The Honor able Ka rl S. Fore ster, United States Distr i ct J udg e for the Easter

n District of * Kentucky , sitti ng by

desig nation. File Na

me: 07a0266n.06 Filed: Apr il 10, 2007 NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON

No. 06-3905 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT IH A B E LG A B I, Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt,

v. T O LE D O AR E A R E GION AL TR AN S IT AUTHO RI TY, Def endant- Appellee

. ON APPEALFROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E N OR TH ERN D IS T R IC T O F O H IO

/ Be fore : MERRI TT and MARTI N, Circuit J udg es; FO RESTER, Dist rict Judge. * OP IN ION BO YCE F. MARTI

N, J R., Circuit J udg e. I hab Elgabi brought suit ag ainst the Toledo Ar ea Reg ional Transit Authority (“TA RTA”), a lleg ing violations of Title VI Iof the Civil Rights Act, as well as re lated state la

w claims, based on his discharg e as a probationar

y TARTA employ ee. T he district court g rante d su mmary judgme nt on behalf of

TARTA, the de cision from which Elg abi appea ls, and that we nowaff irm. I. The district cour

t set forth the followingfac ts in it s summary judgme nt opinion:No. 06-3905

El ga bi v . To le do Ar e a R e

gio na l Tra ns it A uth or ity Pag e 2 I hab Elg abi (“ Elg abi”) is of Eg y ptian national orig in. Elga bi applied for e mploy

ment as a dr iver with [TARTA] and completed a n ap p l i cation for employ ment in that reg ard on Ma

rch 7, 2002. On the application, Elg abi listed a social se curity number e nd ingin 9 72 6. He re sp on de d to the qu e sti on s o n th e a pp lic a tio n a s f

oll ow s: Other tha n for tra ffic violations, have y ou been c onvicted in a c ourt of law? (Elg abi answe red) “No.” Have y ou had any

moving violations? (Elg abi answe red) “No.” At the e nd of the a

pp lic a tio n, jus t a

bo ve his sig natur e , w a s th e fo llo wi ngstate me nt: Do y ou fully

understand that for the f irst 90 day s of y our employ ment, beg inning with y our In-Service Date, y ou will be on probation, which me ans that y our continued e m p l o y ment will be at the discre ti o n o f T AR T A? Ye s : (t o wh i ch E l gab i wr o t e y

es and initialed). Do y ou authorize TARTA to make a ny investigation / b ackgr ound c he c k it c on sid e rs ne c e ssa ry in re g a rd to y our a

pp lic a tio n? Y e s: ( to which Elg abi wrote y es and initialed). Ic e rt if y that such in formatio n c on ta ine d in thi s a pp lic a tio n a

nd a ll supporting doc uments is corre ct to the b es t o f my knowledg e and understand that falsification of employ ment rec ords is g rounds for dismiss al re g ardle ss of the date such fa lsification is discovere d. Under this last st atement, Elg abi sig ned his name a nd dated his application. On Marc h 15, 2002, TARTA re quested a n independe nt cri m i nal bac kg round and dr ivi nghis tor

y be c on du cte d by

Data Re se arc h, I nc . T AR TApr ov ide d D a ta Re se arc h with the inf

or ma tio n pro vid e d by El g a

bi on his a pp lic a tio n. Th e re po rt

did not reve al any criminal or traff ic offenses and cover ed the three y ear s prec eding the application. I n J une 2002, Elg abi was hire d into TARTA’s J une tra ining c lass and the e ffe ctive date of his e mpl oy

me nt w a s June 24 , 2 00 2. At that ti me he w a s p ro mot e d f ro m a driver tr ainee to a par

t-time driver. Acc ording to Elga

bi, shortly afte r hi s employ

ment at TARTA be g an, he a lso applied fo r a po sit ion wi th the To le do Pub lic Sc ho ols (“ TPS” ). I n th e a pp lic a tio n w ithTPS, Elg abi also used the sa

me social sec urity number a s provided to TARTA a nd ag ree d to a cr iminal backg round che ck with the F eder al Bu re au of Investig ation (“F BI ”).No. 06-3905

