FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT SEPT 3, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T 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. 08- 11979 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 6 - 0 0 6 7 2 - C V- WKW A N T H O N Y B E RN A R D M O O R E R , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s C I T Y O F M O N T G O M E R Y , B E RN A R D H A R R I S , T H O M A S P R O V I T T , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ 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 M i d d l e D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 3, 2008) B efo re A N D E R S O N , H U L L an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

A n th o n y B e rn a r d M o o r e r , a n A f r ic a n A m e r ic a n p r o c e e d in g p r o s e , ap p e a ls the di stri ctcourt ’ s gra ntof the defendant s’ j oi ntm ot i on for s um m ary j ud gm entas t o M o o rer’ s 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 9 8 3 co m p l ai n tal l eg i n g (1 ) raci al d i scri m i n at i o n ag ai n st B ernard H arri s, (2) vi ol at i on of du e proces s a gai nstT ho m as P rovi tt , and (3) fai l ure t o p r o p e r l y tr a i n a g a i n s tth e C i ty o f Mo n t g o m e ry . F o rth e r e a s o n s s e tf o r th b e l o w, w e a f f i rm. I. F acts I n itia lly , M o o r e rf

ile d ac o m p la in t a lle g in g , p u r s u a n t to T itle V I I o f th e C iv il R i ght s A c tof

1964, 42 U . S . C . § 2000e , e ts e q. ( “ T i t l e V I I ” ) , r a c i a l di s c r i m i na t i on a ga i ns tthe c i ty . M oor e ra l l e ge d tha the w orke d on the c i ty ’ s pa i nt i ng c r e w a nd thathi s pai nt i ng -c re w supervi sor had re qu i re d h i m t o d o l es s- desi rabl e w ork than w hi t e c r e w m e m be r s . S pe c i f i c a l l y , hi s s upe rvi s or , H a rr i s , m a de hi m do the “ hi gh w ork. ” W he n M oor e ra s ke d H a rr i s w hy M oor e ra l w a y s ha d t o do the hi gh w ork, H arri s e xp l ai ned thaton e c re w m em ber w as t oo ol d and another c re w m em ber w as to o la r g e to d o th e h ig h w o rk . A m a g is tr a te ju d g e is s u e d a n o r d e rto s h o w c a u s e w h y th e c o m p la in t s h o u ld n o t b e d is m is s e d f

o rla c k o f

ju r is d ic tio n , a s M o o r e rh a d f a ile d to r a is e h is c la im before the E qu al E m pl oym entO pp ortun i ty C om m i ss i on . In re spon se , M oo re r further a l l eged thatthe pai ntcr ew i ncl ud ed tw o b l ac k and three w hi t e c re w3

m em bers . H arri s, the cr ew ’ s f orem an and the on l y other bl ac k p er son o n the cr ew b e s id e s M o o r e r , tr e a te d M o o r e rd if f e r e n tly th a n th e w h ite c r e w m e m b e r s . S p e c if ic a lly , H a rr is a lw a y s r e q u ir e d M o o r e rto d o th e h ig h w o rk , o rp a in tin g w h ile on a n appr oxi m a t e l y 30- f ootl a dde r . T hi s w ork w a s e xtr e m e l y da nge r ous a nd u n d es irab le. A lso , o n an o th ero cc as io n , P ro v itt, th e a ss istan t d irec to r o f th e c ity’s m a in te n a n c e d e p a r tm e n t, to ld M o o r e rto g e t “[ h is ] a s s o f f th e C ity L o t” a n d n o t to re turn. T hu s, P rovi ttt erm i nat ed M oo re r w i tho utaf fordi ng M oo re r ahear i ng or a m etho d o f c on t es t i ng the em pl oym entdeci si on . A l so i n res po nse, M oo re r conceded thatthe di stri ctcourtl ac ked j uri sdi ct i on un der T i t l e V II and request ed p e rm is s io n to b r in g h is c la im u n d e r§ 1 9 8 3 a n d p e rm is s io n to a d d a s d e f e n d a n ts H arri s and P rovi tti n thei r i nd i vi du al capaci t i es . T he m agi stra t e r ec om m ended g r a n tin g M o o r e r ’s r e q u e s ts a n d d is m is s in g M o o r e r ’s T itle V I I c la im s . T he di stri ctcourtadop t ed the m agi stra t e’ s r ec om m endat i on and o rder ed M oor e rt o f

i l e a n a m e nde d c om pl a i nti nc l udi ng the ne w de f e nda nt s a nd c i t i ng § 1 98 3. M oo re r f

ai l ed t o d o so. A cc ordi ng l y, the m agi stra t e i ss ued an o rder r e q u e s t i n g s e rv i c e u p o n th e c i ty , H a rr i s , a n d Pr o v i tta n d d e f i n i n g M o o r e r ’ s c l a i ms as tho se l i st ed abov e. T h e d e f e n d a n ts f ile d ajo in t m o tio n f

o rs u m m a ry ju d g m e n t, p u r s u a n t to F ed. R . C i v. P . 56 (b). A l on g w i th the m ot i on , the defendant s s ub m i tt ed, i nt eral i a,4

the a f f i da vi t s of H a rr i s a nd P r ovi tt . I n hi s a f f i da vi t , H a rr i s s t a t e d tha t , a s the s u p e rv is o ro f

th e p a in t c r e w , h e h a d to d e c id e h o w b e s t to u s e h is m a n p o w e rto acco m p l i sh a g i v en j o b . F o r each j o b , H arri s d eci d ed w h o o n th e crew w as b est qua l i f i e d t o c om pl e t e e a c h t a s k ba s e d on the c r e w m e m be r s ’ “ uni que s ki l l s a nd ab i l i ty. ” M o o rer w as th e n ew estan d l eastex p eri en ced m em b er o f th e crew . T h u s, h e w as assi g n ed th e h i g h w o rk as a m eth o d b y w h i ch h e co u l d “ p ro v e [t o H arri s] h is c ap ab ilitie s f

