[DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 12 54 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 :1 1- cv -6 19 71 -J IC STEVE JEFFERSON, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us BURGER KING CORPORATION, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J anua ry 29 , 20 13 ) Befo re CARNES, BAR KETT andANDERSON, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: St ev e Je ffer so n, an Afric anAm eri canpro ceed in g pr o s e , app eal s the di st ric t Case: 12-12540 Date Filed: 01/29/2013 Page: 1 of 14co urt’s g ran t o f Bu rg er Ki ng Co rp or at io n’s (“ Burg er Ki ng ”) m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, an d the de ni al of h is cro ss -m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, as to hi s co m pl ai ntall eg in g ra ce d is cri m in at io n andret al ia ti on un de r Tit le VII, 28 U.S.C. § 2 00 0e -2 (a), 2 00 0e -3 (a), an d 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 81 . Jeff ers on all eg es th atBurg er Kin g d is cri m in at edag ai ns t h im by fail in g t o p ro m ot e h im to po si ti on s as a Mu lt i-u ni t M an ag er an d C om pa ny Bus in es s M an ag er (“ CBM ”), an d tha t Bu rg er Kin g d is cri m in at edan d re ta li at edag ai ns t h im by tran sf erri ng hi m

to an ot he r res taur an t an d t erm in at in g h is em pl oym en t. On ap pe al , Jef

fers on arg ue s tha t, u nd er a d is pa rat e-treatm en t the ory , he pr es en te d s uf

fic ie ntev id en ce t o e st ab li sha pr ima fa ci e cas e o f di sc riminat ory fai lu re t o p ro m ot e an d o f pr et ex t u nd er the tra di ti on al McDo nn el l Do ug la s 1 fo rm ul at io n. Ad di ti on al ly, he arg ue s tha t h is st at is ti cal ev id en ce re gard in g the raci al co m

po si ti onof B ur ge r Kin g’s wo rk fo rce e st ab li sh eda pr ima fa ci e cas e o f di sc riminat ory

fai lu re t o p ro m ot e und er b ot h adi sp arat e-treatm en t an d di sp arat e-i m

pa ctth eo ry . Next , Jef

fers on arg ue s tha t h e p res en te d s uf fic ie nt ev id en ce t o s up po rt a pr ima fa ci e cas e o f di sc riminat ory an d re ta li at ory

tra ns fer, an d tha t Bu rg er Ki ng ’s just ifi cat io n fo r th e tr an sf er— it s ef fo rt t o p ro m ot e sa le s—was pre te xt . Sim il arl y , he arg ue s tha t h e p res en te d s uf fic ie ntev id en ce t o McD onnell Douglas v. Gree n , 411 U.S. 792, 93 S. C t. 1817, 36 L . Ed. 2d 668 (1973). 1 2 Case: 12-12540 Date Filed: 01/29/2013 Page: 2 of 14supp ort a pr ima fa ci e cas e o f di sc riminat ory an d re ta li at ory

term in at io n, an d tha t Burg er Ki ng ’s just ifi cat io n fo r hi s t erm in at io n—writ te n c om pl ai nt s ag ai ns t hi m —was pre te xt . In s up po rt o f hi s l as t ar gu m en t, J effe rs on arg ue s tha t the 2 writ te n c om

pl ai nt s co ns ti tu te d i na dm is si bl e h ears ay . I. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t de no vo , vi ewin g th e ev id en ce i n the li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e n on -m ov in g p arty . Bro ok s v. C nt y. Co mm’n o f Je ff er so n C nt y. , 44 6 F .3d11 60 , 11 61 -6 2 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) . Summ ary jud gm en t i s ap pr op ria te if the m ov an t s ho ws tha t n o g enui ne is su e o f m at eri al fact ex is ts , andth athe is en ti tl edto jud gm en t as a m atte r of law. Fed . R. Civ . P. 56 (a). The m ov in g p arty

be ars th e b ur de n o f de m on st rat in g tha t n o g enui ne is su e o f m at eri al factex is ts , se e Bro ok s , 44 6 F .3dat 1 16 2, al th ou ghth e n on -m ov in g p arty m us t m ak e a s uf

