e ap p e lla te courtar e genera l l y bou nd by a pri or appel l at e dec i si on of the sa m e c as e. T he l aw of the ca se do ctri ne, ho w ever , bars consi dera t i on of on l y tho se l egal i ss ues that13

w er e a ctual l y, or by neces sa ryi m pl i ca t i on , deci ded i n the form erproceedi ng . ” O l adei nd e v. C i ty of B i rm i ng ham , 23 0 F . 3d 12 75 , 12 88 (11th C i r. 20 00 ) ( i nt ernal quot a t i ons a nd c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) . E xc e pt i ons t o thi s doc tr i ne appl y w he n s u b s ta n tia lly d if

f e r e n t e v id e n c e is p r o d u c e d , w h e n th e r e h a s b e e n ac h a n g e in c o n tr o llin g a u th o r ity , o rw h e n th e p r io rd e c is io n w a s c le a r ly e rr o n e o u s a n d w o u ld r e s ul ti n m a ni f

e s ti nj us t i c e . I d. ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R obi ns on, 690 F . 2d 869, 872 (11th C i r. 19 82 ). T he fi rs tst ep i n the anal ys i s i s t o i dent i fythe l egal i ss ues thi s C ou rt

“ ac tual l y, or by neces sa ryi m pl i ca t i on , ” dec i ded w hen w e r ever se d the di stri ct c our t ’ s gr a ntof

s um m a ry j udgm e nt . S e e O l a de i nde , 230 F . 3d a t1288. J a c ks on sa ys thatw e m usthave agree d w i th the di stri ctcourtthatthe P i cker i ng bal ance f a vor e d hi m , be c a us e i f

w e ha d di s a gr e e d w e c oul d ha ve a f f i rm e d on the a l t e rna t i ve gr ound tha the ha d f a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h tha te l e m e nt . W e ne e d notde c i de i f J ac kson ’ s m i ss ed op po rtun i ty or i m pl i ci tagre em entar gu m enti s c orre ctbecause, ev en i f i ti s, th e ev i d en ce b efo re Ju d g e N el so n w h en h e en t ered j u d g m en tas a m att erof l aw w as subst ant i al l y di ff er entfr om the evi dence upo n w hi ch w e bas ed ourr e ve r s a l of

J udge P r ops t ’ s gr a ntof s um m a ry j udgm e ntf

orthe B oa r d. T he pri or appeal w as fr om a gra ntof sum m ary j ud gm entbase d o n the re cord b e f o r e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t a t th a t tim e . T h e d is p o s itiv e q u e s tio n w a s w h e th e rth e r e is14

ag e n u in e is s u e o f

m a te r ia l f

a c t r a is e d b y th a t e v id e n c e . S e e F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 6 ( c ) . E ven i f w e nec es sa ri l y dec i ded thatqu es t i on i n Jac kson ’ s f avor du ri ng the ea rl i er ap p e a l , we d i d s o o n l y a s t o th e P i c k e r i n g b a l a n c e i s s u e f r a m e d b y th e f

a c t s ( d r a wn f r o m th e e v id e n c e v ie w e d in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o r ab le to J a c k s o n ) in th a t r e c o r d . T h a t is th e o n ly P ic k e r in g b a la n c e is s u e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t h a d b e f o r e it, a n d th a t is th e o n ly o n e th a t w e c o u ld h a v e im p lic itly d e c id e d d u r in g th e ap p e a l. W he n the r e c or d c ha nge s , w hi c h i s t o s a y w he n the e vi de nc e a nd the in f e r e n c e s th a t m a y b e d r a w n f r o m it c h a n g e , th e is s u e p r e s e n te d c h a n g e s a s w e ll. T he fi rs texce pt i on t o the do ctri ne re cogn i ze s thatthe l aw of the ca se i s the l aw m a d e o n ag iv e n s e t o f

f a c ts , n o t la w y e t to b e m a d e o n d if f e r e n t f a c ts . S e e D a v is v . T o w n o f L ak e P ark , 2 4 5 F . 3 d 1 2 3 2 , 1 2 3 7 n . 1 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 1 ) (“ L aw o f th e case d o e s n o t ap p ly in th is s itu a tio n b e c a u s e [ th e la te rd is tr ic t c o u r t ju d g e ] b a s e d h is po st -tri al order on a di ff er entre cord than d i d [the ea rl i erdi stri ctcourtj ud ge] w hen addres si ng sum m ary j ud gm ent . ”) ; S hel ko fs ky v. B roug ht on , 38 8 F . 2d 97 7 (5th C i r. 1968) ( r e ve r s a l of

s um m a ry j udgm e ntf

oratr i a l by j ury w oul d notpr e c l ude the di stri ctcourtfr om l at erent er i ng sum m ary j ud gm entor j ud gm entas a m att erof l aw i f the evi dence offe re d attri al w as i nsuffi ci entt o w arra ntsubm i ss i on t o the j ury) ; s e e a ls o O la d e in d e , 2 3 0 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 9 ; R o b in s o n , 6 9 0 F .2 d a t 8 7 2

– 7 3 .15

In re vers i ng Judg e P ropst ’ s gra ntof the B oard’ s m ot i on for s um m ary j udgm e nt , w e ha d be f

or e us l i m i t e d e vi de nc e , i nc l udi ng onl y e xc e rpt s f r om J a c k s o n ’s te rm in a tio n h e a r in g in f r o n t o f th e B o a r d . W e h a d th e d e p o s itio n o f o n ly o n e B o ar d m em b er , an d h e w as th e lo n e m em b erw h o v o ted ag ain st Ja ck so n ’s t e rm i na t i on. T he e vi de nc e be f or e us di d notc ont a i n e ve n a n a r t i c ul a t i on by the B oa r d of the r e a s ons f

orJ a c ks on’ s t e rm i na t i on. T he B oa r d’ s f a i l ur e t o pr ovi de a ny r e a s on, l e gi t i m a t e orothe rw i s e , f orJ a c ks on’ s t e rm i na t i on w a s the s t a t e d ba s i s f or ourr e ve r s a l of

