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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 12 48 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 3 :0 9- cv -0 08 63 -HLA-JB T

PASCHAL ANYANWU, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff - Co un te r ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt- App el la nt , ve rs us BRUM OS MOTOR CARS , INC., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt- Co un te r ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Cl ai m an t - 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 Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (No ve m be r 13 , 20 12 ) Befo re MAR CUS, MARTIN an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:

Case: 11-12488 Date Filed: 11/13/2012 Page: 1 of 11Pas ch al Anyanwu , pro ceed in g pr o s e , app eal s the di st ric t co urt’s o rd er

gr an ti ng su m

m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of hi s fo rm er em

pl oyer, Bru m os Mo to r Car s, In c. (Bru m os ), on hi s cl ai m s o f rac ia l d is cri min at io n a ndret al ia to ry di sc ha rg e un de r Tit le VII of

th e Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act o f 19 64 an d 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 81 . The d is tri ct co urt fo un d t ha t Brum os was e nt it le d t o ju dg m en t as a m at te r of law o n t he m eri ts an d, i n t he alt ern at iv e, th atAnyanwu ’s cla im s wer e ti m e-b arre d. Aft er ca refu l rev ie w, we affi rm . 1 I. Anyanwu , a bl ackm al e, be ga n wo rk in g a s a c ar s al es m anforBru m os in 20 04 . In h is co m

pl ai nt , Any anwu al le ge d t ha t h e was no t al lo wedto pa rkhi s Ferr ari inth e em

pl oyee pa rk in g l otbe cau se of r aci al di sc riminat io n. Br um os pe rm it te d h im

to pa rksev eral ot he r ve hi cl es he own edinth e em pl oyee lo t, b utno t hi s Fe rrar i. Beg in ni ng inDecem be r 20 07 , Bru m os all owe d h im to parkth e Ferrari on si te , bu t o nl y

aft er h e si gn eda fo rm

th atrel eas edBru m os fro m an y li ab il it y as so ci at edwith p ark in g t he car o n c om pa ny pro pe rty. A cco rd in g t o An y anwu, Bru m os pe rm it te d wh it e em pl oyees t o p arkcars si m il ar t o t he Ferra ri o n c om pa ny pr op erty witho utsi gn in g arel eas e.

Be cause we a ffirm the district c ourt’s orde r on the merits, we deny Br umos’s motion t o 1 dismiss this appeal with pre judice as moot. 2 Case: 11-12488 Date Filed: 11/13/2012 Page: 2 of 11Anyanwuals o c la im edhe was t erm in at edinret al ia ti onforhi s o pp os it io n t o

th is raci al di sc riminat io n. Brum os res po nd edth atittermin at edhi m for vi ol at in g it s h aras sm en t p ol ic y . Spe ci fic al ly, in Nov em be r 20 07 , a Bru m os em

pl oyee fil eda se xu al ha ras sm en t co m

pl ai ntall eg in g t ha t An y an wu s lapp edhe r on th e fo reh ead an d p us he d h er. The Dire ct orof Hu m anRes ou rces at B ru m os ga ve Anyanwua writ te n warni ng th atan y

futur e h aras sm en t wo ul d b e g ro un ds forterm in at io n. AndinJan uary

20 08 , ano th er Brum os em pl oyee fil eda se xu al ha ras sm en t co m pl ai ntag ai ns t An y an wu al le gi ng he m ad e in ap pr op ria te co m m en ts an d p ho ne cal ls . Brum os in ve st ig at edth e m at te r an d fi redAnyanwuonJanua ry 21 , 20 08 . Anyanwude ni edth e h aras sm en t al le ga ti on s an d c la im edth atBru m os ’s pr of fere d re as on forterm in at in g h im , vi ol at io ns of i ts ha ras sm en t p ol ic y , was pr et ex tu al . The d is tri ctco urt g ran te d s umm ary jud gm en t i n favo r of Bru m os . The co urt fo un d t ha t An y an wu’s Tit le VII cl ai m s wer e ti m e-b arre d a nd , inth e al te rn at iv e, th atAnyanwuco ul d n otest ab li sh a pr ima fa ci e cas e o f di sc riminat io n no r reb utBru m os ’s no n- di sc riminat ory reas on forterm in at in g h im . The co urt ru le d t ha t ev enif An y an wu h adpro pe rly adv an ceda 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 1 c la im , it wou ldfai l o n t he m eri ts . This is Anyanwu ’s app eal . II. W e rev ie w de no vo th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t. 3 Case: 11-12488 Date Filed: 11/13/2012 Page: 3 of 11Rob in so n v . Tys on Foo ds , Inc . , 59 5 F .3d12 69 , 12 73 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). Summ ary