El ga bi v . To le do Ar e a R e

gio na l Tra ns it A uth or ity Pag e 3 The F BI

chec k reve aled a

criminal convic tion for domestic violenc e and a n arr est for a fire arms violation. Elg abi was infor med by TPS t hat he wa s ineligible f or employ ment due to his domestic violence c onviction. The dire ctor of T ARTA’s tr an s p o rt ation, J ohn Stewart, wa s advised by TPS about El g a bi’ s ba c kg ro un d c he c k and the inf or ma tio n wa s de e me d “ dis tur bi ng.” (G e ra ld Bow sher De p., p. 34.) Ultimately , TARTA acquired the information from TPS and confirme d it with the Oreg on Police Depa rtment. Additionally , TARTA discover ed conviction for a traff

ic offe nse. Ger ald Bow sher (“B owsher” ), TARTA’s Director of Human Re s o u r c e s a ls o a s k e d f o r a me e ti n g w it

h th e F B I to r e v ie w th e data. Th e re a ft e r, B ow sher and the a c tin g su pe ri nte nd e nt o f T AR TA , G e ra ld Aus tin (“ Au sti n” ) m a de the de c isi on to t e rm inate El g a

bi b a se d u

po n f a lsi fication o f h is e mpl oy me nt a pp lic a tio n. (I d. , p p. 43 -4 4. ). El g a bi w a s te rm inat ed fr om h is employ ment eff ective Septe mber 12, 2002. The station supervisor, T imothy Butler , escor

t ed Elg abi from the pr operty and re po rt e d th a t E lg a

bi s ta te d th a t he [ El gabi] “was a tr a ine d w e a

po n a nd bo mb specia list and what Mr. B owsher did wa s wrong .” (B owsher Aff., P6.). Ba sed upon thi s st a te me nt , B ow sh e r p os te d E lg a bi’ s p ho tog ra

phwi th t he fo llo wi ngstate me nt:

“ A t t e n t i o n : If

yo us h o u l d

s e e t h i s m ano nT A R T A p r o p e rt y yo uar e t o n o t i f y a s u p ervisor imm ediately . Name: Ihab Elg abi. For mer Ope rator # 1706.” (B owsher Dep., p. 51.)

. After Elg abi’s ter

mination, the local AB C a ffiliate, Channel 13’s I -Tea m undertook an investig ation reg ardingthe cr iminal recor ds of TARTA drive rs. Channel 13 advised TARTA that based upon its rese arc h, eig hteen dr ivers had pr ior criminal and traff ic offe nses. TARTA then unde rtook its own investigation and deter mined that four of the eig hteen drivers had not c ompletely disclosed their criminal histories and those four dr ivers we re te rminated

. A s u b sequent investig ation by TARTA and unrestric ted as to time, resulted in additional terminations of five driver s for falsification of their application. I n Mar c h 2 00 5, El g a

bi f ile d s uit a g a ins t T AR TAa lle g ingnatio na l or ig in dis c ri min a tio n und e r T it le VI I , 42 U .S. C. § 20 00 e and the Oh io C ivi l Rig hts Ac t, Ohio Rev. Code § 4112.02, see king da mag es, re instatement and injunctive re lief. D. Ct. Op. at 1-4. I n g ranting summary

judgme nt on behalf of TARTA, the district court re asoned that Elga bi could not make out a pr ima fac ie ca se under the M c D o n n e ll

-D o uglas /

B urdine burden shiftingNo. 06-3905

El ga bi v . To le do Ar e a R e

gio na l Tra ns it A uth or ity Pag e 4 framework be cause he co u l d n o t show that he wa s treate d differ ently than similarly

situated employ ees. D . Ct. Op. at 7- 10. I t a lso de termined that even had Elg abi made out a prima fa cie c ase, TA RTAme t it s b ur de n of sho wi ng a le g iti ma te , non -d isc ri min a tor y re a so n f or his dis c ha

rg e — to wit, his ly in g about past cr iminal conduct and moving violations on his application — and that Elg abi could not that this reason w as pre text ual. D. Ct. Op. at 10-12. The district c ourt noted that Elg abi’s claims under the Ohio Civil Rights Act essentially subsumed by

his Title VI Iclaim, as the “Ohio Supreme Court has held t hat t he [ statute’s] cover ag e . . . is identical to t he cove rag e of f eder al law prohibiting discrimination in the employ ment context.” D. Ct. Op. at 7 n. 1. Elg abi does not challeng e this determination on appe al. II. We r e vie w a

dis tr ic t c ourt ’s g ra

nt o f sum mary jud g me nt de no vo , an d must vie w “ the fa c ts and any infere nces that can be draw n from those fac ts .