J udge P r ops t ’ s gr a ntof s um m a ry j udgm e nti n f a vorof the B oa r d. B y c o n tr a s t, th e r e c o r d b e f o r e u s n o w c o n ta in s th e tr a n s c r ip t o f th e tw o tr ia ls tha tf ol l ow e d a f

t e rw e r e ve r s e d the gr a ntof s um m a ry j udgm e nt . I nc l ude d i s the te s tim o n y o f

th e th r e e B o a r d m e m b e r s w h o v o te d to te rm in a te J a c k s o n . T h e ir t e s t i m ony di s c us s e s i n de t a i l the r e a s ons J a c ks on w a s f i r e d. I tde s c r i be s , a m ong o th e rth in g s , J a c k s o n ’s a c e rb ic a n d d e m e a n in g le tte r - w r itin g c a m p a ig n a n d its del et er i ou s e ff

ec ton the funct i on i ng of the sc ho ol sy st em . T hatcond uct , as w el l as hi s w r ongf

ul di s tr i but i on of

c onf i de nt i a l s tude ntr e c or ds a nd hi s poorj ob perf orm ance , w er e a m on g the re as on s, the B oard m em bers t es t i fi ed, thatcaused the m t o f i r e hi m . T he ne w e vi de nc e w e i ghs he a vi l y i n the P i c ke r i ng ba l a nc e on the g o v e rn m e n t’s s id e g iv e n its n e e d to e f f ic ie n tly a n d e f

f e c tiv e ly p e r f

o rm its f unc t i ons . S e e C onni c k v. M y e r s , 461 U . S . 138, 149–54, 103 S . C t . 1684, 1691–94J ackson relies on B aumer v. United States, 685 F.2d 1318 ( 11th Cir. 1982), for the 1 proposition that becausethis evidencewas available to the B oard when Judge Propst first rule d on themotion

fo r summ ary

judgment, it s ho uld

no t beallo we d tous ethee videnc eno w to avo id the law of the ca se doctrine . J ackson’ s relianc e on B aumer is mispl ace d. In that decision weheld that the law of the ca se doctrineprec luded the district cour t from a s c ertainingth ev alueo f

ano p ti o ntop urc h a s ela

n d o nth ed ateit

w a s grante d . I d . at 1 3 1 9 . We fo un d th at , b ec au s e th e f

i rs tti m e thro u ghth e p l ai nti ff s h adch o s enas p arto f th ei r tri als trat egy no t tomakeany

argumentsa

bo ut t hevalueof

theop tio n o n th at date , th ey wereno t entitle d “to resur rec t a previously

abandone d issue.” Id. at 1321. We further stated that “[p]ermitti ng evidenc e of thevalue of

the option when grante d was outside the sc ope of [the] mandate” to the district court. I d. This caseis different from B aumer . The B oard never a bandoned f

or strate g ic or other rea sons its argument that the Pickeringbalanc e we ighe d in its favor. And our ma ndate to the district court contained no limitation on the evidence that could be considered on this issue on rema nd. To the contra

ry, beca use wereversed the grant of summar y judgment, we anticipated that more evidencewould be deve loped as the c ase progresse d. In Ba umer the trial had alre ady be en c on duc te d at th etim eof thefirs t a

pp e al. 16 (198 3). T he art i cul at i on of re as on s f or the t erm i nat i on re m edi es a probl em that ex i st ed w h en th e case w as l astb efo re u s. 1 W he n, a f t e rthe r e m a nd, J udge N e l s on gr a nt e d the B oa r d’ s m ot i on ba s e d on hi s de c i s i on tha tthe P i c ke r i ng ba l a nc e f a vor e d the B oa r d, he c ons i de r e d a l l of the ne w e vi de nc e . H i s rul i ng tha tthe P i c ke r i ng ba l a nc e f a vor e d the B oa r d ba s e d on the e vi de nc e a tthe j udgm e nta s am a tt e rof l a w s t a ge i s noti nc ons i s t e ntw i th our ea rl i errul i ng (i f w e i m pl i ci t l y m ade one) thatthe P i cker i ng bal ance had favored J a c k s o n b a s e d o n th e e v id e n c e b e f o r e J u d g e P r o p s t a t th e s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t s ta g e . T w o di f f e r e nts e t s of

f a c t s f r a m e d tw o di f

f e r e nti s s ue s a nd pe rm i tt e d tw o di f f e r e nt rul i ngs . E ve n i f

the l a w of

the c a s e i s tha tthe P i c ke r i ng ba l a nc e f a vor e d J a c ks on17

on the s um m a ry j udgm e ntr e c or d be f or e J udge P r ops t , the l a w of the c a s e i s not tha tthe P i c ke r i ng ba l a nc e f a vor e d hi m on the r e c or d a s i ts t ood w he n J udge N e l s on e n te r e d ju d g m e n t a s am a tte ro f la w f o rth e B o a r d . B. F ors i m i l a rr e a s ons , w e r e j e c tJ a c ks on’ s a r gum e nttha tJ udge N e l s on’ s gr a nt o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t in f a v o ro f th e B o a r d o n th e s ta tu to ry r e ta lia tio n c la im v i o l a t e d th e l a w o f

th e c a s e d o c tr i n e . J a c k s o n ’ s a r g u m e n ti s th a t , b e c a u s e we rev ersed th e g ran to f su m m ary j u d g m en tfo r th e B o ard o n th i s cl ai m i n th e fi rst appe a l , J udge N e l s on vi ol a t e d the l a w of the c a s e by e nt e r i ng s um m a ry j udgm e nt on the c l a i m a f

t e rr e m a nd. H e di d tha tbe f or e the s e c ond tr i a l be ga n, buta f t e rthe fi rs tful l tri al . (A s w e m ent i on ed, the j ud gm entw hi ch re sul t ed fr om thatfi rs ttri al w as se tas i de because of j uror m i sc on du ct . ) A tthe t i m e J ud ge N el son ent er ed s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t f

o rth e B o a r d , h e h a d b e f o r e h im th e tr a n s c r ip t o f th e f ir s t tr ia l. I nc l ude d i n tha ttr a ns c r i ptw a s the B oa r d m e m be r s ’ t e s t i m ony a r t i c ul a t i ng r e a s ons J a c ks on w a s f

i r e d. T ha tm a de the s um m a ry j udgm e nti s s ue m a t e r i a l l y di f f e r e nt fro m w h ati th adb een atth e t i m e o f th e fi rstap p eal , w h en w e rev ersed th e fi rst e ntry of s um m a ry j udgm e ntbe c a us e the B oa r d ha d notgi ve n a ny r e a s ons f orthe t e rm i na t i on. D i f

f e r e nte vi de nc e , di f

f e r e nti s s ue s . T he l a w of the c a s e di d not18

pr e c l ude e ntry of

s um m a ry j udgm e ntf

orthe B oa r d on the s t a tut ory r e t a l i a t i on c la im b a s e d o n th e r e c o r d a s it s to o d a t th e e n do f th e f ir s t tr ia l. I V. M ovi ng a w a y f

