FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT DECEMBER 12, 2006 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. 06- 11946 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 04 -002 11 -C V -R W S -2 J O A O G O D O Y , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s H A B E R S H A M C O U N T Y , H A BERSH A M CO U N TY BO A RD O F C O M M I S S I O N E R S , e t a l., 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 N o r th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( D e c e m b e r 12, 2006) B efo re D U B IN A , B L A C K an d C A RN E S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:This opinion will ref er to all seven def

endants c ollectively

as “D efendants,” to the 1 Habersham County

Boa rd of Commissioners as “County Boa rd,” a nd to the five named individuals (Berry, Cain, Davey, Tyler, a nd Gar rett) c ollectively

as “individual De fenda

nts.” We conduct a de novoreview o f a dis tric t c ourt ’sorder gra

ntingsumma

ry judgment, 2 “apply ing thesame leg al standards as the district cour t.” Chapman v. AI Transp. , 229 F.3d 1012, 1023 (11th Cir. 2000) ( en banc ). We review a district cour t’s denial of a

motion for rec onsideration for

an abuseof discretion. Fla. Ass'n of Rehab. Fac iliti es, Inc . v. Fla. De p't of Healt h &Reha b. Serv

s. , 225 F.3d 1208, 1216 ( 11th Cir. 2000). 2 Jo ao G o d o y, a L atin -A m er ican m ale f ro m B ra zil, ap p ea ls th e d istrict co u rt’s grantof sum m ary j ud gm entt o H aber sham C ou nty, the H aber sham C ou nty B oard of C om m i ss i on er s, H aber sham C ou nty F i re C hi ef T i m othy B erry , H aber sham C ounty A s s i s t a ntC hi e f

J e f f C a i n, a nd H abe r s ha m C ounty L i e ut e na nt s J a s on D a v e y , J a m ie T y le r , a n d J a s o n G a rr e tt o n h is c la im s o f r a c ia l a n d n a tio n a l o r ig in 1 di sc ri m i nat i on , ho st i l e w ork env i ronm ent , re t al i at ory t erm i nat i on , and a conspi ra cy t o de pr i ve e qua l pr ot e c t i on of the l a w unde rT i t l e V I I a nd 42 U . S . C . §§ 1981, 1983, 1985( 3) . G odoy a s s e r t s the di s tr i c tc our te rr e d by gr a nt i ng the D e f e nda nt s ’ m ot i on f ors um m a ry j udgm e nta nd abus e d i t s di s c r e t i on by de ny i ng hi s m ot i on f or r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n . T h e d i s tr i c tc o u r td i d n o te rro rab u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n , a n d we a f f i rm. 2 I . DI S CUS S I ON A s a n in itia l m a tte r , “§ 1 9 8 3 c o n ta in s th e s o le c a u s e o f a c tio n a g a in s t s ta te ac t ors f or vi ol at i on s of § 19 81 . ” B u tts v . C o u n ty o f V o lu s ia , 222 F . 3d 891, 892 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 2 0 0 0 ) . Th u s , th e d i s tr i c tc o u r td i d n o te rri n d i s mi s s i n g G o d o y ’ s c l a i msTh ereis s omedis agre e ment a mongthepa

rtie s o ver whether t

heCounty

B oa rd is a 3 prop er de fendant, wh e ther H a bers ham Co unty

c an b elia

blefo r F ireChi e f B err

y ’sde c isi on

to terminate G odoy, and whether the individual De fenda nts are entitled to immunity . As the opinion concludes noneof Godoy ’s claims survive summar y judgment on their merits, we do not determinewhic h D e fendantsarelia bleun der which c laims .

3 un der § 19 81 . G od oy al so ra i se d h i s c l ai m s und erT i t l e V II and § 19 83 and, as th e s e c la im s h a v e th e s a m e e le m e n ts o f p r o o f a n d a n a ly tic a l f

r a m e w o rk , th e y w ill b e d is c u s s e d c o n c u rr e n tly . See Stal lw orth v. Sh ul er , 7 7 7 F .2 d 1 4 3 1 , 1 4 3 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 5 ) ( s ta tin g w h e r e ap la in tif f p r e d ic a te s liab ility u n d e rT itle V I I o n d is p a r a te tr e a tme n ta n d a l s o c l a i ms l i ab i l i ty u n d e r§ 1 9 8 3 , “ th e l e g a l e l e me n t s o f th e c l a i ms ar e i dent i ca l ”) . A . Fa i lu re to Hi re G od oy as se rt s the D ef

endant s’ i ni t i al fa i l ure t o h i re hi m const i tut ed an

3 a dve r s e e m pl oy m e nta c t i on e ve n though he w a s hi r e d t e n da y s l a t e r . H e m a i nt a i ns he suff er ed a m on et ary l oss bec ause of the del ayi n h i s s t artdat e. G od oy further co n t en d s h e w as n o th i red b ecau se th e D efen d an t s ch an g ed so m e o f th e can d i d at es’ te s t s c o r e s a n d , a s th e D e f e n d a n ts d id n o t o f

f e ra n o n d is c r im in a to ry r e a s o n f o rth is a c t i on, he i s e nt i t l e d t o a pr e s um pt i on of di s c r i m i na t i on.

