FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MAY 6, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 13 46 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 7- 02 35 5C V-VEH MIC HAEL GIBSON, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us CITY OF GADSDEN, AL ABAMA, a m un ic ip al co rp or at io n, CIVIL SERVIC E BOARD OF THE CITY OF GADSDEN, T HE, et al ., Defen da nt s- App el le es .

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ernDis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Ma y 6, 2 01 0) Befo re EDMONDSON, BIRC H andBLACK, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Mi ch ael Gib so n app eal s the di stric t co urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t i n fav orof t he Cit y

of Ga ds de n, Al ab am a, th e ci ty’ s C iv il Serv ic e Bo ard , andSte ve n C. Carr ol l, Ch ie f of

th e ci ty’ s fi re d ep art m en t. The su m m ary jud gm en t re su lt edin th e d is m is sa l o f Gib so n’s equa l p ro te ct io n a nddu e p ro ces s cl ai m s, wh ic h h e b as ed on App el le es ’ al le ge dl y

di sc riminat ory

em pl oym en t p ract ic es . Gib so n a ss ert s the di st ric t co urt erredinrul in g (1 ) hi s equa l p ro te ct io n c la im was p recl ud edby his fai lu re t o p res en t an y

si mil arl y si tu at edco m

pa rat or s; (2) hi s s ub st an ti ve du e pr oc es s cl ai m

fai le d b ecau se he di d n otde m on st rat e in te rfer en ce wi th an y co gn iz ab le fun da m en ta l ri gh t; an d (3 ) hi s p ro cedur al du e p ro ces s cl ai m fai le d be cau se Gib so n h adno affe ct edpro pe rty int eres t. We addres s ea chof h is cla im s in tu rnan d a ffi rm . I. Gib so n i s an Afric anAm eri canfir efi gh te r who ha s b eenem pl oyed b y th e Ci ty of Gad sd en ’s fire de partment f orsev en te eny ears . Em

pl oyees h ol d o ne of s ix ran ks inth e fi re d ep artm en t. Inasc en di ng ord er, the ran ks are Fi refi gh te r I, Fi refi gh te r II, Dri ve r, Co m m an de r, Ass is tantCh ie f, an d C hi ef. Gib so n h as be en ran ke d F ire fig ht er I fo r th e dur at io n o f hi s emplo ym en t. The fir e d ep art m en t h as a po li cy un de r whi chanem

pl oyee m ay

“ st ep up ” to se rv e in an“ act in g” cap aci ty of a h ig he r ran ki ng em pl oyee who is un av ai labl e fo r 2a g iv ensh ift . Eith er a Fi refi gh te r I o r a Fi refi gh te r II m ay serve as a n a ct in g Driv er an d wi ll earn a co rres po nd in g a dju st m en t i n p ay for hi s Dri ve r sh ift . If th e ab se nc e o f th e h ig he r ran ki ng off ic ia l ex ceed s fi ve sh ift s, h owe ve r, th e de pa rtment’s p ol ic y

requi res th aton ly em

pl oyees wi th th e qua li fic at io ns ne ces sa ry fo r pr om ot io n t o the hi gh er-r an ki ng po si ti on be all owe d t o “ st ep up .” To b e el ig ib le fora pr om ot io n t o the off ic ia l p os it io n o f Driv er, wh os e reg ul ar dut ie s in cl ud e driv in g fi re tru ck s, an em pl oyee m us t p as s b oth the Fir efi gh te r II cert ifi cat io n c ou rs e an d the App aratus Oper at or(AO) co ur se . Unt il 20 05 , Gib so n, who lac ke d e ithe r certi fic at io n, o fte n s erv edinth e ro le of a ct in g Dri ve r fo r pe rio ds of up to fiv e sh ift s. In20 05 , Gib so n was in fo rm edth atall pe rs on s s erv in g a s ac ti ng Driv ers , ev enth os e se rv in g i n the po si ti on for a te rm of f iv e sh ift s o r fewer , wou ldbe requi redto ha ve AO cert ifi cat io n. Th is po li cy was b as edon th e fi re d ep art m en t’s li ab il ity co nc ern s. Sev eral fir efi gh te rs who ha d b eenservi ng as s ho rt- te rm act in g Driv ers witho utth e AO cert ifi cat io n, i nc lu di ng Gib so n, wer e se ntto AO trai ni ng . Of th os e se ntto th e tr ai ni ng , on ly G ib so n fa il edth e co ur se . Gib so n was th en of fere d a n o pp ortu ni ty to re ta ke th e co ur se , bu t i ns te adch os e to tak e th e Fi refi gh te r II ce rti fic at io n c ou rs e, whi chhe als o fa il ed . He di d n otele ctto re-t ak e ei th er co ur se aft er fa il in g. Gi bs on ha d b eenall owe d t o c on ti nu e se rv in g a s an 3act in g Dri ve r whi le att em pt in g t o b eco m e AO cert ifi ed . After Gi bs on ’s fai lu re t o be co m e certi fie d, the de partment n o l on ge r al lo wedGib so n t o driv e fi re tru ck s. Gib so n the n s ue d, cl ai m in g the refu sa l t o a ll ow h im to co nt inue to “ st ep up ” in to th e p os it io n o f act in g driv er was a vi ol at io n o f hi s co ns ti tu ti on al equa l p ro te ct io n an d due pro ces s ri gh ts . II. The Equ al Pro te ct io n C laus e o f th e Co ns ti tu ti on pro hi bi ts in te nt io na l ra ce di sc riminat io n i n p ub li c em pl oym en t. W

il li ams v. Co ns ol id

at ed Cit y o f Ja cks on vi ll e , 34 1 F .3d12 61 , 12 69 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). To es tabl is h apri m a fac ie cas e o f rac ia l d is cri m in at io n, a p la in ti ff m us t s ho w th athe is a m em be r of a raci al
m in or ity who was treat eddi ffer en tl y th an“ si m il arl y