fic ie ntsh owi ng oneach ess en ti al ele m en t o f hi s ca se for whi chhe be ars th e b ur de n o f pr oo f, se e Cel ot ex Co rp . v. Catre tt , 47 7 U.S. 3 17 , 32 2, 1 06 S. Ct . 25 48 , 25 52 , 91 L. Ed. 2d26 5 (1 98 6) . A “m ere s ci nt il la ” o f ev id en ce supp orti ng th e o pp os in g p arty ’s po si ti on wil l n otsu ffi ce. Bro ok s , 44 6 F .3dat 11 62 . W e m ay

affi rm a gr an t o f su m

m ary jud gm en t o n any bas is supp orte d b y th e J eff erson a lso raises a “ cat’ s paw” theory of discrimination with reg ard to his 2 termination, but we do not consider this claim beca

use he f ailed to first ra ise it with the district court. See A cce

ss Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co. , 385 F.3d 1324, 1331- 35 (11th Cir. 2004). 3 Case: 12-12540 Date Filed: 01/29/2013 Page: 3 of 14reco rd . W

il ch omb e v. Tee Vee To on s, In c. , 55 5 F .3d94 9, 9 60 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). Tit le VII pr oh ib it s emplo y ers fro m en ga gi ng inpra ct ic es th atdi sc riminat e on th e b as is of r ace, andfro m di sc riminat in g a ga in stth os e who op po se an y pr act ic es th atare u nl awfu l u nd er i t. 4 2 U.S.C. § § 2 00 0e -2 (a), 2 00 0e -3 (a). Lik ewis e, al l p ers on s i n the Uni te d S ta te s h av e th e sa m e ri gh t t o m ak e an d e nf or ce co nt ract s. 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 81 (a). Sec ti on 19 81 en co m pa ss es cla im s o f ret al ia ti on . CBOCS W es t, In c. v. Hump hr ies , 55 3 U.S. 4 42 , 45 7, 1 28 S. Ct. 1 95 1, 1 96 1, 1 70 L. Ed. 2 d 8 64 (20 08 ). W e an al yze Ti tl e VII an d § 19 81 cla im s u si ng th e sa m e ev id en ti ary requi rem en ts an d ana lytic al fram ewo rk . Se e Sta nd ard v . A.B. E.L. Se rvs., In c. , 16 1 F .3d13 18 , 13 30 (11 thCir . 19 98 ). A pl ai nt iff m ay pro ve in te nt io na l d is cri m in at io n thr ou gh di rect , cir cum st an ti al , or s ta ti st ic al ev id en ce, an d we e va lu at e cl ai m s s up po rte d b y cir cu m st an ti al ev id en ce u nd er the McDo nn el l Dougl as bu rd en -s hi fti ng fram ewo rk . Se e Alv ar ezv. Roya l At l. Deve lo pe rs , Inc . , 61 0 F .3d12 53 , 12 64 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). Altho ug h the m etho d o f pr es en ti ng a pr ima fa ci ecas e is fle xi bl e, a p la in ti ff m ay ge ne ral ly establ is h a pr ima fa ci e cas e o f rac ia l d is cri m in at io n b y sh owi ng th at : (1 ) he is a m em

be r of a pr ot ect edcla ss ; (2 ) he was qua li fie d fo r hi s jo b; (3) he was subjec te d t o an a dv ers e em pl oym en t ac ti on ; an d (4 ) hi s emplo y er treat ed si mil arl y -s itua te d e m

pl oyees o ut si de of t he pro te ct edcla ss m or e fav or ab ly. Se e id .

4 Case: 12-12540 Date Filed: 01/29/2013 Page: 4 of 14Inth e fai lu re-t o- pr om ot e co nt ex t, a p la in ti ff m ay de m on st rat e th athe is a m em be r of a pr ot ect edcla ss an d tha t h e was qu al ifi edan d app li edforth e p ro m ot io n b ut was reject edde sp it e h is qu al ifi cat io ns infav orof an e qu al ly or le ss qu al ifi ed em pl oyee who was n ota m em be r of th e p ro te ct edcla ss . W

il so n v . B/E Aero sp ac e, In c. , 37 6 F .3d10 79 , 10 89 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). In s om e in st an ces , a pl ai nt iff of a pr ot ect edcla ss m ay

pre va il by sho win g tha t the po si ti on for whi chhe ap pl ie d rem ai ne d o pe n a fte r th e em pl oyer reject edhi m