“ W he the ra n e m pl oy e ri nt e nt i ona l l y di s c r i m i na t e d a ga i ns ta n e m pl oy e e or po t ent i al em pl oyee i s aqu es t i on of fa ct , w hi ch m aybe prov ed ei ther throu gh di re ct or ci rc um st ant i al evi dence. ” EE O Cv. Joe’s Ston e Crabs, Inc. , 296 F . 3d 1265,4

12 72 (11th C i r. 20 02 ). A bsentdi re ctevi dence of an emp l oyer ’ s di sc ri m i nat ory m ot i ve , a pl a i nt i f

f m a y e s t abl i s h hi s c a s e thr ough c i r c um s t a nt i a l e vi de nc e , us i ng the bur de n- s hi f

t i ng f r a m e w ork e s t abl i s he d by the S upr e m e C our ti n McD o n n e ll D ou glas C orp. v. G re en , 9 3 S . C t. 1 8 1 7 ( 1 9 7 3 ) . Joe’s Ston e Crabs, Inc. , 296 F . 3d at12 72 . U nd erthi s f

ra m ew ork, the pl ai nt i ff

fi rs tm ustes t abl i sh a p r im a fa c ie case o f d is c r im in a tio n , w h ic h c r e a te s a r e b u ttab le p r e s u m p tio n o f d is c r im in a tio n . I

d. In an act i o n al l eg i n g d i scri m i n at i o n th ro u g h fai l u re-t o -h i re, th e p l ai n t i ff est ab l i sh es a p r im a fa c ie c a s e b y s h o w in g th e f o llo w in g : (1) h e w a s a me mbe rof a pr ot e c t e d c l a s s ; ( 2) he app l i e d a ndw as qua l i f i e d f ora pos i t i on f

orw hi c h the de f

e n d an t w a s a c c e pt i ng ap p l i c a t i ons ; ( 3) de s pi t e hi s qua l i f i c a t i ons , he w a s nothi r e d; a nd (4 ) aft er h i s re

je c tio n th e p o si t i o n rem ai n ed o p en o r w as fi l l ed b y a p e r s o n o u ts id e h is p r o te c te d c la s s . Sc h o e n fe ld v . B a b b itt , 16 8 F . 3d 12 57 , 12 67 (11th C i r. 19 99 ). T he D ef endant s ul t i m at el y hi re d G od oy for the po si t i on he soug htaf t er i ni t i al l y r ej ec t i ng hi s app l i ca t i on . T here fore , G od oy ca nn otes t abl i sh a p r im a fa c ie c a s e of di s c r i m i na t i on thr ough f a i l ur e - t o- hi r e . A ddi t i ona l l y , G odoy di d not pr ovi de e vi de nc e the t e n- da y de l a y be tw e e n the i ni t i a l r e j e c t i on a nd the s ubs e que nt offe r a dv er se l y a ff

ec t ed hi s e m pl oym ent . T o the ext entthe evi dence s ho w ed G odoy di d notr e c e i ve hi s pa y f orthe f i r s tthr e e da y s of

hi s e m pl oy m e ntbe c a us e of the de l a y , the D e f

e nda nt s s ubs e que nt l y c om pe ns a t e d G odoy f orthe thr e e da y s , a nd5

G o d o y d id n o t p r o v id e e v id e n c e th a t th e d e la y o f th r e e - d a y s ’ p a y c a u s e d h im f in a n c ia l h a rm . M o reo v er, th e al l eg ed act i o n t ak en b y th e D efen d an t s t o al t er h i ri n g t est sco res o f o th er can d i d at es d i d n o tresu l ti n an ad v erse em p l o ym en tact i o n b ecau se the D e f e nda nt s ul t i m a t e l y hi r e d G odoy a nd, a s pr e vi ous l y di s c us s e d, a ny r e s ul t i ng de l a y i n hi r i ng G odoy di d notc ons t i tut e a n a dve r s e a c t i on. T he r e f or e , w e c onc l ude the di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rri n gr a nt i ng s um m a ry j udgm e nti n f a vorof the D e f e n d a n t s o n G o d o y ’ s f