jud gm en t i s p ro pe r “ if t he m ov an t s ho ws tha t the re i s n o g enui ne di sp ut e as to an y m at eri al factan d t he m ov an t i s en ti tl edto jud gm en t as a m at te r of law.” Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 5 6( a).

“ W e draw al l fa ctua l i nf

eren ces ina li gh t m os t favo rab le to th e n on -m ov in g pa rty.” Sh iv er

v. Ch er to ff , 54 9 F .3d13 42 , 13 43 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). “ Pro se pl ead in gs are h el d t o ales s s tri ng en t s ta nd ard. . . an d wi ll . . . be li be ral ly co ns tru ed .” Ta nn en ba um v. Un it ed Stat es , 14 8 F .3d12 62 , 12 63 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ). A pl ai nt iff

can no t d efea t s umm ary jud gm en t, h owe ve r, by relying up onco nc lu so ry as se rti on s. Hol if

ie ld v. Reno , 11 5 F .3d15 55 , 15 64 n.6 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ). Rathe r,

“ [a] part y ass ert in g t ha t a f

act. . . is ge nu in el y

di sp ut edm

us t s up po rt t he ass ert io n by . . . cit in g t o p art ic ul ar p art s o f m at eri al s i n t he reco rd .” Fed . R. Civ . P. 56 (c)( 1) ; se e a ls o Res ol ut io n T ru st Co rp . v. Dun mar

Co rp . , 43 F.3d58 7, 5 99 (11 th Ci r. 19 95 ) ( en ba nc ) (“ The re i s n o b ur de n upo n the di st ric t co urt t o d is ti ll ev ery po te nt ia l ar gu m en t tha t co ul d b e m ad e b as edup on th e m at eri al s b efo re i t o n su m m ary jud gm en t.”) . “ [W] e m ay affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s d eci si on on an y ad equa te gro un d, ev enif i t i s o th er tha n t he on e o n wh ic h t he co urt ac tu al ly rel ie d.” Parks v. Cit

y o f Warne r Ro bi ns , Ga. , 43 F.3d60 9, 6 13 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ).

III. 4 Case: 11-12488 Date Filed: 11/13/2012 Page: 4 of 11A. Anyanwu ’s Raci al Dis cri m in at io n C la im

Anyanwuarg ue s tha t Brum os ’s dec is io ns to pro hi bi t h im fro m pa rk in g h is Ferr ari inth e em

pl oyee pa rk in g l otan d, l at er, t o p erm ithi m to pa rkth e Ferrari on ly if he si gn eda rel eas e o f li ab il it y co ns ti tu te d ra ci al di sc riminat io n und er Tit le VII. W e d is ag ree. Und er Tit le VII, itis un lawfu l fo r anem pl oyer to “ di sc riminat e ag ai ns t an y in di vi du al with re sp ectto hi s co m pe ns at io n, t erm s, co nd it io ns , or p riv il eg es of em pl oym en t, b ecau se of s uc h i nd iv idua l’s ra ce . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 2 00 0e -2 (a). A pl ai nt iff m ay pro ve a Tit le VII cl ai m

eit he r wit h d ire ctor c irc um st an ti al ev id en ce. Hin so n v . Cli nc h C

nt y., Ga. Bd. of

Edu c. , 23 1 F .3d82 1, 8 27 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ).