o rin c r e a s e d r e s p o n s ib ility o rm o r e d if f ic u lt ta s k s .” A ls o , H a rr is h a d r e c e iv e d a n d r e a d th e c ity ’s “P e r s o n n e l B o a r dR u le s a n d R e g u la tio n s ,” i nc l udi ng the por t i ons c ont a i ne d the r e i n aboutdi s c r i m i na t i on a nd ha r a s s m e nt , a nd h a d r e c e iv e d tr a in in g o n d is c r im in a tio n a n dh a r a s s m e n t. In hi s a ff i davi t , P rovi ttst at ed thathe i nform ed M oo re r thathe had b ee n tra nsfe rr ed fr om the pai ntcr ew t o the “ gras s c ut t i ng cr ew . ” M oo re r’ s new fore m an dr ove M oor e rt o the j ob s i t e . A f t e ra rr i vi ng a tthe j ob s i t e , M oor e ra s ke d the f or e m a n t o dr i ve hi m ba c k t o the m a i nt e na nc e de pa r tm e nt ’ s m a i n of f i c e . T he fo re m an d idso an d im m ed iately co n tacted P ro v itt an d in fo rm ed h im o f M o o re r’s r e tu rn . P r o v itt lo c a te d M o o r e rto in q u ir e w h y M o o r e ra s k e d to r e tu rn to th e m a in o f f ic e . M o o r e rw a s o n th e te le p h o n e r e q u e s tin g ar id e h o m e . W h e n P r o v itt to ld M o o r e rto h a n g u p th e p h o n e , M o o r e rto ld P r o v itt th a t h e “q u it.” P r o v itt to ld M o o r e rth a t h e n e e d e d to f ill o u t c e r ta in p ap e rw o rk . W h e n M o o r e rr e f u s e d , P r o v itt5

t ol d h i m t o “ l ea ve the l ot . ” In re spon se , M oo re r s ub m i tt ed, i nt eral i a, exce rpt s f rom a c ou nty c ou rt be nc h tr i a l a f

t e rw hi c h aj udge he l d tha tM oor e rr e s i gne d on the da y i n que s t i on a nd di d not , the r e f

or e , m e r i tune m pl oy m e ntc om pe ns a t i on. T he e xc e rpt s f r om the be nc h tr i a l s how e d tha tP r ovi ttt e s t i f i e d tha t , a f

t e rhe l oc a t e d M oor e ron the t el epho ne re qu es t i ng a r i de ho m e f rom the j ob si t e, M oo re r t ol d P rovi ttthathe had be tt e rthi ngs t o do a nd tha the qui t . P r ovi tta s ke d M oor e rt o s i gn al e tt e rof r e s ig n a tio n , b u t M o o r e rr e f u s e d . P r o v itt to ld M o o r e rto g e t h is “a s s ” o f f th e lo t. H o w e v e r , P r o v itt d id n o t te rm in a te M o o r e r . P r o v itt d id n o t h a v e th e p o w e rto t erm i nat e M oo re r. M oo re r di d n otre ce i ve a hear i ng , bu ton l y bec ause he never r e turne d t o w ork a f

t e rtha tda y . H a d he r e turne d t o w ork, M oor e rw oul d ha ve r e c e i ve d ahe a r i ng. M o o rer t est i fi edth ath e w as reassi g n ed fro m th e p ai n tcrew t o th e g rassc u ttin g c r e w o n th e d a y in q u e s tio n a s p u n is h m e n t f o ras m a ll v io la tio n . W h e n h is ne w f or e m a n t ook M oor e rt o the j ob s i t e , the f or e m a n i nf

orm e d M oor e rtha tthe g r a s s - c u ttin g c r e w d id n o t ta k e b r e a k s o rlu n c h . T h is p r o m p te d M o o r e rto a s k to r e turn t o the m a i n of

f i c e . W he n he a rr i ve d a tthe m a i n of f i c e , he c a l l e d a s u p e rv i s o rt o i n q u i r e a f

t e rth e g r a s s - c u tt i n g c r e w’ s n o - b r e a k - a n d - l u n c h p o l i c y . He w a s nott e l e phoni ng s om e one f orar i de hom e . D ur i ng hi s s ubs e que ntc onve r s a t i on6

w i th P r ovi tt , M oor e rdi d nots a y tha the qui ta nd, i n f a c t , t ol d P r ovi tttha the di d not q u it. E v e n s o , P r o v itt to ld h im to g e t h is “a s s ” o f f th e lo t a n d to n o t r e tu rn . M oo re r i m m edi at el y c on t ac t ed the m ay or’ s off i ce . N o o ne atthe m ay or’ s off i ce , orthe m a i nt e na nc e de pa r tm e nt , t ol d M oor e rtha the ha d t o r e turn t o w ork. N o one e v e rc o n ta c te d M o o r e ra f te rth a t d a y , a n d h a d s o m e o n e c o n ta c te d h im , h e w o u ld have returned t o w ork b ec ause he w ant ed hi s j ob . O n cross -e xam i nat i on , ho w ever , M oor e ra dm i tt e d tha tthe m a y or ’ s a s s i s t a nta dvi s e d hi m tha t , i f M oor e rdi d not re turn t o w ork for three days , he w ou l d b e aband on i ng hi s j ob . M oo re r s t at ed that he be l i e ve d, how e ve r , tha tP r ovi tt ’ s i ns truc t i on nott o r e turn t o the l ottrum pe d the m a y o r ’s a s s is ta n t’s a d v ic e . T he m a y or ’ s a s s i s t a ntt e s t i f i e d tha the t ol d M oor e rtha t , i f M oor e rdi d notgo t o w ork f orthr e e s tr a i ghtda y s , he m i ghtbe f ound t o ha ve aba ndone d hi s j ob. T he m ay or’ s a ss i st antadm i tt ed thathe di d n ot , ho w ever , appri se M oo re r of thi s pol i cy in w r itin g o rf