. . in the light most fa vorable t o t h e n o nmoving pa

rty .” Be nn e tt v. City

of E as tpo int e , 4 1 0 F. 3 d 8 1 0 , 8 1 7 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) ( ci t i n g Ma tsu sh ita E le c . I n d u s . Co

. v . Ze n it

h R a dio Corp. , 47 5 U.S. 57 4, 58 7 ( 19 96 )) . Summa ry jud g me nt i s o nly appropr iate “if

the pleading s, depositions, answers to interr o g a to r ie s , a n d a d mi s s io n s o n

f ile, toge ther with the aff

idavits, if any , show t h at there is no ge nuine issue as to any materia l fac t and that the moving pa

rty is entitled to a judgme nt as a matter of law.” Id . (quoting Fe d

. R. Civ. P . 56). Weighing of the evidenc e or making c redibility deter minations are pr ohibited at summary judgme nt — rathe r, all fa cts must be viewed in the lig ht most favorable to the non-moving party

. Id

. Elg abi soug ht to ad v an ce his case with indirec t evidence of discrimination under the McD onnell Douglas

- Burdine burden shifting approa ch. Se e ge ne ra lly McD onnell Douglas Corp.No. 06-3905

El ga bi v . To le do Ar e a R e

gio na l Tra ns it A uth or ity Pag e 5 v. Gre en , 411 U. S. 792 (1 97 3) ; Texas De p’t of Community Affairs v. Burdine , 450 U.S. 248 (1981). Un d er M c Donnell Douglas , a

pla int if f w ho c ann ot p re se nt d ir e c t e vid e nc e c an e sta bli sha pr ima fa c ie

case of discrimination wher e he c an show (1) that he wa s a member of a pr otected c lass; ( 2) that he was qua lified for the position i n question; (3) that he was subjected to an adve rse job ac tion; and (4) that he wa s r e pla c e d b y

a pe rs on ou tsi de the pr ote c te d c la ss, or tr e a te d le ss f

a vo ra bly tha n a sim ila rl y situated person outsi de the protected c lass. J oh ns on v . Un iv e rsi ty of Cinc inn ati , 215 F.3d 561, 572 (6th Cir. 2 0 0 0 )

. Wh e r e a p la in ti f f c an ma k e s u c h a s h o w in g , “ a ma n d a to r y p r e s u mp ti o n of discrimination is cre ated and the burden shifts to the defe ndant to a rticulat e s o m e l egitimate, nondiscriminatory rea son for the e mploy ee’ s rejec tion.” Id

. I f t he def endant a rticulates a

leg itimate, non-discriminatory

basis for the de cision, “then the pla intiff mu s t p r o ve that the pr offe red r eason w as

ac t u ally a pre text to hide unlawful discr imination.” Id

. “ A p la in ti f f c anr e f u te th e le g itimate, nondiscriminatory

rea son that an employ er of fer s to justi fy

an adve rse employ

ment action by showing that the proff

ere d re as o n (1 ) has no basis in fact, (2) did not actually motivate the defe ndant’s challeng ed conduct, or (3) was insufficient to warr ant the cha lleng ed conduc t.” W exle r

v . W hit e ’s Fi ne Fu rn itu re , 317 F.3d 564, 576 ( en banc ) (6th Cir. 2003). III

. El g a bi f ir st c ha lle ng e s th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s de te rm inatio n th a t he did no t make ou t a

pr ima fac ie ca se under McD onnell Douglas . The pa rties do not dispu t e t h e p re sence of the fir st three elements of a

prima fa cie c ase: Elg abi is part of a protec ted class due to his Egy ptian national orig in, he wa s qualified for

the bus driver

position, and he suffere d an adver se job ac tion when he wa sNo. 06-3905

El ga bi v . To le do Ar e a R e

gio na l Tra ns it A uth or ity Pag e 6 terminated. The dispute here turns on whether Elg abi was treated di ffe rently than similarly situated individuals who were not members of the protec ted class. When TARTA conduc ted its investigation of its employ ees, prompted in part by the Channel 13 “ I -Team” inve sti g a tio n, it e ve ntu a lly de te rm ine d th a t 18 of

its dr ive rs ha d s ig nif

ic ant t ra ff ic violations. Of the eig hteen, two ha d committed t r aff ic infra ctions while TARTA employ ees, a nd had the re fo re no t f

a lsi fi e d th e ir

a pp lic a tio ns . A c c or din g to T AR TA ’s Di re c tor of Human Re so ur c e s, Ger ald B owsher, the ag ency was not capa

ble of discha

rg ing the rema ining sixt een e mploy ees, w ho

we re le ss t

ha n f or thc omi ngon

the ir a pp lic a tio ns , b e c a

us e of the a dv e rs e a ff

e c ts s uc h a

lay of f w ou ld have on both bus ser

vice and labor-ma

nag ement re lations. As a re sult, TARTA decided to limit the
te rm inatio ns to t

ho se e mpl oy e e s who ha d fa ile d to disc los e c ri min a l c on vic tio ns , a llo wi ngit t o r e ta in employ ees w hose applications only omitted pa st tra ffic offe nses. The te rminated e mploy ees w ere Steven Tra