de sp it e h is qu al ifi cat io ns . Se e Sc ho en fe ld v. Bab bi tt , 16 8 F .3d12 57 , 12 67 -6 8 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 9) . A pla in ti ff m ay al so est ab li sh a pr ima fa ci e cas e o f di sc riminat ory di sc ha rg e b y

de m on st rat in g tha t he was: (1) a m em

be r of a pr ot ect edcla ss ; (2 ) qu al ifi edforhi s jo b; (3) termin at ed ; an d (4 ) rep la cedby som eo ne ou ts id e o f th e p ro te ct edcla ss . Cu ddeb ac k v. Fla . Bd. of Edu c. , 38 1 F .3d12 30 , 12 35 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). In o rd er t o m ak e a v al id co m pa ris on , th e p la in ti ff m

us t s ho w th athe an d the co m pa rat orare s im il arl y si tu at edinall rel ev an t re sp ect s. Se e Hol if ie ld v. Reno , 11 5 F .3d15 55 , 15 62 (11 th Ci r. 19 97 ). A pl ai nt iff

m ay est ab li sh a pr ima fa ci e cas e o f rac ia l d is cri m in at io n b y pr es en ti ng st at is ti cal pro of of apa tt ernof d is cri m in at io n, an d s ub st an ti al st at is ti cal pr oo f al on e m ay

su ffi ce t o m eetth e p la in ti ff’s pr ima fa ci e bu rd en . Se e Haw ki ns v. Cec o C or p. , 88 3 F .2d97 7, 9 85 (11 th Cir . 19 89 ). Sta ti st ic s wi th ou t an an al yti cal 5 Case: 12-12540 Date Filed: 01/29/2013 Page: 5 of 14fo un da ti on , ho wev er, are “ vi rtu al ly m ean in gl es s.” W il so n , 37 6 F .3dat 1 08 9 (quo tati onom it te d) . Thu s, we h av e co nc lu de d tha t a p la in ti ff fai le d t o e st ab li sh a pr ima fa ci e cas e o f di sc riminat io n thr ou gh st at is ti cal ev id en ce d em on st rat in g tha t: (1 ) fro m May 199 9 thr ou ghJu ne 20 02 , th e em pl oyer ha d o nl y

two fem al e v ic e pr es id en ts ; an d (2 ) si nc e 1 99 5, the em pl oyer ch os e o nl y

two fem al e v ic e p res id en ts to fil l a t ot al of f

orty-fou r op enpo si ti on s. Id . at 1 08 8- 89 . W e n ot edth atth e pl ai nt iff’s st at is ti cal ev id en ce d idno t p ro vi de an y othe r rel ev an t i nf

orm at io n, s uc h as th e num

be r of wom enwho ha d e xp res se d i nt eres t i n the vi ce p res id en t po si ti on s. Id . at 1 08 9. A pl ai nt iff

m ay est ab li sh a pr ima fa ci e cas e o f ret al ia ti on by dem on st rat in g th athe en ga ge d i n apro te ct edact iv ity an d s uf fere d an a dv ers e em

pl oym en t ac ti on , an d tha t the pro te ct edact iv ity an d a dv ers e em

pl oym en t ac ti on were caus al ly rel at ed . W

eeks v. Harde n Mf

g. Co rp . , 29 1 F .3d13 07 , 13 11 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). In or de r to de m on st rat e cau sa ti on , th e p la in ti ff m us t o nl y sh ow tha t the pro te ct ed act iv ity an d the adve rs e em

pl oym en t ac ti on are n otco m pl et el y un rel at ed . Higdo n v. Ja cks on , 39 3 F .3d12 11 , 12 20 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). Onc e a p la in ti ff es tabl is he s a pr ima fa ci e cas e o f di sc riminat io n o r ret al ia ti on , th e em

pl oyer m ay

reb utth e res ul ti ng pre su m pt io n o f di sc riminat io n o r ret al ia ti on by arti cu la ti ng at l eas t o ne leg it im at e, no n- di sc riminat ory or 6 Case: 12-12540 Date Filed: 01/29/2013 Page: 6 of 14no n- ret al ia to ry reas on for