o llo w u p w ith th e m a in te n a n c e d e p a r tm e n t o rM o o r e r . A m a gi s tr a t e j udge r e c om m e nde d gr a nt i ng the de f e nda nt s ’ m ot i on f

or s um m a ry j udgm e nt . I n hi s r e por t , the m a gi s tr a t e r e a s one d tha tM oor e rha d not dem on stra t ed a pri m a f

ac i e c as e of di sc ri m i nat i on . M oo re r had no tshow n that cl i m bi ng a l adder t o p ai ntw as an advers e e m pl oym entac t i on , as the re cord s ugge s t e d doi ng s o w a s “ the norm a l r e s pons i bi l i ty of one of the m e m be r s of

the7

pa i ntc r e w ” a nd a s the a s s i gnm e ntdi d noti nvol ve at a ngi bl e ha rm ora l t e r a t i on of jo b title . M o o r e ra ls o h a d n o t s h o w n th a t th e w h ite c r e w m e m b e r s w e r e s im ila r ly s i tua t e d, a s M oor e rw a s the ne w e s ta nd l e a s te xpe r i e nc e d c r e w m e m be r . I n a ny e ve nt , H a rr i s ha d gi ve n 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 orthe de c i s i on, na m e l y tha tM oor e rw a s the ne w e s ta nd l e a s te xpe r i e nc e d c r e w m e m be r , a nd M o o r e rh a d f

a ile d to s h o w th a t th e p r o f f e r e d r e a s o n w a s p r e te x t. T he m a gi s tr a t e a l s o r e a s one d tha tM oor e rw a s notde pr i ve d of hi s due proces s r i gh t s, as the defendant s dem on stra t ed thatM oo re r r es i gn ed and M oo re r h a d f a ile d to s h o w th a t h is r e s ig n a tio n w a s in v o lu n ta ry . T h e m a g is tr a te f in a lly re as on ed thatM oo re r had no tdem on stra t ed a pri m a f ac i e c as e of f

ai l ure t o tra i n, as M o o r e rh a d f

a ile d to id e n tif

y a n y c ity p o lic ie s o rc u s to m s th a t w o u ld c a u s e its e m p lo y e e s to v io la te a n y o n e ’s c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts . M oo re r obj ec t ed thatH arri s’ s proff er ed re as on s f

or hi s dec i si on w er e pr e t e xtua l . M oor e ra r gue d tha tthe c r e w m e m be rw ho w a s t oo ol d t o do the hi gh w ork o nl y w as 4 yea rs ol der than M oo re r, as he w as 51 ye ar s ol d and M oo re r w as 4 7 y e a r s o ld . T h e o th e rc r e w m e m b e r s w e r e m u c h y o u n g e r , a t 3 1 a n d 3 3 y e a r s o ld . A l so, w hi l e the cr ew m em ber w ho w as t oo l ar ge t o d o the hi gh w ork i nd ee d w e i ghe d 300 pounds , l a dde r s w e r e m a nuf a c tur e d tha tc oul d hol d m e n w e i ghi ng up t o 4 00 po un ds. M oo re r w ei gh ed 23 5 p ou nd s, and the other c re w m em bers w er e8

m u c h lig h te r , a t 1 6 0 p o u n d s e a c h . F u r th e rm o r e , it w o u ld h a v e m a d e m o r e s e n s e to a s s ig n th e m o s t d a n g e r o u s w o rk to th e m o s t e x p e r ie n c e d p a in te r . T he di stri ctcourtadop t ed the m agi stra t e’ s r ec om m endat i on . T he di stri ct c our tr e a s one d tha tM oor e rha d notde m ons tr a t e d apr i m af a c i e c a s e of di s c r i m i na t i on a nd tha ta l l oc a t i ng the a va i l abl e m a npow e rby a s s i gni ng the hi gh w ork t o the ne w e s tm e m be rof the c r e w , orM oor e r , w a s al e gi t i m a t e , nond is c r im in a to ry r e a s o n . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t a ls o s ta te d th a t M o o r e r ’s a r g u m e n ts re gardi ng spec i fi c a ges a nd w ei gh t s w er e notprop er l y bef ore the di stri ctcourt be c a us e M oor e rha d f

a i l e d t o i nc l ude the s e a r gum e nt s i n hi s r e s pons e t o the de f e nda nt s ’ m ot i on f

ors um m a ry j udgm e nt . T he di s tr i c tc our tf ur the rs t a t e d, how e ve r , tha t , e ve n i f

the y ha d be e n pr ope r l y r a i s e d, the s e a r gum e nt s w oul d not c r e a te ad is p u te d is s u e o f m a te r ia l f

a c t. I I . L a w a n d A n a ly s is W e r e v ie w th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s o r d e rg r a n tin g s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t d e n o v o . D a m o n v . F le m in g S u p e rm a rk e ts o f F lo r id a , I n c ., 1 9 6 F .3 d 1 3 5 4 , 1 3 5 7 ( 1 1 th C ir .1 9 9 9 ) . S u c h ag r a n t o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t is ap p r o p r ia te o n ly “w h e r e th e r e is n o g en u i n e i ssu e o f m at eri al factan d th e m o v i n g p arty i s en t i t l ed t o j u d g m en tas a m att erof l aw . ” I d. at13 58 (c i t i ng F ed. R . C i v. P . 56 (c )) . In det erm i ni ng w hether s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t is ap p r o p r ia te , w e r e v ie w th e r e c o r d a n d d r a w a ll r e a s o n ab le9