udt, Paul W aites, Emory Mitchell and J ose Cardena s. Bow sher also testified that since 1999, TARTA has ter

minated eve ry

employ ee that it ha s discovere d to ha ve lied about past criminal history , both before and since Elg abi’s ter mination. El g a bi ide nti fi e s six of the sixte e n TA RTA e mpl oy e e s wh o ma de mis re pr e se ntatio ns on the ir

a pp lic a t i o n s a s s i m i l ar l y s i tu a t e d i n d i v i d u a l s w h o d i d n o t r e c e i v e a d v e r s e j o b a c t i o n s . T h e s e six employ ees f

all into two differe nt g roups. The first g roup includes the two othe r employ ees, Tr audt and Waites, w ho lied about past criminal conduct on their applications. Tra

udt failed to disclose that he had be en convicted for ag g ravated vehicular hom icide, and Waite failed to disclose that he had be e n c on vic te d of obs tr

uc tin g of fi c ia l busi ne ss, and

c ha rg e d b ut n ot c on vic te d o f d iso rd e rl y c on du c t,

car r y in g a c o n c e a le d w e a

p o n , an d d o me s ti c v io le n c e . Wh e n T A RT A d is c o v e r e d th a t Traudt andNo. 06-3905

El ga bi v . To le do Ar e a R e

gio na l Tra ns it A uth or ity Pag e 7

Although it is not appar ent from the pa rties’ brie fs, it would seem that Mitchell and 1 Cardena s were not reinstated, whic h likely explains why Elg abi focuse s his a rg ument only

on Traudt and Waite. Waite eac h had a c onviction that they failed to disclosed on their application, it fired both men f rom their positions. Unlike Elga bi, howeve r, bot h Traudt and Waites wer e member s of the Amalg amated Transit Union, and a fter f iling g rieva

nces w ith the Union, both w er e re i n s t ated to their positi ons wi tho ut b a c kp ay

or be ne fi ts. 1 Th e se c on d g ro up of

e mpl oy e e s id e nti fi e d b y

El g a bi i ncl ud es tho se wh o f

a ile d to dis c los e moving violations in their applications: J ohn C ar s we ll, St even V illagome z, Marvin Smi th, and S h aw n T u r

n e r . T h e i r c o l l e c t i v e , u n r e p o rt e d t r a f f i c v i o l a t i o n s i n c l u d e d o p e r a t i o n o f a v e h i c l e a t a stop sign, fa ilure to control, driving under suspension, and inabili ty to stop an assured c lear distance, among others. Villag omez also failed to re port a cr i m i n al charg e of f ailing to r eg ister a dogor kennel. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

wa s c or re c t th a t E lg a

bi f a ile d to e sta

bli shthe fo ur

th p ro ngof

his pr ima fac i e case . Considering the sec ond g roup first, Elg abi clea rly is not sim ilarly

situated to the four employ ees w ho wer e reta ined despite failing to disc lose traff ic violations, be cause he did more than fa il t o d isc los e tr a ff

ic vi ol a tio ns . H e fa ile d to dis c los e a c ri min a l c on vic tio n f

or vio le nt c on du c t, wh ic h T AR TAc ou ld q

uit e re a so na

bly de te rm ine to b e mor e tr ou bli ngtha n p a st m ov ingvio la tio ns . The ve ry case s upon which Elg abi re lies undermine his position. W e have held that “to be de emed ‘s imi larl y -s itu a te d’ in t

he dis c ipl ina

ry c on te xt, ‘ the ind ivi du a ls w ithwh om t he p lai nt if

f s e e ks to

c omp are his /he r tr e a tme nt mus t have de a lt wi th the same su pe rv iso r, have be e n s ub

je c t to the same standards a

nd have e ng ag ed in the same conduct without such diff ere ntiating or

mitigatingNo. 06-3905

El ga bi v . To le do Ar e a R e

gio na l Tra ns it A uth or ity Pag e 8

I t may

be wor th noting that opin i o n s of this Court have ca utioned ag ainst conflating the 2 fourth prongof the prima f acie case — compar ison to sim ilarly situated individuals