“ [O]nly the m os t b la ta ntrem ark s, wh os e in te ntco ul d b e n ot hi ng ot he r th anto di sc riminat e o n t he ba si s o f [rac e] will co ns ti tu te di rectev id en ce o f di sc riminat io n.” Damo n v . Flemi ng Su pe rma rk et s o f Fla., In c. , 19 6 F .3d13 54 , 13 59 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o mit te d) . And“ rem ark s b y no nde ci si on m ak ers or r em ark s u nr el at edto th e d eci si on m ak in g p ro ces s i ts el f are no t di rectev id en ce o f di sc riminat io n.” St an da rd v. A.B.E.L. Se rvs., In c. , 16 1 F .3d 13 18 , 13 30 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ). The di stric t co urt co rrec tl y fou ndth atAnyanwuha d n otpre se nt edan y di rectev id en ce o f di sc riminat io n. Al th ou gh , acco rd in g t o An y anwu, m an ag ers at 5 Case: 11-12488 Date Filed: 11/13/2012 Page: 5 of 11Bru m os reg ul arl y us edraci al ep it he ts , Any an wu d idno t p oi ntth e d is tri ctco urt t o an y ev id en ce i nd ic at in g t ha t the se rem ark s wer e rel at edto th e d eci so nm ak in g pr oc es s fo r th e p ark in g p ro hi bi ti on . Se e id . Andth e o th er co m m en ts Anyanwu refe ren ces do no t u na m

bi gu ou sl y refe r to hi s ra ce. Thu s, h e m us t re ly on ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce t o e st ab li sh hi s d is pa rat e tr eat m en t cl ai m . Inev al ua ti ng cir cu m st an ti al ev id en ce, we u se th e McDo nn el l Do ug la s bu rd en -s hi fti ng fram ewo rkwher eb y th e p la in ti ff m

us t fi rs t es tabl is h a pr ima fa ci e cas e o f di sc riminat io n. Cr aw fo rd v. Ca rr ol l , 52 9 F .3d96 1, 9 75 -7 6 (1 1t h C ir. 20 08 ). To es tabl is h a pr ima fa ci e cas e o f rac ia l d is cri m in at io n o n t he ba si s o f di sp arat e tr eat m en t, the pl ai nt iff m us t s ho w: (1 ) he is a m em be r of a pr ot ect ed cl as s; (2) he was s ub

jecte d t o a n a dv ers e em

pl oym en t ac ti on ; (3 ) hi s emplo y er tre at edsi m il arl y

si tu at edem

pl oyees m or e fav or ab ly; an d (4 ) he was qua li fie d t o d o th e job . Man ic ci a v . Bro wn , 17 1 F .3d13 64 , 13 68 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). To s ho w an adve rs e em

pl oym en t ac ti on , th e p la in ti ff m us t s ho w “ a se ri ou s a nd

mat er ia l ch an ge inth e te rm s, co nd it io ns , or p riv il eg es of e m pl oym en t,” wh ic h wo ul d b e vi ewedas s uc h “by a reas on ab le pe rs on inth e ci rcu m st an ces .” Dav is v. To wn of La ke Pa rk

, Fla . , 24 5 F .3d12 32 , 12 39 (11 thCir . 20 01 ). Once a pl ai nt iff es tabl is he s a pr ima fa ci e cas e, th e em pl oyer m ay

art ic ul at e a l eg it im at e, no ndi sc riminat ory

reas onforit s ac ti on . Bro ok s v. C nt y. Co mm’n o

f Je ff er so n C nt y., 6 Case: 11-12488 Date Filed: 11/13/2012 Page: 6 of 11Ala . , 44 6 F .3d11 60 , 11 62 -6 3 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) . Thenth e p la in ti ff m us t o ffer si gn ifi can tl y

pro ba ti ve ev id en ce tha t the pro ffer edreas on is a pr et ex t fo r di sc riminat io n. Id . The di stric t co urt i n t hi s ca se co rrec tl y fou ndth atBrum os ’s pro hi bi ti on on Anyanwupa rk in g h is Ferra ri i n t he em pl oyee lo t, an d l at er p erm it ti ng hi m to do so on ly if he si gn eda rel eas e o f li ab il it y , were n otadve rs e em pl oym en t ac ti on s, an d th us , Any an wu h adno t m ad e o uta pr ima fa ci e di sc riminat io n c as e. Anyanwuwas al lo wedto pa rkm