r om the l a w of

the c a s e que s t i ons , J a c ks on’ s ne xtc ont e nt i on c o n c e rn s th e p r o p e ra llo c a tio n o f r e s p o n s ib ilitie s b e tw e e n th e c o u r t a n d th e ju ry in de c i di ng the P i c ke r i ng ba l a nc e i s s ue . J a c ks on c ont e nds tha t , e ve n though the a c tua l ba l a nc i ng i s done by the c our t , s ubs i di a ry f a c t s tha tm a ke up the w e i ght s on e a c h s i de of

the s c a l e m us tbe f

ound by the j ury . A c c or di ng t o J a c ks on, J udge N e l s on e rr e d i n de c i di ng tha tthe P i c ke r i ng ba l a nc e f a vor e d the B oa r d w i thout h av i n g th e j u ry d eci d e th e u n d erl yi n g fact s. “W e a c k n o w le d g e th a t s o m e tim e s as itu a tio n m ig h t p r e s e n t af a c tu a l d is p u te w hi ch m ustbe re sol ved b y the j ury bef ore the tri al j ud ge i s abl e t o m ake the l aw c a lls r e q u ir e d ” in d e c id in g th e P ic k e r in g b a la n c e . B r o c h u , 3 0 4 F .3 d a t 1 1 5 8 . T he r e i s , how e ve r , no c a t e gor i c a l rul e tha tr e qui r e s the c our tt o s ubm i ti s s ue s t o the j ury be f or e i tc a n unde r t a ke the P i c ke r i ng ba l a nc i ng. W he n the f a c t s unde r l y i ng the ba l a nc e a r e c l e a r , c our t s c a n a nd do de c i de the P i c ke r i ng ba l a nc e i s s ue w i thout th e a id o f

aju ry . S e e , e .g ., M o rr is v . C r o w , 1 1 7 F .3 d 4 4 9 , 4 5 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) . H e r e th e r e le v a n t f

a c ts w e r e c le a r .19

In re sol vi ng the P i cker i ng bal ance , “ [o] ne re l evantconsi dera t i on i s w hether th e sp eech ati ssu e ‘ i m p ai rs d i sci p l i n e b y su p eri o rs o r h arm o n y am o n g co -w o rk ers, h a s ad e tr im e n ta l im p a c t o n c lo s e w o rk in g r e la tio n s h ip s f o rw h ic h p e r s o n a l lo y a lty a nd c onf i de nc e a r e ne c e s s a ry , ori m pe de s pe r f orm a nc e of

the s pe a ke r ’ s dut i e s or i nt er fe re s w i th the re gu l arop er at i on of the [pub l i c e m pl oyer ’ s] ent erpri se . ’ ” I d. at 457–58 ( quot i ng R a nki n v. M c P he r s on, 483 U . S . 378, 388, 107 S . C t . 2891, 2899 ( 1 9 8 7 ) ) . I n h o ld in g th a t th e P ic k e r in g b a la n c e f a v o r e d th e g o v e rn m e n t e m p lo y e rin the M orri s c as e, w e e xp l ai ned that : “ the m anner i n w hi ch M orri s’ m es sa ge w as expres se d w as di sr es pect ful , dem ea ni ng , rude, and i nsul t i ng , and i tw as perc ei ved a s s u c h b y M o rr is ’ c o - w o rk e r s . I t is n o t d if f ic u lt to s e e h o w M o rr is ’ b e h a v io r. . . c oul d c a us e s e r i ous di s c i pl i na ry pr obl e m s , unde rm i ne e m pl oy e e m or a l e , a nd im p a irh a rm o n y a m o n g c o - w o rk e r s . I n d e e d , it is d if f ic u lt to im a g in e h o w it c o u ld d o a n y th in g e ls e .” I d . a t 4 5 8 . T he sa m e i s true i n thi s c as e. T here i s no d i sput e thatJa ckson senta num ber of de m e a ni ng a nd i nf

l a m m a t ory l e tt e r s t o, a m ong othe r s , the S upe r i nt e nde ntof the sc ho ol , the di re ct or of the sc ho ol , and m em bers of the B oard. F or exam pl e, J a c ks on s e ntal e tt e rt o the m e m be r s of the B oa r d i n w hi c h he de s c r i be d one of the B oa r d m e m be r s a s a“ G r a nd W i z a r d of the K l u [ s i c ] K l ux K l a n” a nd a“ s e l f i s h, nobu si ness -m i nd ed, i nsul t i ng , di sgust i ng pers on l etal on e a [n] ethn i c genoci ze r [ si c] . ”20

H e a l so se nta l ett erdesc ri bi ng the then-as si st antS up er i nt endentas a “ bl ac k o v e r s e e rw ith h is w h ip , r id in g o n h is s ta llio n w ith a ll o f th e n o b le tru s t a n d lo y a lty tha tthe m a s t e ri nve s t e d i n hi m , ” a nd s t a t i ng tha ta f t e rthe a s s i s t a nt S u p e r in te n d e n t’s jo b is d o n e h is “M a s te r ” ( th e S u p e r in te n d e n t) w ill “p u t h is b ig bl a c k boy ba c k i n the f

i e l ds . ” J a c ks on w r ot e a nothe rl e tt e rt o the n- S upe r i nt e nde nt D r. C on nel l thatca l l ed her “ verydeci evi ng [s i c] ” a nd st at ed: “ I thi nk thatD r. C onne l l ha s de m ons tr a t e d how s he f e e l s aboutthe bl a c k c om m uni ty . S he ha s our v o te o f n o c o n f id e n c e .” T h e r e w e r e o th e rle tte r s in as im ila rv e in . W i th thi s e vi de nc e , c oupl e d w i th the t e s t i m ony of the B oa r d m e m be r s a tthe fi rs ttri al , Judg e N el son h ad before hi m enou gh un di sput ed evi dence t o d ec i de that J a c ks on’ s c onduc t , i n the w or ds of ourM orr i s de c i s i on “ c oul d c a us e s e r i ous di s c i pl i na ry pr obl e m s , unde rm i ne e m pl oy e e m or a l e , a nd i m pa i rha rm ony a m ong c o - w o rk e r s .” 1 1 7 F .3 da t 4 5 8 . V. J a c ks on’ s ne xtc ont e nt i on i nvol ve s J udge C oogl e r ’ s a c t i ons a f t e rhe t ook ove rthe c a s e . A l though J udge N e l s on ha d or a l l y gr a nt e d the B oa r d’ s R ul e 50 m ot i on f orj udgm e nta s am a tt e rof l a w on the F i r s tA m e ndm e ntc l a i m a f t e rthe cl ose of the evi dence i n the se cond tri al , he di ed before he made any w ri tt en f i ndi ngs of