— with the subsequent inquiry

reg ardingwhether

the employ er’ s proffer ed j u s tification for the adver se job action is prete x tual. Se e W hit e v . Co lum bu s M

e tro . H ou s. Au th ., 429 F.3d 232, 242 ( 6th Cir. 2005) (“ [W]e are min df

ul of the fa c t that pr ior Sixth Cir c uit c a se law wa rn s a g a ins t c on fl a tin g the fir st (prima f acie ca s e) and second (ar ticulation of a leg itimate non-discriminatory rea son) steps in the McD onnell-Douglas ana ly sis .” ); see also id. at 247 (Moore , J ., concur ring ) (a rg uing that the panel ma jor ity ’s ana ly sis in f

a c t c on fl a te d th e tw o s te ps , and that the pla int if f ha d ma de ou t a pr ima

fa c ie c a se ). Th is c on c e rn

is b a se d o n th e fa c t th a t th e pr ima fa c ie c a se is “no t on erou s” and is u su a lly “ea sily met.” Clin e v

.Ca tho lic Di oc ese , 2 06 F .3 d 65 1, 66 0 (6 th Cir

. 19 99 ). I t w ou ld s e e m th a t th is conce rn is particula

rly rele vant in case s where an employ ment decision is based on the rele vant qualifications of di ffe rent employ ees. Se e, e .g ., W hit e , 429 F.3d at 242. Thus, wher e qualific ations are roug hly simil ar, an employ er’ s decision t o selec t a g iven employ ee ba sed on her qualifications mig ht b e a

le g iti ma te , non -d isc ri min a tor y , non -p re te xtua l bas is fr om the c ha lle ng e d d e c isi on , b ut i t would not automatically defe at the plaintiff’ s prima fa cie c ase. See id. at 247 (Moore , J ., concur ring ). Where the challeng ed dec ision is disciplinary in nature, how ever , the conc ern of conflating the ste ps of the Mc Do nn e ll- Do ug las analy sis are me t so long as there are clea r distinctions in the conduct of

the employ ees in que stion. circ umstances that wou l d d i s t inguish their c onduct or the e mploy er’ s treatment of them for it.’” Er c e go v ic h v . G oo dy e ar

Tire& Ru bb e r Co ., 154 F.3d 344, 352 ( 6th Cir. 1998). Clearly there are 2 differ entiating circ umstances that di s tinguish Elg abi’s conduc t from those of the e mploy ees w ho failed to disclose moving violations alone: he omitted criminal convictions from his application and they did not. Theref

ore the y wer e not similarly

situated. The district cour

t also corr ectly deter

mined that Elg abi did not establish the fourth ele ment of his prima faci e ca s e t h rough compa risons to Traudt or Waites. These two employ ees w ere simil arly situated to Elga

bi in tha t b o t h fa i led to disclose past cr iminal convictions in their job applications. Also like Elg abi, howeve r, both wer e terminated by TARTA. Althoug h Elg abi makes much of the f

act that both we re later re instated to their positions, thi s i s s i m p l y a consequenc e of their union membership a nd the g rieva

nce pr ocess, as well as their non-probationary status. ThusNo. 06-3905

El ga bi v . To le do Ar e a R e

gio na l Tra ns it A uth or ity Pag e 9 for pur poses of re instatement, Elg abi was not similarly situated to Traudt a nd Waites. I n focusing on their position post-te rmination, these thre e employ ees w ere clea rly not simi larly

situated. As TARTA points out, we have found probationary status to be a re l ev an t consi deration for the simil arly -situated inquiry

. See Cooper v. North Olmsted , 795 F.2d 1265, 1270- 71 (6th Cir. 1986) (“ A p ro batio na

ry pe ri od of emp loy

me nt p e rm its a

c omp any to w e e d o ut o r e lim inate un de sir a ble employ ees. The opportunity to dismi ss more re adily

those new e mploy ees w hose job perf ormanc e is unsatisfactory

is particular ly

important to [ a municipal bu s line]. As a common car rier, [the

mun ic ip al bu s li ne] ha s th e du ty of e xer c isi ngthe hig he st s tand ard of c are fo r t

he sa fe ty of its pa sse ng e rs . Pr ob a tio na

ry bu s d ri ve rs the re fo re do no t st and on e qu a l f oo tin g wi th p e rm ane nt d

ri ve rs , and ca nnot be consider ed to be similarly situated.” (inter

nal citations omitted)). Be cause neither Traudt nor Waites wer e si milarly situated to Elg abi, t he district cour t was

corr ect that this compar ison does not help Elg abi establish the fourth element of his pr ima fac ie ca se, and in g ranting TARTA’s summary judgme nt motion on t his b as i s . W e t h ere fore aff irm the dispositi on for this re ason. Be cause Elg abi failed to make out a prima fa cie c ase of discrimination

un de r T itl e VI I , we fi nd it unne c e ssa ry to a sse ss w he the r T AR TA ’s pr of fe re d e xplanatio n f

or his discharg e wa s pretextual.