si tu at edno n- m in or ity ” em pl oyees. Mor riso n v . Boo th , 76 3 F .2d13 66 , 13 71 (11 th Cir . 19 85 ). Gib so n fai le d t o s ho w th atth e fi re d ep art m en t treat edsi m il arl y si tu at edno n- min or ity fir efi gh te rs di ffer en tl y . Gib so n l is ts sev eral no n- Afri canAm eri canfir efi gh te rs who were n otAO cert ifi edbu t wh o wer e al lo wedto dri ve fir e truc ks aft er the 20 05 po li cy was im pl em en te d. Th e p eo pl e ci te d b y Gib so n, h owe ve r, were n otsi mil arl y si tu at ed co m pa rat or s “ in all rel ev an t re sp ect s.” Se e Gri ff in Indus ., Inc . v. Irv in , 49 6 F .3d 11 89 , 12 04 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). They all h el d aran k abo ve Driv er, an d the refo re h ad 4pr ev io us ex pe rie nc e as ful l-t im e Dri ve rs at s om e p oi ntinth ei r car eers . Gib so n 1 do es no t h av e th atpro fes si on al ex pe rie nc e. No o ne of Gi bs on ’s ran k was all owe d to dri ve fir e tr

uc ks witho utbe in g AO certi fie d a fte r th e 2 00 5 p ol ic y was im pl em en te d. Be cau se he fai ls to sh ow h e was tre at eddi ffer en tl y th anothe r si mil arl y si tu at edno n- m in or ity

fir efi gh te rs , Gib so n’s equa l p ro te ct io n c la im fai ls . II. The Co ns ti tu ti on ’s subs tant iv e due pro ces s p ro te ct io ns ex te ndon ly to cert ai n fu nd am en ta l ri gh ts so “ im pl ic itinth e co nc ep t o f or de redli be rty” th at“ no am ountof p ro ces s can ju st ify [th ei r] inf rin ge m en t.” McKi nn ey v. Pa te , 20 F.3d 15 50 , 15 56 –6 7 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 4) . “ Bec au se em pl oym en t ri gh ts are s tate -cre at ed rig ht s an d a re n ot‘ fund am en ta l’ rig ht s cr eat edby the Co ns ti tu ti on , th ey do no t en joy subs tant iv e due pro ces s p ro te ct io n.” Id
. at15 60 . Becau se Gib so n b as es hi s subs tant iv e due pro ces s cl ai m on anem pl oym en t d eci si on , th e cl ai m fai ls . III. The Co ns ti tu ti on ’s pro cedur al du e p ro ces s p ro te ct io ns gu aran te e ci ti zen s ad equa te no ti ce an d a n o pp ortu ni ty to b e h eardbe fo re the go ve rn m en t m ay wres t Prior to 1995, the depar

tment did not require Drivers to be AO cer tified, and thus the 1 people at issue all held their Drive r positions prior to the chang e in policy . Currently , these people do not drive fire tr ucks on their r egular shifts, but on overtime shifts, when e very employee be g ins with the rank of “ actingFire fighter” and then is g iven the opportunity to step up into vacant positions. 5fro m

th em li fe, l ib erty , or p ro pe rty. Gra yd en v. Rho des , 34 5 F .3d12 25 , 12 32 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) . Thu s, t o e st ab li sh hi s p ro cedur al du e p ro ces s cl ai m on th e fac ts al le ge d, Gi bs on m

us t fi rs t d em on st rat e h e h ada pr op erty in te res t i n the co nt in ue d ro le of a ct in g Dri ve r. “ Gen eral ly, a p ub li c em pl oyee ha s a p ro pe rty int eres t i n co nt in ue d e m

pl oym en t i f st at e la w or l oc al ord in an ce i n a ny way li m it s the po wer of th e ap po in ti ng bo dy” to en d the em pl oym en t. Ros s v. Cla

yton Co un ty , 17 3 F .3d 13 05 , 13 07 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ) (quo ta ti on s o m it te d) . Bo th th e fi re d ep art m en t’s Han db oo k, an d the 20 05 po li cy st at e p la cem en t of anem pl oyee inan“ act in g” po si ti on is lef t en ti rel y to th e Fi re Ch ie f’s di sc ret io n. The 20 05 po li cy

st at es : “ Whe n the po si ti on of asupe rio r of fic er i s t em

po rari ly va can t, the Ch ie f m ay , at his s ol e dis cr et io n , pl ace a n e m pl oyee inth atpo si ti on for up to fiv e co ns ecu ti ve sh ift s.” ( em ph as is ad de d) . Sect io n 1 0( d) of t he Handbo ok st at es : “ The Fir e Ch ie f m ay , at his dis cr et io n , pl ace a n e m pl oyee ina po si ti on du e to a te m po rary abs en ce b as edon th e em pl oyee’s qu al ifi cat io ns an d p la cem en t o n th e p ro m ot io na l ro st er.” (e m ph as is ad de d) . W e co nc lu de Gib so n h adno pro pe rty in te res t i n the co nt in ua ti on of h is du ti es as a ct in g Dri ve r, as no po li cy , ord in an ce, orothe r writ in g c reat edth atex pe ct at io n. Thu s, Gi bs on ha s fa il edto est ab li sh a pr oc edur al du e p ro ces s cl ai m ba se d o n a ny int erfe ren ce wi th th os e dut ie s.

6Inacco rd an ce wi th th e rea so ni ng ab ov e, we co nc lu de Gib so n’s cl ai m s fa il

as a m atte r of

law, an d a ffi rm

th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t i n fav orof Ap pe ll ees . AFFIRMED.

7