f a c ta nd c onc l us i ons of

l a w ore nt e r e d f

i na l j udgm e nt . W i thoutRul e63 state s: 2 I f a trial or hea

ringhas been commence d and the judg e is unable to proc eed, a ny other judg e may

proce ed with it upon cer

tifying f amiliarity with the rec ord and deter mining that the procee dings in the c ase ma y be complete d without prejudice to the parties. In a hea

ringor trial without a jury, the succ essor judg e shall at the request of a pa rt y re c all a ny witne ss who sete stimony is m ateri al and

dispute d a

nd wh o isavaila

bleto testify ag ain without undue burden. The succ essor judg e may also rec all any

other witne ss. Fe d. R. Civ. P . 63. 21 r e c a l l i ng a ny w i tne s s e s ore nt e r i ng w r i tt e n f i ndi ngs of

f a c torc onc l us i ons of

l a w of hi s ow n, J udge C oogl e re nt e r e d af orm a l j udgm e nti n f

a vorof the B oa r d ba s e d on Judg e N el son’ s ora l grantof the B oard’ s R ul e 50 m ot i on for j ud gm entas a m att er o f la w . Ja ckson argues thatbefore ent er i ng j ud gm entJudg e C oo gl erw as ob l i gat ed by R ul e 63 t o rec al l w i tness es and h ea r f or hi m se l f the t es t i m on y thathad b ee n p r e s e n te d a t th e s e c o n d tr ia l. J a c k s o n a s s e r ts th a t c a s e s s u c h a s E m e r s o n E le c tr ic 2 C o. v. G e ne r a l E l e c tr i c C o. , 846 F . 2d 1324 ( 11th C i r . 1988) ( pe rc ur i a m ) , a nd Z a nd v . C .I .R . S e rv ic e , 1 4 3 F .3 d 1 3 9 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) , s ta n d f o rth e p r o p o s itio n th a t, un der R ul e 63, any t i m e aj ud ge i n a ci vi l ca se becom es di sabl ed or di es before i s s ui ng f i ndi ngs of

f a c ta nd c onc l us i ons of

l a w , the s uc c e s s orj udge m us tr e try the c a s e . J a c ks on i s w r ong. E m e r s o n a n d Z a n d d e a lt w ith av e r s io n o f R u le 6 3 th a t w a s c o n s id e r ab ly narr ow erthan the pres enton e. S ee E m er son, 84 6 F . 2d at13 24 ; Z and, 14 3 F . 3d at22

1393. M or e i m por t a nt l y , i n thos e tw o c a s e s the unde r l y i ng tr i a l s w e r e be f or e the b e n c h , n o t b e f

o r e aju ry . E m e r s o n , 8 4 6 F .2 d a t 1 3 2 4 ; Z a n d , 1 4 3 F .3 d a t 1 3 9 3 . R ul e 63 tr e a t s be nc h tr i a l s a nd j ury tr i a l s di f f e r e nt l y . T he rul e gi ve s the pa r t i e s the r i ghtt o i ns i s ttha taw i tne s s be r e c a l l e d i n abe nc h tr i a l . F e d. R . C i v. P . 63 ( “ I n a h e a r in g o rtr ia l w ith o u t aju ry , th e s u c c e s s o rju d g e s h a ll a t th e r e q u e s t o f ap a r ty r e c a ll a n y w itn e s s w h o s e te s tim o n y is m a te r ia l a n d d is p u te d a n d w h o is a v a ilab le to t es t i fyagai n w i tho utun du e burden. ”) . T he rul e does notgi ve thatri gh tw here a ju ry tr ia l is in v o lv e d . W h a t w e h a v e h e r e is aju ry tr ia l, n o t ab e n c h tr ia l. T ha tl e a ve s a s appl i c abl e onl y R ul e 63’ s ge ne r a l pr ovi s i on tha t : “ I f atr i a l or he a r i ng ha s be e n c om m e nc e d a nd the j udge i s unabl e t o pr oc e e d, a nyothe rj udge m a y pr oc e e d w i th i tupon c e r t i f y i ng f a m i l i a r i ty w i th the r e c or d a nd de t e rm i ni ng tha tthe pr oc e e di ngs i n the c a s e m a y be c om pl e t e d w i thoutpr e j udi c e t o the pa r t i e s . ” I d. J udge C oogl e rdi d c e r t i f y tha the w a s f

a m i l i a rw i th the r e c or d a nd he det erm i ned thatthe proceedi ng s i n the ca se coul d b e c om pl et ed w i tho utprej ud i ce t o the pa r t i e s ; R ul e 63 r e qui r e d no m or e . S e e i d. J a c ks on a l s o c ont e nds tha tJ udge C oogl e rvi ol a t e d R ul e 52 by e nt e r i ng j ud gm entw i tho uti ss ui ng fi nd i ng s of f ac tand con cl usi on s of l aw . R ul e 52 requi re s tha t“ [ i ] n a l l a c t i ons tr i e d upon the f a c t s w i thoutaj ury orw i th a n a dvi s ory j ury , the courtshal l fi nd the fa ct s s peci al l y a nd st at e s epar at el y i t s c on cl usi on s of l awJ ackson a rgues that bec ause thePickeringbalanc e is an issue for the cour t to decide, se e 3 Brochu, 304 F .3d at 1157, the cour t must i ssue finding s of fact and c onclusions of law when de c idinga

Rul e50 motion

that isba se d o n th eoutc omeof thePic keringbalanc e . N ot o nly is this int erpretation unsupported by the law, but it is at war with the plain languag e of Rule 52.