a i l u r e - t o - h i r e c l a i m. B . H os t i l e W ork E nv i r onm e nt G od oy as se rt s he w as subm i tt ed t o a ho st i l e w ork encou nt eral m ostevery s hi f t , a nd tha tthi s ha r a s s m e ntc a us e d hi m e m ot i ona l di s tr e s s . G odoy m a i nt a i ns he w a s b a tte r e d b y h is s u p e rv is o r , w h o to ld h im to “[ g ]o b a c k to h is b o a t a n d s a il to S ou th A m er i ca [] w here he bel on gs. ” G od oy al l eges he w as subj ec tt o rac i al sl urs “a lm o s t e v e ry s h if

t” a n d r e c e iv e d a th r e a te n in g p h o n e c a ll. T h e e m p lo y e e h a s th e b u r d e n o f p r o v in g a h o s tile w o rk e n v ir o n m e n t. E dw ar ds v . W

al lac e Cm t

y . C ol l ege , 4 9 F. 3 d 1 5 1 7 , 1 5 2 1 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 1 9 9 5 ) . To e s t abl i s h a hos t i l e w ork e nvi r onm e nt , a pl a i nt i f f m us tde m ons tr a t e : ( 1) he be l ongs t o a pr ot e c t e d gr oup; ( 2) he ha s be e n s ubj e c t e d t o unw e l c om e ha r a s s m e nt ; ( 3) the hara ss m entw as base d o n the prot ec t ed chara ct er i st i c; (4) the haras sm entw as6

s uf f i c i e nt l y s e ve r e orpe rva s i ve t o a l t e rthe t e rm s a nd c ondi t i ons of e m pl oy m e nt and thu s c re at e adi sc ri m i nat ori l y abu si ve w ork env i ronm ent ; and (5) the em pl oyer i s r e s pons i bl e f

ortha te nvi r onm e ntunde ra the ory of e i the rdi r e c torvi c a r i ous liab ility . Mi l l erv. Kenw orth o f D otha n, Inc. , 27 7 F . 3d 12 69 , 12 75 (11th C i r. 2002) . T he f

ol l ow i ng f

ourf a c t or s a r e i m por t a nti n a na l y z i ng w he the rha r a s s m e nt obj e c t i ve l y a l t e r e d a n e m pl oy e e ’ s t e rm s orc ondi t i ons of e m pl oy m e nt : “ ( 1) the fr equency of the cond uct ; (2) the se veri ty of the cond uct ; (3) w hether the cond uct w a s phy s i c a l l y thr e a t e ni ng orhum i l i a t i ng, ora m e r e of f e ns i ve utt e r a nc e ; a nd ( 4) w he the rthe c onduc tunr e a s onabl y i nt e r f e r e [ d] w i th the e m pl oy e e ’ s j ob perf orm ance . ” I

d. a t1276. T he e m pl oy e e m us tpr e s e ntc onc r e t e e vi de nc e i n the f o rm o f s p e c if ic f a c ts , n o t ju s t c o n c lu s o ry a lle g a tio n s a n d a s s e r tio n s . See E arl eyv. Cham pi on I nt ’ l C or p. , 907 F . 2d 1077, 1081 ( 11th C i r . 1990) ( di s pa r a t e tr e a tm e nt ca se ). V i e w i ng the e vi de nc e i n the l i ghtm os tf a vor abl e t o G odoy , he di d not p r e s e n te v i d e n c e h e w a s s u b j e c t e d t o h a r a s s me n tth a to b j e c t i v e l y a l t e r e d th e t e rms or cond i t i on s of hi s e m pl oym ent . G od oy pres ent ed evi dence of onl y i sol at ed i nc i de nt s of

ha r a s s m e nta nd di d notpr e s e nte vi de nc e the i nc i de nt s a m ount e d t o the

“ e xtr e m e ” l e ve l of

di s c r i m i na t ory c onduc tr e qui r e d by T i t l e V I I . A ddi t i ona l l y , he di d notpr e s e nte vi de nc e i ndi c a t i ng the f r e que nc y orpe rva s i ve ne s s of theOn appe al, Godoy also contends the D efendants retaliated ag ainst him by : (1) not 4 graduating him from rookie school; (2) ba rringhim from a normal firef ighter sche dule; and (3) not grantinghim a full set of fire fighter duties. In his complaint and throughout the district court proce eding s, Godoy