i nfer ence s i n the l i gh tm ostfa vo rabl e t o the no n-m ov i ng party. Id. H ow ever , “m e r e c o n c lu s io n s a n d u n s u p p o r te d f a c tu a l a lle g a tio n s a r e le g a lly in s u f f ic ie n t to d e f e a t as u m m a ry ju d g m e n t m o tio n .” E llis v . E n g la n d , 4 3 2 F .3 d 1 3 2 1 , 1 3 2 6 ( 1 1 th C i r. 20 05 ). A s a n in itia l m a tte r , a lth o u g h M o o r e rp a r tia lly c ite s a n d v e ry b r ie f ly di s c us s e s D e s e r tP a l a c e , I nc . v. C os t a , 539 U . S . 90, 123 S . C t . 2148, 156 L . E d. 2d 84, he ha s notr a i s e d on appe a l , but , r a the r , ha s aba ndone d, a ny a r gum e nttha tthe di stri ctcourtshou l d h ave c on du ct ed a m i xed-m ot i ve anal ys i s. W e have hel d that “a p a r ty s e e k in g to r a is e ac la im o ris s u e o n ap p e a l m u s t p la in ly a n dp r o m in e n tly s o in d ic a te ” a n d m u s t “d e v o te [ ] a d is c r e te s e c tio n o f h is a r g u m e n t to [ th a t] c la im [ ].” U n ite dS ta te s v . J e rn ig a n , 3 4 1 F .3 d 1 2 7 3 , 1 2 8 4 n .8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . O the rw i s e , the appe l l a ntaba ndons the a r gum e nt . I d. a t1283. M oor e rdi d not obj e c tt o orothe rw i s e c om m e nton the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s f a i l ur e t o appl y am i xe dm ot i ve anal ys i s, l i stthi s t op i c a s a n i ss ue i n h i s i ni t i al bri ef , or appl y D es ertP al ac e t o the f a c t s of hi s c a s e . F ur the rm or e , M oor e rc l e a r l y c i t e d a nd f oc us e d on appl y i ng the f

r a m e w ork e s t abl i s he d i n M c D onne l l D ougl a s C orp. v. G r e e n, 411 U . S . 79 2, 93 S . C t . 18 17 , 36 L . E d. 2d 66 8 (19 73 ). M oreover, M oo re r di d n otci t e D e s e r t P a la c e o rr e f

e rto m ix e d - m o tiv e la w b e f o r e th e m a g is tr a te o rd is tr ic t c o u r t. A c c e s s N ow , I nc . v. S outhw e s tA i r l i ne s C o. , 385 F . 3d 1324, 1331 ( 11th C i r . 2004)1 0

( not i ng tha ti s s ue s notr a i s e d be f or e the di s tr i c tc our tw i l l notbe c ons i de r e d on ap p e a l) . T h u s , w e w ill n o t c o n s id e ro ra d d r e s s w h e th e rth e d is tr ic t c o u r t s h o u ld h a v e ap p lie d am ix e d - m o tiv e a n a ly s is . S e e J e rn ig a n , 3 4 1 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 3 , 1 2 8 4 n .8 . A . D i s c r i m i n at i on P u r s u a n t to § 1 9 8 3 , “[ e ]v e ry p e r s o n w h o , u n d e rc o lo ro f [ la w ,] [ d e p r iv e s ] . . . a ny c i t i z e n . . . of

a ny r i ght s , pr i vi l e ge s , ori m m uni t i e s s e c ur e d by the C ons t i tut i on and l aw s, shal l be l i abl e t o the party i nj ured. ” I n revi ew i ng cl ai m s broug htun der thi s s t a tut e , w e us e the f r a m e w ork e s t abl i s he d i n M c D onne l l D ougl a s . R i c ha r ds on v . L e e d s P o lic e D e p ’t, 7 1 F .3 d 8 0 1 , 8 0 5 - 0 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) . U n d e rth is fr am ew ork, the pl ai nt i ff has the bu rden of es t abl i shi ng a pri m a f ac i e c as e of r ac i al di s c r i m i na t i on. M c D onne l l D ougl a s C orp. , 411 U . S . a t802, 93 S . C t . a t1824. T he pl a i nt i f f m a y m e e thi s bur de n us i ng di r e c torc i r c um s t a nt i a l e vi de nc e . S e e H i ns on v. C l i nc h C ounty , G a . B d. of E duc . , 231 F . 3d 821, 827 ( 11th C i r . 2000) ( out l i ni ng the ty pe s of

e vi de nc e us e d t o pr ove aT i t l e V I I c l a i m ) ; R i c ha r ds on, 71 F . 3d a t805 (hol di ng thatthe sa m e types of evi dence used t o p rove a T i t l e V II cl ai m al so m ay b e u s e d to p r o v e a§ 1 9 8 3 c la im ) . D ir e c t e v id e n c e o f

d is c r im in a tio n is e v id e n c e w h ic h , if b e lie v e d , w o u ld pr ove the e xi s t e nc e of

af a c ti n i s s ue w i thouti nf

e r e nc e orpr e s um pt i on. S c ottv. S unc oa s tB e ve r a ge S a l e s , L t d. , 295 F . 3d 1223, 1227 ( 11th C i r . 2002) . O nl y the1 1

m os tbl a t a ntr e m a rks , w hos e i nt e ntc oul d be nothi ng othe rtha n t o di s c r i m i na t e on the ba s i s of

the pr ot e c t e d c l a s s i f

i c a t i on, c ons t i tut e di r e c te vi de nc e of di sc ri m i nat i on . Id. If