ul ti pl e v eh ic le s, i nc lu di ng two Merc ed es -Ben z car s, i n t he em pl oyee lo t wi th ou t s ig ni ng a li ab il it y rel eas e. Anyanwuarg ue s tha t Br um os ’s pr oh ib it io n was m at eri al be cau se dri vi ng a lu xu ry car t o wo rkwas asym

bo l o f su cces s tha t af

fect edhi s ab il ity

to sel l l ux ury

cars . Buthe do es no t p oi ntto an y ev id en ce tha t the cars he co ul d driv e to workwitho utsi gn in g arel eas e o f li ab il ity wou ldbe so in ad equa te th ata reas on ab le pe rs on inhi s p os it io n wo ul d c on si de r th e pa rk in g p ro hi bi ti on a m at eri al ly adv ers e em pl oym en t ac ti on . Dav is , 24 5 F .3dat 12 39 . And , of c ou rs e, Anyanwuul ti m at el y co ul d s ti ll dri ve hi s Fe rrar i t o wo rk aft er h e si gn edth e rel eas e. Bec au se Anyanwuha s n otsh own th atth e p ark in g p ro hi bi ti onor t he requi rem en t tha t h e si gn a rel eas e o f li ab il it y to pa rkhi s Fe rrar i i n t he em pl oyee lo t were m at eri al adve rs e em pl oym en t ac ti on s, h e h as fai le d t o e st ab li sh a pr ima fa ci e

7 Case: 11-12488 Date Filed: 11/13/2012 Page: 7 of 11cas e o f rac ia l d is cri m in at io n u nd er Tit le VII.

B. Anyanwu ’s Ret al ia ti on Cla im Anyanwuall eg es th athi s t erm in at io n fr om Bru m os was i n re ta li at io n fo r co m pl ai ni ng ab ou t ra ci al di sc riminat io n a ndth atBru m os ’s pro ffer edexpl an at io n fo r hi s t erm in at io n —vi ol at io ns of i ts ha ras sm en t p ol ic y — was m erel y

a pr et ex t fo r di sc riminat io n. As with h is di sp arat e tr eat m en t cl ai m , Any an wu d idno t p oi nt to an y co m pe te ntdi rectev id en ce o f di sc riminat io n. Th eref or e, th e McDo nn el l Dougl as fram ewo rkis ap pr op ria te forth is cla im . Eve n a ss um in g t ha t An y an wu es tabl is he d a pr ima fa ci ecas e o f ret al ia ti on , he ha s n otoff

eredan y ev id en ce tha t Brum os ’s reas on s fo r te rm in at io n wer e pr et ex tu al . “ [A] reaso n c an no t b e p ro ve d t o b e a p ret ex t fo r dis cr imi na ti on un le ss itis sh own bo th th atth e rea so n was fal se , an d th atdi sc riminat io n was th e rea l reas on .” St . Mar

y’s Hon or

Ctr . v. Hicks , 50 9 U.S. 5 02 , 51 5 (1 99 3) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . “ An em pl oyer who fir es anem

pl oyee un de r th e m is ta ke n b utho ne stim

pr es si on th atth e em

pl oyee vi ol at eda work ru le is no t l iabl e fo r di sc riminat ory

co nduc t.” Damo n , 19 6 F .3dat 1 36 3 n .3. Here, two Brum os em

pl oyees fi le d s ex ua l h aras sm en t co m pl ai nt s, s up po rte d by affid av it s t ak ensh ortl y th erea fte r, whi chBru m os in ve st ig at edan d fo un d t o b e cred ib le . Any an wu was warn edaft er the fir stco m pl ai nt , bu t b efo re the sec on d, 8 Case: 11-12488 Date Filed: 11/13/2012 Page: 8 of 11th atan y

futur e h aras sm en t wo ul d c on st itut e g ro un ds forterm in at io n. Aft er the in ve st ig at io n, Brum os co nc lu de d t ha t An y an wu’s co nduc t v io la te d i ts ha ras sm en t po li cy an d t erm in at edhi m . Anyanwuarg ue s p rimaril y th atBru m os ’s in ve st ig at io n i nt o t he co m pl ai nt s was a sh am