it s ac ti on . Se e Alv ar ez , 61 0 F .3dat 1 26 4. If the em pl oyer art ic ul at es on e o r m or e su chreas on s, the pl ai nt iff is affo rd edan op po rtu ni ty to s ho w th atth e em pl oyer’s pro ffer edreas on is a pr et ex t fo r di sc riminat io n o r ret al iati on . Se e id . As he ha s the ul ti m at e b ur de n o f de m on st rat in g d is cri m in at io n and/o r ret al ia ti on , th e p la in ti ff m us t m eetth e em pl oyer’s reas on he adonan d re bu t i t, an d m ay no t s im pl y qu arre l wi th th e wis do m of t he reas on . Se e Bro ok s , 44 6 F .3dat 1 16 2- 63 . He m ay do th is eit he r di rect ly by

pe rs ua di ng th e co urt tha t a d is cri m in at ory or r et al ia to ry

reas on m or e li ke ly than n otm ot iv at edth e em pl oyer, or i nd ire ct ly by

sh owi ng th atth e p ro ffer ed reas onis un worth y

of c red en ce. Se e Ja cks on v. Stat e o f Ala. Te nu re Co mm’n , 40 5 F.3 d 1 27 6, 1 28 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) . W e m us t ev al ua te whet he r th e p la in ti ff h as de m on st rat edsu chweakne ss es , im pl au si bi li ti es , in co ns is te nc ie s, i nc oh eren ci es , or co nt rad ic ti on s i n the pro ffer edreas on so th ata reas on ab le fact fin de r co ul d co nc lu de th atitis un worth y of c red it . Id . To de m on st rat e p ret ex t, the pl ai nt iff m us t d em on st rat e b ot h tha t the pro ffer edreas on is fal se an d tha t d is cri m in at io n o r ret al ia ti on was the real reas on forth e adve rs e em pl oym en t ac ti on . Se e Bro ok s , 44 6 F .3dat 1 16 3. Inth e en d, o uran al y si s i s l im it edto whet he r a d is cri m in at ory an d/ or ret al ia to ry

an im us m ot iv at edth e em

pl oyer. Se e Alv ar ez , 61 0 F .3dat 1 26 6. Th at 7 Case: 12-12540 Date Filed: 01/29/2013 Page: 7 of 14anem

pl oyer’s leg it im at e b el ie f was m is take n i s i rrel ev an t s o l on g a s s uc h ani m us di d n otm ot iv at e th e em

pl oyer’s dec is io ns . Se e id . at 1 26 6- 67 ; Elr od v. Se ar s, Roe bu ck & Co . , 93 9 F .2d14 66 , 14 70 (11 th Cir . 19 91 ) (h ol di ng th atou r in qu iry was li m it edto whethe r th e em pl oyer be li ev edth atth e em pl oyee was g ui lty

of ha ras sm en t, an d wh ethe r th atbe li ef was th e rea so n fo r th e em pl oyee’s te rm in at io n) . Con cl us ory all eg at io ns of d is cri m in at io n o r ret al ia ti on are, wi th ou t m or e, in su ffi ci en t t o c arry the pl ai nt iff’s burd en . Se e Ma yf ie ld v. Pat te rs on Pump Co . , 10 1 F .3d13 71 , 13 76 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ). A pl ai nt iff

m ay als o e st ab li sh di sc riminat io n und er a d is pa rat e-i m pa ct th eo ry , whi chdo es no t re qu ire a sh owi ng of i nt en ti on al di sc riminat io n. Se e E.E.O. C. v. Jo e’s Ston e Crab s, In c. , 22 0 F .3d12 63 , 12 73 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). The di sp arat e-i m

pa ctth eo ry

pro hi bi ts ne ut ral em

pl oym en t p ract ic es th at , whi le no n- di sc riminat ory

onth ei r fac e, res ul t i n an a dv ers e an d d is pr op orti on at e im pa ct up on a pr ot ect edgro up . Id . at 1 27 4. Un de r su cha th eo ry , th e p la in ti ff m us t es tabl is h tha t (1 ) th ere i s a s ig ni fic an t s ta ti st ic al di sp ari ty betweenth e p ro po rti on of m em be rs of t he pro te ct edcla ss av ai labl e inth e labo r po ol an d the pro po rti on of m em be rs of t he pro te ct edcla ss hi red ; (2 ) th ere i s a s pe ci fic , faci al ly neu tra l em pl oym en t p ract ic e; an d (3 ) a cau sa l n ex us ex is ts be twee n the em pl oym en t pr act ic e an d the st at is ti cal di sp ari ty. Id . 8