limit ed his retaliation argument to his termination. Thus, to the ex tent Godoy is raisingthese a s separate retaliation claims for the first time on appe al, we do not consider the se arguments. See A cce ss Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co. , 385 F.3d 1324, 1331- 32 (2004) ( stating this Court considers issues raised for the first time on appe al only in limi ted circumstances) . 7 derogat ory c om m ent s he a l l eged w er e a i m ed athi m , no r di d h e provi de evi dence the c om m e nt s unr e a s onabl y i nt e r f e r e d w i th hi s j ob pe r f

or m a nc e . T hus , w e f

i nd no e vi de nc e r a i s i ng a ge nui ne i s s ue a s t o w he the rG odoy w a s s ubj e c t e d t o ha r a s s m e nt ba s e d on hi s r a c e orna t i ona l or i gi n tha tobj e c t i ve l y a l t e r e d the t e rm s orc ondi t i ons o f h is e m p lo y m e n t. T h e r e f o r e , w e a f

f irm th e g r a n t o f

s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t o n th is c l a i m. C . R e tal i ator

y T e rm i nat i on G od oy as se rt s hi s t erm i nat i on w as i n ret al i at i on for the com pl ai nthe fi l ed w i th th e E E O C w h en th e D efen d an t s i n i t i al l y fai l ed t o h i re h i m . G o d o y al so 4 c l a i m s the D e f

e nda nt ’ s a s s e r t i on tha the w a s f i r e d f ori ns ubor di na t i on i s pr e t e xtf or d is c r im in a tio n . R e t a l i a t i on i s a s e pa r a t e of f e ns e of T i t l e V I I , a nd the pl a i nt i f f ne e d notpr ove th e u n d e r ly in g c la im o f

d is c r im in a tio n f

o rth e r e ta lia tio n c la im to b e s u c c e s s f u l. G u p ta v . Fla . B d. o

f R eg e n ts , 212 F . 3d 571, 586 ( 11th C i r . 2000) . T o e s t abl i s h a p r im a fa c ie c a s e of

r e t a l i a t i on unde rT i t l e V I I , the pl a i nt i f f m us ts how : ( 1) he8

p art i ci p at ed i n an act i v i ty p ro t ect ed b y T i t l e V II; (2 ) h e su ffered an ad v erse e m pl oy m e nta c t i on; a nd ( 3) the r e i s a c aus a l c onne c t i on be tw e e n the pa r t i c i pa t i on in th e p r o te c te d a c tiv ity a n d th e a d v e r s e e m p lo y m e n t a c tio n . I d. a t 5 8 7 . A s i n a ra ci al di sc ri m i nat i on ca se , on ce a pl ai nt i ff w ho as se rt s aT i t l e V II ret al i at i o n cl ai m est ab l i sh es h i s p r im a fa c ie ca se , the em pl oyerthen h as the bu rden o f p r o d u c tio n to e s tab lis h a le g itim a te , n o n d is c r im in a to ry r e a s o n f o rits a c tio n s . Sul l i v an v . N

at ’ l R . R . P as s e nge rC or

p. , 17 0 F . 3d 10 56 , 10 59 (11th C i r. 19 99 ). If the e m pl oy e rs a t i s f

i e s i t s bur de n, thus r e butt i ng the pr e s um pt i on of r e t a l i a t i on, the pl ai nt i ff m ustthen d em on stra t e the em pl oyer ’ s r ea son i s apret extfor r et al i at ory c o n d u c t. I

d. E ven ass um i ng G od oy prov i ded suffi ci entevi dence of a p r im a fa c ie c a s e of r e t a l i a t i on, the D e f

e nda nt s pr of

f e r e d a l e gi t i m a t e nondi s c r i m i na t ory r e a s on f or G o d o y ’s te rm in a tio n – in s u b o r d in a tio n . G o d o y d id n o t p r e s e n t e v id e n c e th a t th is re as on w as pret ext . T here fore , w e a ff i rm the di stri ctcourt ’ s gra ntof sum m ary j u d g me n tt o th e D e f

e n d a n t s o n G o d o y ’ s r e t a l i a t o ry t e rmi n a t i o n c l a i m. D . C on spi racy G od oy cont ends the i nd i vi du al D ef endant s a ct ed pu rs uantt o a general an i m u s ag ai n stfi refi g h t er can d i d at es th atw ere n o tw h i t e A m eri can s. T o est ab l i sh a cau se o f act i o n u n d er § 1 9 8 5 (3 ), th e p l ai n t i ff m u stsh o w th e fo l l o w i n g el em en t s:9