an d tha t h e is in no cen t o f th e h aras sm en t ch arg es , cit in g a ffi da vi ts of co -wo rk ers who st at edth atth ey di d n otth in k An y an wu wo ul d h av e se xu al ly ha ras se d a nyon e. Bu t h e p ro vi de s n o e vi de nt ia ry supp ort fo r hi s co nt en ti on th at th e in ve st ig at io n was a sh am . And , eve n i f he di d n otco m m itth e h aras sm en t ch arg ed , th e rec or d i nd ic at es th atBru m os ho ne st ly inv es ti ga te d t he haras sm en t an d re as on ab ly term in at edhi m as ares ul t. An y an wu h as no t p ro vi de d a de qu at e, pr ob at iv e ev id en ce t o t he co nt rary. Anyanwuals o a rg ue s tha t the clo se tem po ral pro xi m it y

be twee n h is co m pl ai nt s ab ou t the pa rk in g p ro hi bi ti on an d h is term in at io n s ug ge st s tha t Bru m os ’s pro ffer edex pl an at io n was pre te xtua l. Se e Hur lb er t v. St. Ma ry ’s Heal th Ca re Sys. , 43 9 F .3d12 86 , 12 98 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (h ol di ng clo se tem po ral pr ox im ity of t wo wee ks be twee n p ro te ct edco nduc t an d t erm in at io n was “ ev id en ce of pre te xt , th ou gh pro babl y in su ffi ci en t t o e st ab li sh pre te xtby its el f”). Ev enif Anyanwuen ga ge d i n s ta tu to ril y pro te ct edact iv it y

by opp os in g ra ci al di sc riminat io n i n m id -Dece m be r 20 07 , whi chwas ju stun de r a m on th be fo re h e

9 Case: 11-12488 Date Filed: 11/13/2012 Page: 9 of 11was pl acedon adm in is tra ti ve lea ve an d u lt im at el y fir ed , th e se co ndha ras sm en t cl ai m — wh ic h h e h adbe enwarn edco ul d l eadto hi s t erm in at io n —cam e af te r hi s co m pl ai nt s an d o nl y

da y s b efo re h e was pl acedon lea ve . Thu s, the tem po ral pr ox im ity be twee n An y an wu’s co m pl ai nt s an d h is term in at io n d oe s n otalo ne su gg es t Brum os ’s reas on s wer e p ret ex tu al . Id . Rath er, the pro xi m it y be twee n t he ha ras sm en t co m

pl ai nt s an d An y an wu’s t erm in at io n i nd ic at es th atBru m os ’s reas on was leg it im at e. Bec au se Anyanwuha s n otsh own th atBru m os ’s leg it im at e, no ndi sc riminat ory

reas onforterm in at in g h im was apre te xtfor

di sc riminat io n, h is ret al ia ti on cla im

fai ls . IV. Anyanwuch al le ng es th e d is tri ctco urt’s co nc lu si on th athe di d n otpro pe rly rai se a cl ai m

un de r 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 1. Ra ci al di sc riminat io n andret al ia ti oncla im s are c og ni zab le un de r bo thTit le VII an d 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 81 , andth ey “ ha ve th e sa m e requi rem en ts of p ro of an d u se th e sa m e an al yti cal fram ewo rk .” St an da rd , 16 1 F .3dat 1 33 0. Thus , eve n a ss um in g An y an wu p ro pe rly rais ed§ 1 98 1 c la im s, th ey fai l fo r th e sa m e rea so ns hi s Ti tl e VII cl ai m s fa il . V. The di stric t co urt p ro pe rly gran te d s umm ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of Bru m os 10 Case: 11-12488 Date Filed: 11/13/2012 Page: 10 of 11on Anyanwu ’s di sc riminat io n andret al ia ti on cla im s; acco rd in gl y , we affi rm . W e 2 de ny Brum os ’s m ot io n t o d is m is s thi s ap pe al as m oo t. AFFIRMED.

Be cause we a ffirm the grant of summar y judgme nt on the merits of the Title VIIclaim, 2 we do not addr ess the timeliness issue. 11

Case: 11-12488 Date Filed: 11/13/2012 Page: 11 of 11