the pl ai nt i ff

prod uces evi dence of thi s i l k, he has e st abl i shed apr i m af a c i e c a s e , a nd the ul t i m a t e i s s ue of di s c r i m i na t i on i s pr ove n. E va ns v. M cC l ai n o f G eorgi a, Inc. , 13 1 F . 3d 95 7, 96 1-62 (11th C i r. 19 97 ). W h ere th e p l ai n t i ff can n o tp ro d u ce d i rectev i d en ce, h o w ev er, h e m u stu se c ir c u m s ta n tia l e v id e n c e to d e m o n s tr a te , 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: ( 1) he be l ongs t o apr ot e c t e d c l a s s ; ( 2) he w a s s ubj e c t e d t o a n a dve r s e e m pl oy m e nt a c tio n ; ( 3 ) h is e m p lo y e rtr e a te d s im ila r ly s itu a te d e m p lo y e e s o u ts id e h is c la s s if ic a tio n m o r e f

a v o r ab ly ; a n d ( 4 ) h e w a s q u a lif ie d to d o th e jo b . S e e H o lif ie ld v . R e n o , 1 1 5 F .3 d 1 5 5 5 , 1 5 6 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) ( c o n s id e r in g r a c ia l d is c r im in a tio n ) . R egar di ng the si m i l ar l y- si tuat ed-e m pl oyee el em ent , w e have hel d that“ the pl ai nt i ff m us ts how tha the a nd the e m pl oy e e s a r e s i m i l a r l y s i tua t e d i n a l l r e l e va nt resp ect s. ” Id . If th e p l ai n t i ff su ccessfu l l y est ab l i sh es a p ri m a faci e case, th ere i s a pr e s um pt i on of

di s c r i m i na t i on. M c D onne l l D ougl a s C orp. , 411 U . S . a t802- 803, 93 S . C t . a t1824. T he bur de n the n s hi f t s t o the de f

e nda ntt o r e butthi s pr e s um pt i on by a r t i c ul a t i ng 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 orthe c om pl a i ne d- of ac t i on . Id. at80 2, 93 S . C t . at18 24 . If the defendantfa i l s t o m ee tthi s burden, then th e d is tr ic t c o u r t m u s t a w a r d ju d g m e n t to th e p la in tif f a s am a tte ro f

la w . S t.1 2

M a ry ’ s H onorC tr . v. H i c ks , 509 U . S . 502, 509, 113 S . C t . 2742, 2748, 125 L . E d. 2d 407 ( 1993) . I f

the de f e nda ntm e e t s thi s bur de n, the n the bur de n s hi f t s t o the pl ai nt i ff t o sho w thatthe art i cul at ed re as on w as a pre t extfor di sc ri m i nat i on . T exas D e p’ tof C m ty . A f

f a i r s v. B ur di ne , 450 U . S . 248, 255- 56, 101 S . C t . 1089, 1094- 95, 67 L . E d. 2d 20 7 (19 81 ). W hen p re t exti s a n i ss ue, the qu es t i on the di stri ctcourt m u s t a n s w e ris w h e th e rth e e m p lo y e r ’s p r o f f e r e d r e a s o n s w e r e “a c o v e ru p f o ra. . . d is c r im in a to ry d e c is io n .” R o ja s v . F lo r id a , 2 8 5 F .3 d 1 3 3 9 , 1 3 4 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . In do i ng so, the di stri ctcourtm usteval uat e w hether the pl ai nt i ff has dem on stra t ed

“ s uc h w e a kne s s e s , i m pl a us i bi l i t i e s , i nc ons i s t e nc i e s , i nc ohe r e nc i e s , or c o n tr a d ic tio n s in th e e m p lo y e r ’s p r o f f e r e d le g itim a te r e a s o n s f o rits a c tio n th a t a r e a s onabl e f

a c t f i nde rc oul d f

i nd the m unw or thy of

c r e de nc e . ” C om bs v. P l a nt a t i on P att erns, 10 6 F . 3d 15 19 , 15 38 (11th C i r. 19 97 ). W e have caut i on ed, ho w ever , that the di s tr i c tc our ti s “ noti n the bus i ne s s of a dj udgi ng w he the re m pl oy m e nt de c i s i ons a r e prude ntorf a i r . ” D a m on, 196 F . 3d a t1361. T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rri n gr a nt i ng the de f e nda nt s ’ m ot i on f

or sum m ary j ud gm ent . S ee D am on , 19 6 F . 3d at13 57 . A l tho ug h h e a rgues otherw i se , M oor e rdi d notpr oduc e di r e c te vi de nc e of di s c r i m i na t i on, a s he di d notc ont e nd or d e m o n s tr a te th a t H a rr is m a d e r e m a rk s illu s tr a tin g ac le a rd is c r im in a to ry in te n t. S e e S c o tt, 2 9 5 F .3 d a t 1 2 2 7 .Moorer argues that weshould not consider Ha rris’s statement that one of the crew 1 members wa s too old and one wa s too larg e to do the high work a s a distinguishingfac tor or a leg itimate, nondiscriminatory rea son for Ha

rris’s actions. Moorer a

rgues that this statement was not properly

before the district cour

t beca use it only

was include d in Moorer’ s orig inal c omp laint , which w a s dismiss e d. We f ind it unn e c e ssa

ry bo th to re ly

on thi s “ e videnc e ”and

to a dd re ss M oo rer’ s argument, a s Mo orer’ s e xperi enc eleve l alon ewa s su ff ic ient to distinguis h him from the other