23 the r e on . . . . ” F e d. R . C i v. P . 52( a ) . T he tr i a l w e a r e t a l ki ng aboutw a s not

“ w i th o u ta j u ry; ” i tw as w i th a j u ry. 3 T he rul e a l so prov i des that“ [f ] i nd i ng s of f

ac tand con cl usi on s of l aw ar e unne c e s s a ry on de c i s i ons of m ot i ons unde rR ul e 12 or56 ora ny othe rm ot i on exce ptas prov i ded i n sub di vi si on (c ). ” I d. T he m ot i on w e a re t al ki ng abou tw as “a n y o th e rm o tio n ,” b e c a u s e it w a s u n d e rR u le 5 0 w h ic h is n o t “p r o v id e d ” in subd i vi si on (c ). A s are sul t , nei ther J ud ge N el son n or Judg e C oo gl erw er e und er a ny obl i ga t i on t o e nt e rf i ndi ngs of

f a c ta nd c onc l us i ons of

l a w i n gr a nt i ng the B o a r d ’ s R u l e 5 0 m o t i o n f o rj u d g m e n ta s am a tt e ro f l a w. V I. Ja ckson’ s nextcont ent i on i s thatthe j ury’ s ver di ctfr om the fi rs ttri al w as i m prop er l y vac at ed because there w as no fi nd i ng thatthe j uror’ s und i sc l osed c r im in a l c o n v ic tio n c a u s e d a c tu a l b ia s o rp r e ju d ic e . T h e r e a s o n J a c k s o n c a r e s is tha t , a l though the j ury de c i de d a ga i ns tJ a c ks on on othe rc l a i m s , i tde c i de d the st atut ory r et al i at i on cl ai m i n h i s f avor and aw ar ded h i m $3 6, 00 0 i n com pensat ory dam ages and $ 15 0, 00 0 i n p un i t i ve dam ages . H e w ou l d b e happy t o h ave that ve r di c tr e i ns t a t e d.24

“ I n r e v i e wi n g atr i a l c o u r t ’ s d i s p o s i t i o n o f am o t i o n t o g r a n tan e w tr i a l , we appl y a n abus e of

di s c r e t i on s t a nda r d. ” M c W hor t e rv. C i ty of B i rm i ngha m , 906 F .2 d 6 7 4 , 6 7 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) . B e c a u s e th e tr ia l ju d g e is in th e b e s t p o s itio n to g a u g e w h e th e ratr ia l h a s b e e n c o n ta m in a te d b y p o te n tia lly p r e ju d ic ia l c o n d u c t,

“ [ w ] e . . . he s i t a t e t o ove r turn the gr a ntof ane w tr i a l ba s e d on s uc h gr ounds . ” I d. T he r e a s on tha tJ udge B uttr a m ( the s e c ond of f ourdi s tr i c tc our tj udge s t o be i nvol ve d i n the c a s e ) gr a nt e d the B oa r d’ s m ot i on f orane w tr i a l i s tha tone of the j urors had fai l ed t o d i sc l ose thatshe had been conv i ct ed of a f el on y, tho ug h that spec i fi c quest i on w as as ked d uri ng vo i r di re w hi l e s he w as un der oath. Itw as di sc ov er ed af

t erthe tri al thatthe j uror had b ee n con vi ct ed of the m urder of her c h ild . In addres si ng the prospect i ve j urors, Judg e B ut tra m had asked: “ A re there any of y ou w ho have ever bee n con vi ct ed of a s t at e off ense i n st at e c ou rt , or a fe dera l offe nse i n federa l court , of a c ri m e pun i shabl e by i m pri sonm entfor m ore th a n o n e y e a r , a n d w h o h a v e n o t h a d y o u rc iv il r ig h ts r e s to r e d ? ” T h e ju r o rin que s t i on di d notr e s pond. L a te rin th e ju ry s e le c tio n p r o c e s s , w h e n th a t ju r o rw a s in tr o d u c in g h e r s e lf a n d r e a d in g th e a n s w e r s to aq u e s tio n n a ir e s h e h a d b e e n g iv e n , s h e s ta te d : “E x p e r ie n c e in ala w s u it? N o . E x p e r ie n c e a s aw itn e s s in ala w s u it? N o .25

E xp er i ence as a j uror. N on e. ” J ac kson ’ s a tt orney a l so spec i fi ca l l y a sked the j urors w hether a ny of them had “ part i ci pat ed as a pl ai nt i ff or defe nd anti n a l aw sui t . ” A ga i n, the j ur ordi d notr e s pond. Justbefore the l aw ye rs st art ed as ki ng qu es t i on s, Judg e B ut tra m as ked: “ C an a ny of y ou thi nk of

a ny othe rm a tt e rw hi c h y ou s houl d c a l l t o the C our t ’ s a tt e nt i on w hi c h m a y ha ve s om e be a r i ng on y ourqua l i f i c a t i ons a s aj ur or. . . ? ” A ga i n, the j ur ordi d notr e s pond. J udge B uttr a m the n s t a t e d: “ I n othe rw or ds , . . . m a y be [ th e r e is ] s o m e th in g th a t y o u f e e l lik e y o u n e e d [ m e ] to k n o w ab o u t th a t, th a t I h a v e g o tte n c lo s e to , b u t h a v e n ’t a s k e d th e q u e s tio n d ir e c t to g e t th e r e s p o n s e , th is i s a n o pp ortun i ty t o g i ve you t o i nform m e of a ny m att erthatyou thi nk thatI nee d to b e a w a r e o f

th a t w o u ldb e a ru p o n y o u rf a irn e s s , im p a r tia lity o rq u a lif ic a tio n s to s e rv e in th is p a r tic u la rc a s e .” A g a in , n o r e s p o n s e . T he poi nti s tha tthi s j ur orha d s e ve r a l oppor tuni t i e s t o c om e c l e a n w i th the c our tabouthe rm ur de rc onvi c t i on . I n a n o r d e rc la r if

y in g w h y h e h a d g r a n te d th e B o a r d ’s m o tio n f o ran e w tr ia l, J udge B uttr a m s t a t e d tha the ha d “ gr a nt e d ane w tr i a l ba s e d s ol e l y upon the g r o u n d th a t o n e m e m b e ro f th e p e tit ju ry w a s s h o w n to h a v e b e e n s ta tu to r ily unqua l i f i e d t o s e rve a s aj ur or , ba s e d upon apr i orf e l ony c onvi c t i on, w hi c h s he f a i l e d t o r e ve a l dur i ng voi rdi r e de s pi t e di r e c tque s t i oni ng. ” H e a l s o s a i d tha the26

“ di d notc ons i de rthe e f f e c ttha ts a i d j ur orm i ghtha ve ha d on the out c om e of the ju ry ’s d e lib e r a tio n s o ra n y p o s s ib le b ia s s h e m ig h t h a v e h a d , s o [ h e ] d e e m e d it un nece ss ary t o h ol d an evi dent i ary hea ri ng on such m att er s. ” I n or de rt o obt a i n ane w tr i a l “ be c a us e c ouns e l l a c ke d a n i t e m of i nf orm a t i on w h ic h o b je c tiv e ly h e s h o u ld h a v e o b ta in e d f r o m aju r o ro n v o ird ir e e x a m in a tio n [ ,]