( 1) a c ons pi r a c y ; ( 2) f orthe purpos e of

de pr i vi ng , e i the rdi r e c t l y or i ndi r e c t l y , a ny pe r s on orc l a s s of pe r s ons of

the e qua l pr ot e c t i o n of the l aw s, or of equal pri vi l eges and i m m un i t i es un der the l aw s; an d (3) an ac ti n furtherance of the conspi ra cy ; (4 ) w h ereby a per son i s e i ther i nj ur e d i n hi s p e r s on orpr ope r ty orde pr i ve d of a ny r i ghtorpr i vi l e ge o f a ci t i zen o f th e U n i t ed S t at es. D e nne y v . C i t y of A lbany , 2 4 7 F .3 d 1 1 7 2 , 1 1 9 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . A d d itio n a lly , a § 1985( 3) c l a i m r e qui r e s “ pr oof of i nvi di ous di s c r i m i na t ory i nt e nt ” on the pa r tof th e d e f e n d a n ts . T

ra w i n skiv. U

n i ted T ech s. , 3 1 3 F .3 d 1 2 9 5 , 1 2 9 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . A s pre vi ou sl y di sc usse d, G od oy di d n otshow ho w the D ef endant s’ i ni t i al rej ect i o n o f h i s can d i d acy fo r th e p o si t i o n resu l t ed i n an i n j u ry. A d d i t i o n al l y, G o d o y m ad e o n l y co n cl u so ry al l eg at i o n s reg ard i n g th e i n d i v i d u al D efen d an t s’ d i scri m i n at o ry i n t en tan d p ro v i d ed n o ev i d en ce su p p o rt i n g h i s al l eg at i o n s. T h erefo re, w e fi n d th atth e d i stri ctco u rtd i d n o terr i n g ran t i n g th e D efen d an t s’ m o tio n f o rs u m m a ry ju d g m e n t o n th is c la im . E . Mot i on f

orR e c ons i de r at i on G odoy a s s e r t s the di s tr i c tc our tabus e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng hi s m ot i on for r ec on si dera t i on because the di stri ctcourt ’ s dec i si on caused a m ani fe sti nj ust i ce be c a us e hi s a dm i s s i ons a nd t e s t i m ony s t a t i ng tha the be ga n w or k on A pr i l 26, 2 0 0 4 , w e r e in a d v e r te n tly a n d n e g lig e n tly e n te r e d in to th e r e c o r d . G o d o y s ta te s th is f a c tua l que s t i on c r e a t e d a ge nui ne i s s ue of m a t e r i a l f

a c tbe c a us e i tc oul d r e s ul ti n a r e a s o n ab le f

a c t- f in d e rr e tu rn in g a v e r d ic t in h is f a v o r .10

A d is tr ic t c o u r t ab u s e s its d is c r e tio n w h e n it m a k e s a n e rr o ro f la w . Q ui ntana v . J

e nne , 4 1 4 F .3 d 1 3 0 6 , 1 3 0 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . F e d e r a l R u le o f C iv il P r oc e dur e 60( b) ( 1) a l l ow s a pa r ty t o m ove a c our tf orr e l i e f f r om a f i na l j udgm e nt du e t o “ m i st ake, i nadv ert ence , surpri se , or excusabl e negl ec t . ” A n i nd i vi du al ap p e a l i n g a d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s d e n i a l o f r e l i e f u n d e rRu l e 6 0 ( b ) “ mu s tp r o v e s o me j ust i fi ca t i on for the re l i ef . ” C av al i e r e v . A l l

s tate I ns . C o. , 996 F . 2d 1111, 1115 ( 11th C i r . 1993) . A ddi t i ona l l y , a n appe l l a nt“ c a nnotpr e va i l s i m pl y be c a us e the d i stri ctco u rtp ro p erl y co u l d h av e v acat ed i t s o rd er. In st ead , ap p el l an tm u st d e m o n s tr a te a ju s tif

ic a tio n s o c o m p e llin g th a t th e c o u r t w a s r e q u ir e d to v a c a te its order. ” I d. G o d o y h as n o tm eth i s b u rd en o f d em o n strat i n g a reaso n “ so c om pe l l i ng” tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tw a s “ r e qui r e d” t o va c a t e i t s or de r . T hus , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rri n de ny i ng G odoy ’ s m ot i on f orr e c ons i de r a t i on. I I . CONCL US I ON T h e d istrict co u rt d idn o t errin g ra n ti n g su m m ar y ju d g m en t o n G o d o y’s c la im s u n d e rT itle V I I a n d § § 1 9 8 1 , 1 9 8 3 , a n d 1 9 8 5 ( 3 ) , a n d d id n o t ab u s e its di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng G odoy ’ s m ot i on f orr e c ons i de r a t i on. AF F I RME D.