crew member s, as discussed a bove, and to justify

Har ris’s ac tions, as discussed below. 1 3 A l so, M oo re r f

ai l ed t o est abl i sh a pri m a f ac i e c as e of di sc ri m i nat i on by w ay of c i r c um s t a nt i a l e vi de nc e . S e e M c D onne l l D ougl a s C orp. , 411 U . S . a t802, 93 S . C t . at18 24 . T he part i es do no tdi sput e thatM oo re r w as a m em ber of aprot ec t ed c la s s o rc o u ld d o ajo b o th e rth a n th e h ig h w o rk . S e e H o lif ie ld , 1 1 5 F .3 d a t 1 5 6 2 . M o o r e r , h o w e v e r , d id n o t d e m o n s tr a te th a t s im ila r ly s itu a te d e m p lo y e e s o u ts id e h is p r o te c te d c la s s w e r e tr e a te d m o r e f a v o r ab ly . S e e H o lif

ie ld , 1 1 5 F .3 d a t 1 5 6 2 . A l th o u g h M o o rer co n t en d s th atth e d i stri ctco u rtreq u i red n ear-p erfect si m i l ari ty, the r e c or d de m ons tr a t e s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tba s e d i t s r e a s oni ng on thi s poi nton th e f a c t th a t M o o r e rw a s le s s e x p e r ie n c e d th a n th e o th e rc r e w m e m b e r s . E xp er i ence l evel se em s r el evantt o the t as k o f a ss i gn i ng j ob s, as a new em pl oyee m a y ha ve y e tt o “ e a rn” am or e - de s i r abl e t a s k. S e e H ol i f i e l d, 115 F . 3d a t1562. 1 T hus , M oor e rc oul d note 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 be c a us e the w h ite c r e w m e m b e r s w e r e n o t s im ila r ly s itu a te d . S e e H o lif ie ld , 1 1 5 F .3 d a t 1 5 6 2 . B e c a us e he f

a i l e d t o s a t i s f

y hi s bur de n w i th r e s pe c tt o thi s e l e m e nt , w e ne e d not a ddr e s s w he the rbe i ng a s s i gne d the hi gh j ob c ons t i tut e d a n a dve r s e e m pl oy m e nt1 4

a c tio n . E ve n ha d M oor e rbe e n abl e t o s a t i s f y hi s i ni t i a l bur de n, how e ve r , the de f e nda nt s a r t i c ul a t e d al e gi t i m a t e , nondi s c r i m i na t ory r e a s on f orH a rr i s ’ s de c i s i on, a n d M o o r e rf

a ile d to d e m o n s tr a te th a t th is r e a s o n w a s p r e te x t. S e e M c D o n n e ll D o u g l as C o rp . , 4 1 1 U . S . at8 0 2 -8 0 3 , 9 3 S . C t . at1 8 2 4 ; T ex as D ep ’ to f C m ty. A ffai rs, 4 5 0 U . S . at2 5 5 -5 6 , 1 0 1 S . C t . at1 0 9 4 -9 5 . R eg ard i n g th e d efen d an t s’ l egi t i m at e, no n-di sc ri m i nat ory r ea son, H arri s e xp l ai ned i n h i s a ff i davi tthatM oo re r w as as si gn ed the hi gh j ob because he w as the new es tand l ea stexperi ence d m e m b e ro f

th e c r e w a n d th e h ig h jo b w a s am e th o d b y w h ic h h e c o u ld “p r o v e h is c ap ab ilitie s f

o rin c r e a s e d r e s p o n s ib ility o rm o r e d if f ic u lt ta s k s .” A s th is expl anat i on had n othi ng t o d o w i th h i s r ac e, these proffe re d rea sons w er e l e gi t i m a t e a nd nondi s c r i m i na t ory . S e e M c D onne l l D ougl a s C orp. , 411 U . S . a t802- 8 0 3 , 9 3 S .C t. a t 1 8 2 4 . R e ga r di ng M oor e r ’ s s how i ng of pr e t e xt , M oor e ra r gue d tha tH a rr i s ’ s true m ot i va t i on m us tha ve be e n M oor e r ’ s r a c e be c a us e M oor e rhi m s e l f w a s notay oung m an atth e t i m e o f th e assi g n m en tan d as i tm ad e n o sen se t o assi g n th e m o st da nge r ous j ob t o anovi c e . S e e T e xa s D e p’ tof C m ty . A f

f a i r s , 450 U . S . a t255- 56, 10 1 S . C t . at10 94 . Igno ri ng the fa ctthatM oo re r f i rs tal l eged these spec i fi c a ges an d w ei g h t s i n h i s o b

j ect i o n t o th e m ag i strat e’ s rep o rt , M o o rer fail ed t o est ab l i sh1 5

thatre as on s t o d o w i th h i s a ge, w ei gh t , and exp er i ence w er e j usta “ coverup. ” S ee R oj a s , 285 F . 3d a t1342. M oor e rs t a t e d tha the w a s nots o m uc h y ounge rtha n the w hi t e c re w m em ber w ho w as t oo ol d, bu tadm i t s thathe w as , i nd ee d, youn ger, su ch th atth i s p ro ffered reaso n w as n o ti m p l au si b l e o r i n co n si st en t . S ee C o m b s, 106 F . 3d a t1538. A l s o, M oor e rs t a t e d tha the di d notw e i gh s o m uc h l e s s tha n the w hi t e c re w m em ber w ho w as t oo l ar ge, bu tadm i t s thathe w as , i nd ee d, l i gh t er , su ch th atth i s p ro ffered reaso n w as n o ti m p l au si b l e o r i n co n si st en t . S ee i d . T h ese re as on s w er e notso w ea k as t o com pl et el y l ac k cre dence. S ee C om bs, 10 6 F . 3d at 1 5 3 8 . F ur the rm or e , M oor e rs t a t e d tha ti tw a s i l l ogi c a l t o a s s i gn the m os tda nge r ous t as k t o a no vi ce , bu tH arri s di d n otcl ai m thatM oo re r w as gi ven the hi gh w ork be c a us e he di d notknow w ha the w a s doi ng, butr a the rbe c a us e he ha d y e tt o pr ove h im s e lf w o r th y o f