. . . a party m ustfi rs tdem on stra t e thata j uror fa i l ed t o answ erho nest l y am at er i al que s t i on on voi rdi r e , a nd the n f ur the rs how tha tac orr e c tr e s pons e w oul d ha ve prov i ded a val i d b as i s f or a c hal l enge for cause. ” M cD on ou gh P ow erE qu i p. , Inc. v. G re enw oo d, 46 4 U . S . 54 8, 55 5– 56 , 10 4 S . C t . 84 5, 85 0 (19 84 ). Iti s und i sput ed thata quest i on abou tpri or fe l on y c on vi ct i on s i s m at er i al t o j ury s ervi ce and thatan hone s ta ns w e rf

r om thi s j ur orw oul d ha ve pr ovi de d aba s i s t o c ha l l e nge he rf or c a u s e . U n i t e d St a t e s v . Ca rp a , 2 7 1 F. 3 d 9 6 2 , 9 6 7 n . 5 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 2 0 0 1 ) ( p e rc u r i a m) (“ A pend i ng or fi nal fe l on y c on vi ct i on i s aval i d b as i s f or chal l enge for cause. ”) ; s e e a ls o 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 8 6 5 ( b ) ( 5 ) . T h a t le a v e s o n ly w h e th e rth e ju r o r ’s f a ilu r e to answ erthe qu es t i on w as di shon es t , i nst ea d o f i nadv ert ent . A l tho ug h the di stri ct courtdi d n otexpl i ci t l y s t at e thatthe j uror’ s non di sc l osure w as di shon es t , the court di d s pe c i f

i c a l l y not e tha ts he ha d f a i l e d t o r e ve a l he rpr i orf e l ony c onvi c t i on

“ despi t e di re ctqu es t i on i ng . ” W e a re sa t i sf i ed thatthe courti m pl i ci t l y f ou nd that27

the j uror’ s f

ai l ure t o speak up w as an i nt ent i on al and d i shon es tre spon se t o an in d is p u tab ly m a te r ia l q u e s tio n . In som e c i rc um st ance s aj uror m ayhave forgot t en abou ta c on vi ct i on or, m o r e lik e ly , n o t r e a liz e d th a t h e rc o n v ic tio n w a s c o v e r e d b y th e q u e s tio n . T h a t is notar e a s onabl e pos s i bi l i ty he r e . T hi s j ur orha d be e n c onvi c t e d i n 1986 f or m ur de r i ng he rc hi l d a nd s e nt e nc e d t o f i f t e e n y e a r s i n a n A l aba m apr i s on. S he s e rve d thr e e y e a r s i n pr i s on a nd f i ve y e a r s on pr oba t i on. S he c oul d notha ve f or gott e n tha t . T he c our ta s ke d aboutc onvi c t i ons f orc r i m e s puni s habl e by i m pr i s onm e ntf

orm or e tha n one y e a r . H a vi ng s pe ntthr e e y e a r s i n pr i s on f or m u r d e r , th e r e is n o r e a s o n ab le p o s s ib ility th a t th is ju r o rc o u ld h a v e h o n e s tly d o u b te d th a t s h e w a s c o v e r e d b y th e q u e s tio n . F o rth e s e r e a s o n s , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t ab u s e its di sc re t i on i n g ra nt i ng the B oard’ s m ot i on for anew tri al . S ee C arpa, 27 1 F . 3d at 966–68. V II. J a c ks on’ s f

i na l c ont e nt i on i s tha tJ udge N e l s on, a f t e rthe j udgm e nti n the fi rs ttri al w as vaca t ed, erre d b y gra nt i ng sum m ary j ud gm enti n favor of the B oard o n Ja ck so n ’s ra ce d iscr im in atio n claim . W e r ev iew d e n o v o th e d istrict co u rt’s gr a ntof s um m a ry j udgm e nt , appl y i ng the s a m e l e ga l s t a nda r ds a s thos e tha tc ontr ol28

the di s tr i c tc our t . I ndus . P a r tne r s , L t d. v. C S X T r a ns p. , I nc . , 974 F . 2d 153, 155 (11th C i r. 19 92 ). A. W here , as i n thi s c as e, a pl ai nt i ff has no “ di re ctevi dence, ” c i rc um st ant i al evi dence of emp l oym entdi sc ri m i nat i on i s e val uat ed un der the M cD on nel l D ou gl as fr am ew ork. B as s v. B d. of C ou nty C om m ’ rs , 25 6 F . 3d 10 95 , 11 03 –0 4 (11 th C i r. 2001) . U nde ri t , the pl a i nt i f f m us tf i r s te s t abl i s h apr i m af

a c i e c a s e of di s c r i m i na t i on. “ O nc e the pl a i nt i f f ha s m a de outapr i m af a c i e c a s e of di sc ri m i nat i on , the em pl oyerm ustart i cul at e s om e l egi t i m at e, no n-di sc ri m i nat ory r e a s o n f o rth e [ e m p lo y m e n t a c tio n ].” I d . a t 1 1 0 4 . I f th e e m p lo y e rm e e ts th is bur de n of

pr oduc t i on, the pr e s um pt i on of di s c r i m i na t i on i s e l i m i na t e d a nd the p la in tif f m u s t th e n e s tab lis h th a t e a c h o f th e d e f e n d a n t’s p r o f

f e r e d r e a s o n s is p r e te x tu a l. I d . In order t o sho w pret ext , the pl ai nt i ff m ust“ dem on stra t e thatthe proffer ed re as on w as no tthe true r ea son for the em pl oym entdeci si on . . . . [T he pl ai nt i ff ] m aysucc ee d i n thi s e i ther di re ct l y by per suadi ng the courtthata di sc ri m i nat ory r e a s on m or e l i ke l y m ot i va t e d the e m pl oy e rori ndi r e c t l y by s how i ng tha tthe em p l o yer’ s p ro ffered ex p l an at i o n i s u n w o rth y o f cred en ce. ” T ex . D ep ’ to f C m ty. A ff ai rs v. B urdi ne, 45 0 U . S . 24 8, 25 6, 10 1 S . C t . 10 89 , 10 95 (198 1). “ [A ] pl ai nt i ff29

wi th s t a n d s s u m m a ry a d j u d i c a t i o n b y p r o d u c i n g s u f f i c i e n te v i d e n c e t o a l l o w a r e a s o n ab le f