Case: 12-12540 Date Filed: 01/29/2013 Page: 8 of 14Insupp ort o f a pr ima fa ci e cas e, th e p la in ti ff m us t o ffer st at is ti cal ev id en ce of a ki ndan d d eg ree tha t i s s uf fic ie ntto sh ow tha t the pra ct ic e in qu es ti on cau se d th e ex cl us io n o f ap pl ic an ts for pro m ot io ns be cau se th ey be lo ng edto a pr ot ect ed gr oup. Id . at 1 27 4- 75 . It i s i ns uf fic ie ntforth e p la in ti ff t o s im pl y sh ow an im ba lanc e. Se e Ma cPh er

so n v . Uni v. of

Mon te va ll o , 92 2 F .2d76 6, 7 71 (11 th Cir . 19 91 ). Rathe r, th e p la in ti ff m us t co m pa re the raci al co m

po si ti on of p ers on s i n the labo r po ol qu al ifi edforth e p os it io n a t i ss ue with tho se pe rs on s ac tu al ly hol di ng th e p os it io n, i n a dd it io n t o d em on st rat in g tha t the em pl oym en t p ract ic e is co nn ect edto th e d is pa rat e im pa ct . Se e Edw ards v. W

al la ce Cmt

y. Co ll . , 49 F.3d 15 17 , 15 20 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ). Thu s, i n o rd er t o a de qu at el y ass es s s ta ti st ic al da ta , ev id en ce m

us t ex is t tha t i de nt ifi es th e b as ic qu al ifi cat io ns forth e rel ev an t jo b, as well as i nf

orm at io n o n the rel ev an t s ta ti st ic al po ol of qua li fie d app li can ts with whi chto m ak e th e ap pr op ria te co m pa ris on s. Se e In re Emp lo ymen t Dis cr imi na ti on Lit ig . Aga in st th e Sta te of

Ala . , 19 8 F .3d13 05 , 13 12 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). If the pl ai nt iff

est ab li sh es a pr ima fa ci e cas e o f di sp arat e im pa ct , th e b ur de n of pro du ct io n s hi fts to th e d efen da ntto est ab li sh th atth e ch al le ng edpra ct ic e se rv es a le gi ti m at e, no n- di sc riminat ory bu si ne ss ob

jecti ve . Jo e’s St on e Cr ab , Inc . , 22 0 F .3dat 1 27 5. As su min g tha t the em pl oyer m eet s i ts bu rd en , th e p la in ti ff m ay , 9 Case: 12-12540 Date Filed: 01/29/2013 Page: 9 of 14no ne th el es s, s ti ll pre va il by pro vi ng th atanalt ern at iv e, no n- di sc riminat ory

pr act ic e wou ldha ve serve d the de fen da nt ’s st at edob jecti ve equa ll y

well . Id . II. A. Je ffer so n d idno t es tabl is h a pr ima fa ci ecas e o f di sc riminat ory fai lure t o pr om ot e und er the tra di ti on al McDo nn el l Do ug la s form ul at io n b ecau se he di d n ot id en ti fy a pr op er co m

pa rat oror e st ab li sh th atan y po si ti on th athe ap pl ie d fo r rem ai ne d o pe n a fte r Bu rg er Ki ng reject edhi s ap pl ic at io ns . The p art ie s i de nt ifi ed fif te enin di vi du al s wh o h el d e ithe r th e Mu lt i-u ni t M an ag er p os it io n o r th e CBM po si ti on . Jeff

ers on , ho wev er, h as no t p ro du cedan y ev id en ce re ga rd in g the se in di vi du al s’ qu al ifi cat io ns foreit he r of th es e p os it io ns be si de s the co nc lu so ry al le ga ti on th athi s trackreco rdof run ni ng m ul ti pl e st or es m ean t tha t h e h ad supe rio r qu al ifi cat io ns co m pa redto eig htno n- Afri can -Am eri cansi ng le -s to re m an ag ers . Accor di ng ly, Je ffer so n h as fai le d t o c arry his bu rd enof d em on strat in g th atBurg er Ki ng reject edhi m fora pr om ot io n i n fa vo r of an ot he r in di vi du al who was equa ll y