am o r e - d e s ir ab le ta s k . W h ile th is m o tiv a tio n m a y s e e m u n f a ir , it di d notde m ons tr a t e ar a c i a l l y di s c r i m i na t ory m ot i ve , a nd the f a i rne s s of

the de c i s i on w a s notam a tt e rf orthe di s tr i c tc our tt o c ons i de r . S e e D a m on, 196 F . 3d at1 3 6 1 . T h u s, th e d efen d an t s art i cu l at ed l eg i t i m at e, n o n d i scri m i n at o ry reaso n s, and M oo re r c ou l d n otsa t i sf y hi s burden o f s ho w i ng thatthe proffer ed re as on w as pr e t e xt . S e e M c D onne l l D ougl a s C orp. , 411 U . S . a t802- 803, 93 S . C t . a t1824; T ex as D ep ’ to f C m ty. A ffai rs, 4 5 0 U . S . at2 5 5 -5 6 , 1 0 1 S . C t . at1 0 9 4 . A cco rd i n g l y,1 6

the di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr i n g ra nt i ng the defendant s’ m ot i on for s um m ary ju d g m e n t, a n d w e a f

f irm a s to th is c la im . S e e D a m o n , 1 9 6 F .3 d a t 1 3 5 7 .

B . D u e P ro cess T he D ue P roce ss C l ause “ re qu i re s not i ce and the op po rtun i ty t o b e hea rd i nc i de ntt o the de pr i va t i on of l i f e , l i be r ty orpr ope r ty a tthe ha nds of the g o v e rn me n t . ” Gr a y d e n v . Rh o d e s , 3 4 5 F. 3 d1 2 2 5 , 1 2 3 2 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 2 0 0 3 ) . To est ab l i sh a v i o l at i o n o f th i s cl au se i n th e co n t ex to f a § 1 9 8 3 cl ai m , a p l ai n t i ff m u st p r o v e : ( 1 ) ad e p r iv a tio n o f ac o n s titu tio n a lly p r o te c te d lib e r ty o rp r o p e r ty in te r e s t; ( 2 ) s ta te a c tio n ; a n d ( 3 ) c o n s titu tio n a lly in a d e q u a te p r o c e s s . I d . R e ga r di ng the de pr i va t i on e l e m e nt , w e ha ve he l d tha tthe s t a t e doe s not d e p r iv e ap la in tif

f o f h is p r o p e r ty in te r e s t in ajo b if th e p la in tif

f v o lu n ta r ily r e s ig n s . H a r g r a y v . C ity o f H a lla n d a le , 5 7 F .3 d 1 5 6 0 , 1 5 6 7 - 6 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) . W e e xpl a i ne d tha t , “ [ i ] f [ the pl a i nt i f

f ] r e s i gne d of

hi s ow n f

r e e w i l l e ve n though p r o m p te d to d o s o b y e v e n ts s e t in m o tio n b y h is e m p lo y e r , h e r e lin q u is h e d h is p r o p e r ty in te r e s t v o lu n ta r ily a n d th u s c a n n o t e s tab lis h th a t th e [ c ity ] ‘d e p r iv e d ’ h im of i tw i thi n the m ea ni ng of the du e proces s c l ause , ” butthat“ [i ] f, on the other ha nd, [ the pl a i nt i f

f’ s ] r e s i gna t i on w a s s o i nvol unt a ry tha ti ta m ount e d t o a c ons truc t i ve di s c ha r ge , i tm us tbe c ons i de r e d ade pr i va t i on by [ the c i ty ] a c t i on tri gg er i ng the prot ec t i on s of the du e proces s c l ause . ” I d. at15 67 . F or tho se ca se s1 7

i n w hi ch the i ss ue i s w hether apl ai nt i ff has vol un t ary r es i gn ed, w e have provi ded th e f o llo w in g g u id e lin e s . T he di stri ctcourtshou l d p re sum e thata r es i gn at i on w as vo l un t ary. Id. at 1 5 6 8 . “T h is p r e s u m p tio n w ill p r e v a il u n le s s [ th e p la in tif f ] c o m e s f o rw a r d w ith suff i ci entevi dence t o est abl i sh thatthe re si gn at i on w as i nv ol un t ar i l y e xtra ct ed. ” I d. T o de t e rm i ne thi s , the di s tr i c tc our ts houl d e xa m i ne the s urr oundi ng ci rc um st ance s a nd as se ss w hether the pl ai nt i ff had the abi l i ty “ t o exerci se fr ee c hoi c e ” on the m a tt e r , orw he the rhi s e m pl oy e r“ f or c e [ d] the r e s i gna t i on by coer ci on or du re ss . ” I d. T he di stri ctcourtm ustas se ss w hether r ea l al t ernat i ves w e r e of f e r e d us i ng a n obj e c t i ve s t a nda r d, r a the rtha n by the e m pl oy e e ’ s s ubj e c t i ve perc ept i on thathi s onl y opt i on w as re si gn at i on . Id. Indeed, w e r ec og ni ze d that “r e s ig n a tio n s c a n b e v o lu n ta ry e v e n w h e r e th e o n ly a lte rn a tiv e to r e s ig n a tio n is f a c in g p o s s ib le te rm in a tio n f o rc a u s e o rc r im in a l c h a r g e s ,” s in c e th e p la in tif f in s u c h as itu a tio n s till h a d ac h o ic e . I d . T he di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr i n g ra nt i ng the defendant s’ m ot i on for s um m ary j ud gm ent . S ee D am on , 19 6 F . 3d at13 57 . T he defendant s do n otdi sput e that M oo re r had a const i tut i on al l y prot ec t ed i nt er es ti n h i s j ob or thatst at e a ct i on w as i n v o l v ed . S ee G rayd en , 3 4 5 F . 3 d at1 2 3 2 . M o o rer fail ed , h o w ev er, t o est ab l i sh thatthe st at e depri ved h i m of thi s i nt er es t . S ee i d. R ather, the re cord1 8