in d e ro f f a c t to c o n c lu d e th a t th e d e f e n d a n t’s a r tic u la te d r e a s o n s f o rits deci si on ar e notbel i evabl e. ” H ow ar d v . B P O i l C o. , 32 F . 3d 52 0, 52 6 (11 th C i r. 1994) ( c i t i ng S t . M a ry ’ s H onorC tr . v. H i c ks , 509 U . S . 502, 113 S . C t . 2742 (1 9 9 3 )). In ev al u at i n g a su m m ary j u d g m en tm o t i o n , “ [t ] h e d i stri ctco u rtm u st ev al u at e w h eth er th e p l ai n t i ff h as d em o n strat ed su ch w eak n esses, i m p l au si b i l i t i es, i ncon si st enci es , i ncoh er enci es , or contra di ct i on s i n the em pl oyer ’ s proff er ed l egi t i m at e r ea sons for i t s a ct i on thata r ea sonabl e f ac t fi nd ercoul d fi nd them u n w o r th y o f

c r e d e n c e .” C o m b s v . P la n ta tio n P a tte rn s , 1 0 6 F .3 d 1 5 1 9 , 1 5 3 8 ( 1 1 th C i r. 19 97 ) ( i nt ernal qu ot at i on s a nd ci t at i on s om i tt ed). B. H e r e , ne i the rpa r ty di s put e s tha tJ a c ks on m a de outapr i m af a c i e c a s e of ra ci al di sc ri m i nat i on un der M cD on nel l D ou gl as . T hatt akes us t o the proffer ed r e a s o n s a n d w h e th e rth e e v id e n c e c r e a te s ag e n u in e is s u e o f m a te r ia l f

a c t a s to p r e te x t. In th eir tes ti m o n y th e th re e B o ar dm em b er s w h o v o ted in fa v o r o f J ac k so n ’s t erm i nat i on art i cul at ed se vera l re as on s f or Ja ckson’ s t erm i nat i on . T hey c i t ed as reaso n s Jack so n ’ s l ett er-w ri t i n g cam p ai g n , h i s al l eg ed fi l i n g o f fal se ex p en se r e por t s , hi s w r ongf

ul di s tr i but i on of

c onf i de nt i a l s tude ntr e c or ds , hi s poorj ob30

pe r f orm a nc e , a nd, a c c or di ng t o B oa r d m e m be rE d M c L a i n, hi s “ bl a t a nt i ns ubor di na t i on. ” O ne r e a s on tha ta l l thr e e of the m ga ve w a s J a c ks on’ s abus i ve le tte r - w r itin g c a m p a ig n . W e ha ve no doubttha tthe i nf l a m m a t ory a nd di s pa r a gi ng l e tt e r s tha tJ a c ks on s e n t to v a r io u s m e m b e r s o f th e B o a r d w e r e ale g itim a te b a s is f o rh is te rm in a tio n . S e e R ol l i ns v. F l a . D e p’ tof L a w E nf

or c e m e nt , 868 F . 2d 397, 401 ( 11th C i r . 1989) ( “[ T ]o q u a lif

y f o rth e p r o te c tio n o f

th e [ a n ti- d is c r im in a tio n ] s ta tu te , th e m a n n e rin w hi ch an em pl oyee expres se s herop po si t i on t o an al l egedl y di sc ri m i nat ory e m pl oy m e ntpr a c t i c e m us tbe r e a s onabl e . . . . F D L E de ni e d R ol l i ns ’ appl i c a t i ons for prom ot i on s bec ause she had earned the re pu t at i on as a di srup t i ve com pl ai ner w ho ant agon i ze d h ersupervi sors and col l ea gu es and i m pai re d the m oral e of her un i t . S uch con du ct , even w hen ass oci at ed w i th com pl ai nt s of di sc ri m i nat i on , has be e n he l d t o f

a l l out s i de the pr ot e c t i on of [ 42 U . S . C . § 2000e - 3( a ) ] a nd t o pr ovi de the e m pl oy e rw i th al e gi t i m a t e ba s i s f ori t s a c t i on. ” ( c i t i ng W ha t l e y v. M e tr o. A t l a nt aR api d T r a ns i tA uth. , 632 F . 2d 1325, 1329 ( 5th C i r . 1980) ; H oc hs t a dtv. W o r c e s te rF o u n d . f

o rE x p e r im e n ta l B io lo g y , 5 4 5 F .2 d 2 2 2 , 2 3 4 ( 1 s t C ir . 1 9 7 6 ) ) ) . E ve n J oe D unc a n, the one B oa r d m e m be rw ho vot e d a ga i ns tJ a c ks on’ s t e rm i na t i on, fel tth atJack so n ’ s d em ean i n g an d o ffen si v e l ett er-w ri t i n g cam p ai g n w as a l e gi t i m a t e r e a s on f

orhi s t e rm i na t i on. H e t e s t i f i e d: “ A s I r e f

l e c tba c k on31

[Jack so n ’ s t erm i n at i o n ] h eari n g , I w o u l d ag ree th ato n th e o th er g o o d an d j u st ca u se , d u e to th e letters , w e m ay h av e [ h ad ] p ro b ab le ca u se to ca n ce l M r. Ja ck so n ’s co n trac t. ” T h e r ig h t t o d isag re e d o es n o t i n clu d e w ith in itth e r ig h t t o k ee p o n e’s j ob a f t e re xpr e s s i ng tha tdi s a gr e e m e ntw i th abus i ve , r a c i s t , de m e a ni ng i nve c t i ve p u b l i cl y h u rl ed atth o se w i th w h o m o n e serv es. B e c a us e the B oa r d a r t i c ul a t e d l e gi t i m a t e nondi s c r i m i na t ory r e a s ons f or J a c ks on’ s t e rm i na t i on ( s pe c i f i c a l l y the l e tt e r s ) , the bur de n w a s on J a c ks on t o put f o r th s u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e to r a is e ag e n u in e is s u e o f m a te r ia l f

a c t w ith r e g a r d to w hether the B oard’ s proff er ed re as on s f

or hi s t erm i nat i on w er e pre t extual . S ee B a s s , 2 5 6 F .3 d a t 1 1 0 4 . J a c k s o n h a s f a ile d to m e e t th is b u r d e n . Ja ckson h as m ade no att em ptt o argue thathi s l ett er -w ri t i ng ca m pai gn w as c onj ur e d up by the B oa r d i n or de rt o f i r e hi m . N orw oul d he be abl e t o i f he tr i e d. T he l e tt e r s a r e i n the r e c or d a nd the y s houtf orthe m s e l ve s . W i thouta ddr e s s i ng the cont entof tho se l ett er s, Ja ckson end ea vo rs t o con vi nce us thatthere i s e vi dence th atso m e o f th e B o ard m em b ers, i n p art i cu l ar M cL ai n , w ere racist , an d th atraci sm w a s th e r e a l r e a s o n th e Bo a r d f i r e d h i m. I n s u p p o r t o f

h is a s s e r tio n th a t s o m e o f th e B o a r d m e m b e r s w e r e r a c is t, J a c ks on pr i m a r i l y r e l i e s on the t e s t i m ony of B oa r d m e m be rD unc a n. S om e of D u n c a n ’s te s tim o n y a r g u ab ly in d ic a te s th a t h e b e lie v e d th a t M c L a in is ar a c is t.32