or l es s qua li fie d. Cf

. W il so n , 37 6 F .3dat 1 08 9. 3

J eff erson ha s also failed to e stablish that a CBM vac ancy for whic h he applied 3 rema ined open be yond Burg er King’ s rejec tion of his applications. See Sc hoenfield, 168 F.3d at 1267. The a ction logs Jeffe rson submitted do not indi cate the dates upon which the vac ancie s for the re levant positions opened or c losed, but instead they show only

that Burg er King w as no longe r considering c andidates on the date that it re viewed Jeffe rson’s applica tions. 10 Case: 12-12540 Date Filed: 01/29/2013 Page: 10 of 14Lik ewis e, al th ou gh th e Uni te d S ta te s Equa l Em pl oym en t Op po rtu ni ty Co m m is si on (“ EEOC”) rep ort J effe rs onsubm it te d s ho ws a l arg e p erce nt ag e o f Afri canAm eri can s emplo y ed na ti on wi de as servi ce wo rk ers co m pa redto othe r po si ti on s, thi s s ta ti st ic al ev id en ce i s i ns uf fic ie ntto est ab li sh a pr ima fa ci e cas e o f di sc riminat ory

fai lu re t o p ro m ot e und er ei th er a d is pa rat e-treat m en t o r di sp arat e-i m

pa ctth eo ry . Firs t, the EEOC repo rt d oe s n otde fin e th e rac ia l co m po si ti on of t he po ol of i nd iv idua ls who were qua li fie d fo r th e CBM po si ti on no r th e rac ia l co m

po si ti on of t he po ol of i nd iv idua ls who ap pl ie d fo r CBM (or ot he r hi gh er-l ev el m an ag em en t) p os it io ns . Se e W il so n , 37 6 F .3dat 1 08 9 (“ Thi s st at is ti cal ev id en ce i s n otev enpro ba ti ve of p ret ex t b ecau se W il so n h as no t pr ov id edan y

othe r rel ev an t i nf

orm at io n, i nc lu di ng th e num be r of wom enwho ex pr es se d i nt eres t i n v ic e p res id en t p os it io ns .”). Seco nd , th e EEOC rep ort o nl y de fin es th e rac ia l co m

po si ti on of B ur ge r Kin g’s wo rk fo rce f ora si ng le two -week pe rio d i n J ul y

20 08 . Thir d, the EEOC repo rt c on ta in s n at io nwi de st at is ti cs , and no th in g i n the rep ort ca n b e d is ti ll edreg ard in g h iri ng pra ct ic es inSo ut h F lo rid a. Giv enJef fers on ’s fai lu re t o e st ab li sh a ba si s fo r co m pa ris on , th is st at is ti cal da tais

“ vi rtu al ly m ean in gl es s.” Id . W ith re ga rdto th e So ut h F lo rid a m ark et , Jef fers on all eg es th at , fro m

20 05 to th e ti m e h e was term in at ed , Bur ge r Kin g o nl y ha d o ne Afric an -Am eri can 11 Case: 12-12540 Date Filed: 01/29/2013 Page: 11 of 14CBM . Agai n, J effe rs on fai ls to off er an y st at is ti cs forco m

pa ris on , su chas h ow 4 m an y Afric anAm eri can s ap pl ie d fo r CBM po si ti on s i n S ou th Flo rid a o r wha t pe rcen ta ge of the se Afric an -Am eri canap pl ic an ts were qua li fie d fo r th es e po si ti on s. The di stric t co urt p ro pe rly gran te d B ur ge r Kin g’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t as to Jef

fers on ’s fai lu re-t o- pr om ot e cl ai m s.

B. The di stric t co urt al so pro pe rly gran te d B ur ge r Kin g’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t as to Jef

fers on ’s di sc riminat ory

an d re ta li at ory

tra ns fer c la im s. Ev en as su m in g a pr ima fa ci e cas e o f di sc riminat ory an d re ta li at ory

tra ns fer, J effe rs on di d n otpre se ntsu ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o d em on st rat e th atBurg er Ki ng ’s pro ffer ed reas onforJef

fers on ’s trans fer was pre te xt . Bur ge r Kin g p ro ffer s tha t i t tran sf erre d Je ffer so n b ecau se itde ci de d t o p la ce s uc ces sf ul ge ne ral m an ag ers at r es taur an ts th atha d h ig h b us in es s p ot en ti al bu t co m pa rat iv el y

lo w sal es . Jeff

ers onarg ue s tha t th is st at edreas on was p ret ex t fo r di sc riminat io n b ecau se hi s n ew st or e d idno t i n facthave po orsal es when he was tran sf erre d. Bu t the ev id en ce p res en te d s ug ge st s ot he rwis e. Fir st , Jef

fers on was n otth e o nl y

em pl oyee tra ns ferr edto bo os t s al es ; i n

After his termination, Burg er King hir ed at lea st one additional African- Americ an 4 CBM. 12