de m ons tr a t e s tha tM oor e rvol unt a r i l y r e s i gne d hi s pos i t i on. S e e H a r gr a y , 57 F . 3d a t 1 5 6 7 - 6 8 . W h e n P r o v itt in s tru c te d M o o r e rto g e t o f f th e lo t, th e r e c o r d s u g g e s ts thatM oo re r had the choi ce t o rem ai n. S ee i d. Itappears thatP rovi ttordered M oo re r off

of the l otbecause M oo re r w ou l d n otperf orm hi s a ss i gn m ent , such that M oor e rc oul d ha ve r e m a i ne d on the l otbya gr e e i ng t o r e turn t o the j ob s i t e a nd re j oi n the gras s- cutt i ng cr ew . A l so, w hen M oo re r l ef tthe l ot , the re cord show s that he ha d the c hoi c e t o r e turn. S e e i d. A l though M oor e rc l a i m s tha the c oul d not ha ve r e turne d be c a us e he w oul d ha ve r i s ke d atr e s pa s s i ng c ha r ge i n doi ng s o, no thi ng i n the re cord supp ort s thi s c l ai m , and w e have re cogn i ze d thata c ho i ce that in v o lv ed a c rim in al ch ar g e is s ti ll a c h o ice. S ee id . F in ally, afterth e m ay o r’s assi st an tad v i sed M o o rer th ath e sh o u l d retu rn t o w o rk w i th i n th ree d ays o r ri sk be i ng f ound t o ha ve vol unt a r i l y r e s i gne d hi s pos i t i on, i tappe a r s tha tM oor e rnot o n ly h a d ac h o ic e to r e tu rn , b u t k n e w th a t h e m u s t e x e r c is e th is c h o ic e . S e e id . T hu s, because M oo re r vol un t ar i l y r es i gn ed by l ea vi ng the l otand fai l i ng t o return al tho ug h h e had other opt i on s a nd kn ew the ri sk of no texer ci si ng tho se other opt i ons , he w a s notf

or c e d t o r e s i gn by c oe r c i on ordur e s s a nd w a s notde pr i ve d by the st at e of hi s property i nt er es ti n h i s j ob . S ee i d. A cc ordi ng l y, the di stri ctcourt d i d n o te rri n g r a n t i n g th e d e f e n d a n t s ’ m o t i o n f

o rs u m m a ry j u d g m e n t , a n d we a f f irm a s to th is c la im . S e e D a m o n , 1 9 6 F .3 d a t 1 3 5 7 .1 9 C . F a ilu r e t o T r a in T he S upr e m e C our tha s he l d tha tac i ty c a n be he l d l i abl e unde r§ 1983 f or c o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n s r e s u ltin g f r o m its f a ilu r e to tr a in m u n ic ip a l e m p lo y e e s . C i ty of C a nt on, O hi o v. H a rr i s , 489 U . S . 378, 380, 109 S . C t . 1197, 1200, 103 L .E d .2 d 4 1 2 ( 1 9 8 9 ) . T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t, h o w e v e r , h a s h e ld th a t th is liab ility is lim ite d to c a s e s in w h ic h ( 1 ) th e c ity in a d e q u a te ly tr a in s o rs u p e rv is e s its e m p lo y e e s , ( 2 ) th is f

a ilu r e to tr a in o rs u p e rv is e is ac ity p o lic y , a n d ( 3 ) th a t c ity po l i cycauses the em pl oyee s t o v i ol at e aci t i ze n’ s c on st i tut i on al ri gh t s. Id. at 3 8 9 - 9 1 , 1 0 9 S .C t. a t 1 2 0 5 - 0 6 . T he di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr i n g ra nt i ng the defendant s’ m ot i on for s um m ary j ud gm ent . S ee D am on , 19 6 F . 3d at13 57 . A l tho ug h h e a l l eged as m uch, M oo re r d id n o t p r o v id e a n y e v id e n c e th a t th e c ity h a d ap o lic y o f in a d e q u a te ly tr a in in g its e m pl oy e e s w i th r e s pe c tt o j ob a s s i gnm e nt s f orm i nor i t i e s . S e e C i ty of C a nt on, O h io , 4 8 9 U .S . a t 3 8 9 - 9 1 , 1 0 9 S .C t. a t 1 2 0 5 - 0 6 ; E llis , 4 3 2 F .3 d a t 1 3 2 6 . I n d e e d , in hi s a ff i davi t , H arri s s t at ed thathe had rece i ved and re ad the ci ty’ s “ P er sonn el B oard R ul es and R egul at i on s” coveri ng di sc ri m i nat i on and h ar as sm ent , and h ad b e e n tr a in e d o n d is c r im in a tio n a n d h a r a s s m e n t, s u c h th a t it ap p e a r s th e c ity ac tual l y m ade e ff

ort s t o tra i n i t s e m pl oyee s on si m i l arm att er s. T hu s, M oo re r has n o t m a d e a n y o f

th e r e q u is ite s h o w in g . S e e id . A c c o r d in g ly , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id no terr i n g ra nt i ng the defendant s’ m ot i on for s um m ary j ud gm ent , and w e a ff i rm as2 0

to th is c la im . S e e D a m o n , 1 9 6 F .3 d a t 1 3 5 7 . AF F I RME D.