A ss um i ng thatD un ca n’ s opi ni on i s a dm i ss i bl e e vi dence, or even as sum i ng that M c L a i n i s ar a c i s t , tha tw oul d notc r e a t e age nui ne i s s ue of m a t e r i a l f

a c ttha tthe B oa r d f i r e d J a c ks on be c a us e of r a c i s m . R e ga r dl e s s of

hi s opi ni on abouts om e of hi s f e l l ow B oa r d m e m be r s , D unc a n a l s o t e s t i f i e d tha ti n hi s opi ni on “ due t o the lett er s” th e B o ar d “m ay h av e [ h ad ] p ro b ab le ca u se to ca n ce l M r. Ja ck so n ’s co n trac t. ” D u n ca n re co g n ized th at th e B o ar d h ad leg it im ate r ea so n s f o r J ac k so n ’s term in atio n , b u t h e f

elt th at itw as u n fa ir to term in ate h im n o w , w h en Ja ck so n ’s l e tt e rw r i t i ng ha d be e n goi ng on f ors e ve r a l y e a r s . A ny “ unf a i rne s s ” i n not p e rm ittin g a n e m p lo y e e to c o n tin u e to e n g a g e in m is c o n d u c t d o e s n o t s ta te ac la im u n d e rf e d e r a l la w . D un ca n n eversa i d thatJa ckson h ad been fi re d b ec ause of hi s r ac e. W hen a s ke d i n hi s de pos i t i on w he the rM c L a i n w a nt e d t o t e rm i na t e J a c ks on be c a us e he w as bl ac k, D un ca n sai d: “ I c ou l dn ’ tsa y one w ayor the other. ” W hen asked w h e th e rM c L a in h a d a n y r a c ia l a n im u s to w a r d s J a c k s o n , h e a n s w e r e d : “M a y h a v e . I r e a l l y don’ tknow . ” T he e vi de nc e a ttr i a l a nd the de pos i t i on t e s t i m ony of D u n c a n , th e o n ly B o a r d m e m b e rw h o v o te d a g a in s t J a c k s o n ’s te rm in a tio n , s e v e r e ly unde r c ut s J a c ks on’ s c ont e nt i on tha tthe B oa r d f i r e d hi m notbe c a us e of hi s abus i ve and d i sr es pect ful l ett er -w ri t i ng ca m pai gn bu tbecause the B oard m em bers ar e raci st s.33

J a c ks on a l s o poi nt s t o as t a t e m e nti n al e tt e rtha tw a s w r i tt e n by s om e one out s i de the B oa r d t o the n- S upe r i nt e nde ntD r . C onne l l . T he l e tt e rdi s c us s e s how the sc ho ol shou l d d ea l w i th the prob l em s c ause d b y J ac kson ’ s di stri bu t i ng confi dent i al d o cu m en t s ata B o ard m eet i n g th e d ay b efo re. P arto f th e l ett er t o D r. C o n n el l says th a tR a l p h Ga i n e s , th e B o a r d ’ s a tt o rn e y , h a d s t a t e d th a t“ th i s m i g h tb e wh a twe ha ve be e n w a i t i ng on t o m ove t ow a r d t a ki ng a c t i on on M r . J a c ks on. ” J a c ks on a r gue s tha tthe he a r s a y i n thi s l e tt e ri s e vi de nc e tha tthe B oa r d w a s de ve l opi ng a pr e t e xts o i tc oul d t e rm i na t e hi m on a c c ountof hi s r a c e . T hi s a r gum e nti s not t enabl e. T h e l ett er, w i th i t s “ w h atw e h av e b een w ai t i n g o n ” l an g u ag e, d o es su g g est th atatl eastD r. C o n n el l w as co n t em p l at i n g t ak i n g so m e k i n d o f act i o n ag ai n st Ja ckson. (D r. C on nel l w as no ton the B oard bu ther r ec om m endat i on t o com m ence t e rm i n a t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s wa s ap r e r e q u i s i t e t o th e B o a r d f i r i n g J a c k s o n . E v e n i f

we a s s um e tha the rde s i r e t o t a ke a c t i on a ga i ns tJ a c ks on c a n be a ttr i but e d t o the B oa r d, tha tdoe s notm e a n tha tthe de s i r e w a s born of r a c i s m . A s ourpr e vi ous di s c us s i on m a k e s c le a r , th e B o a r d h a d ab u n d a n t, n o n - r a c ia l r e a s o n s to g e t r id o f J a c k s o n . J a c ks on t e l l s us tha tthe B oa r d’ s r a c i a l m ot i va t i on m us tbe “ i nf e r [ r e d] f r om the ev i d en ce as a w h o l e. ” A p p el l an t ’ s B r. 5 6 . W e h av e stu d i ed th e ev i d en ce as a w hol e a nd i tw i l l nots uppor ta ny r e a s onabl e i nf e r e nc e of r a c i s tm ot i va t i on.34 C. J a c ks on’ s bur de n a tthe s um m a ry j udgm e nts t a ge c a m e dow n t o s how i ng thatthere w as a genui ne i ss ue of m at er i al fa ctas t o w hether the re as on s the B oard g a v e f o rh is te rm in a tio n w e r e p r e te x tu a l. H e c o u ld h a v e d o n e th is b y p o in tin g to evi dence thatcr ea t ed a genui ne i ss ue thatthe re as on s thatthe B oard gave w er e f a ls e o rth a t ad is c r im in a to ry r e a s o n w a s m o r e lik e ly th e c a u s e o f h is te rm in a tio n . S e e B u r d in e , 4 5 0 U .S . a t 2 5 6 , 1 0 1 S . C t. a t 1 0 9 5 . H e f a ile d to d o s o . A s ar e s u lt, the B oa r d w a s e nt i t l e d t o s um m a ry j udgm e nta nd J a c ks on i s note nt i t l e d t o ha ve tha tj udgm e ntr e ve r s e d. V III. T h e j u d g m e n to f

th e d i s tr i c tc o u r ti s AF F I R ME D.