Case: 12-12540 Date Filed: 01/29/2013 Page: 12 of 14fact , Bur ge r Kin g s im il arl y tra ns ferr edat l eas t el ev enno n- Afri can -Am eri can em pl oyees. Se co nd , Jef

fers on hi m se lf t es ti fie d tha t, i n h is fir stforty-fiv e d ay s at th e n ew st or e, th e st or e h adth e b ig ge stin crea se inpe rfo rm an ce i n the m ark et . Je ffer so n h as fai le d t o p ro du ce s ig ni fic an t p ro ba ti ve ev id en ce tha t Bu rg er Ki ng ’s pr of fere d re as on was m ere p ret ex t fo r di sc riminat io n. Se e May fi eld , 10 1 F .3dat 13 76 . The di stric t co urt p ro pe rly gran te d B ur ge r Kin g’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t as to Jef

fers on ’s di sc riminat ory

an d re ta li at ory

tra ns fer c la im s. C. Fi na ll y , th e d is tri ctco urt p ro pe rly gran te d B ur ge r Kin g’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t as to Jef

fers on ’s di sc riminat ory

an d re ta li at ory

di sc ha rg e cl ai m s. Ev enass um in g a pr ima fa ci e cas e o f di sc riminat ory an d re ta li at ory di sc ha rg e, Je ffer so n h as fai le d t o p res en t s uf fic ie ntev id en ce o f pr et ex t t o s urvi ve su m m ary jud gm en t o n the se cla im s. Bu rg er Ki ng ass ert s tha t J effe rs on was te rm in at edforcrea ti ng a ho st il e work e nv iro nm en t an d p res en te d thi rte en ha ndwrit te n c om

pl ai nt s fr om

em pl oyees abo utJef

fers on . Thes e co m

pl ai nt s ci te d, in te r a li a , Jef

fers on ’s us e o f ab us iv e la ng ua ge to fel lo w em pl oyees, J effe rs on ’s se xu al ly inapp ro pr ia te be ha vi or , andJef fers on ’s in ap pr op ria te be ha vi orinfro ntof

13 Case: 12-12540 Date Filed: 01/29/2013 Page: 13 of 14cu st om ers . Jeff ers on cla im s tha t the em

pl oyee co m

pl ai nt s ar e h ears ay . Howev er, 5 th es e co m

pl ai nt s ar e n othe ars ay

be cau se th ey

were n otoff

eredforth e trut h o f th e m at te r as se rte d; in st ead , th ey were o ffer edon ly to es tabl is h tha t Bu rg er Ki ng ha d le gi ti m at e, no n- di sc riminat ory reas on s fo r te rm in at in g J effe rs on ’s em pl oym en t. Se e Moo re v. Se ar

s, Ro eb uc k &Co . , 68 3 F .2d13 21 , 13 22 -2 3 & n.4 (11 thCir . 19 82 ). Jef

fers on ha s n otpre se nt edsu ffi ci en t ev id en ce tha t Bu rg er Ki ng ’s rel ianc e on th es e wri tt enco m

pl ai nt s was pre te xtfordi sc riminat io n o r ret al ia ti on . The di stric t co urt p ro pe rly gran te d B ur ge r Kin g’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t as to Jef

fers on ’s di sc riminat ory

an d re ta li at ory

di sc ha rg e cl ai m s. III. Afte r a car efu l an d tho ro ug h re vi ew of th e rec or d andth e p art ie s’ bri efs , we affi rm . AFFIRMED.

Hea rsay is any out-of-c ourt statement that is offe red to prove the truth of the matter 5 asser ted in the statement. F ed. R. Evid. 801(c) . Hea rsay statements ar e g ener ally

inadmissible. Fe d. R. Evid. 802. 14

Case: 12-12540 Date Filed: 01/29/2013 Page: 14 of 14