The Honor able L ouis F. Obe rdorf er, U nited States District J udg e for the Dis t ri ct of * Columbi a, sitting by

desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 06a0770n.06 F iled: October 17, 2006 No. 05-4528 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
R O B E R T C A M P B E LL, Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt,
v. THE UNIVERSI TY OF AKRON, Def endant- Appellee
. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE N O R T H E R

N D IS T R IC T O F O H IO

Before: R OGER S a nd G R I F F I N , C ir c ui t

J ud g e s ; a nd OB ER

D OR F ER, D is t r ict Judge. * ROGERS, Circ uit Jud ge. Plaintiff-Appellant Robert Campbell appea ls the district court’s order g rantingsummary

judgme nt to Def

endant- Appellee The University of Akron. Campbell, an employ ee of

the Univer sity , broug ht claims of ra cial discrimina t i o n , re taliation, and ra cial hara ssment ag ainst the University for disciplinary

actions it took ag ainst him since the se ttlement of his prior discrimination, retaliation, and ha rassment law suit ag ainst the University , and for the University ’s repeated f

ailure to promote him. The district court held that Campbell could not establish a prima f

acie case of ra cial d i s cr i m i n at i on or re taliation with respec t to each of the disciplinary

actions the University took a g ainst him, and with respec t to all but one of the promotions he wa s denied. The district court held, in the a lternative, that even if Campb el l co u l d es t abli sh aNo. 05-4528

Campbell v. Unive rsity of Akron

- 2 - prima fa cie c ase wi t h respe ct to these a dverse employ ment actions, the Unive rsity had pre sented le g iti mate , n on -d isc ri min a tor y re a so ns fo r i ts ac tio ns that we re no t r e bu tte d b y Campb e ll a s p re te xt. The district cour

t held that Campbell did e stablish a prima fa cie c ase w ith respec t to one promotion he wa s denied whe re the University had not y et filled the position, but held that Campbell could not rebut the U niversity ’s leg itimate, non-discriminat o ry rea son as pre text . Finally , the district court he ld t hat Campb e ll d id n ot e sta bli sha pr ima fa c ie c a se of

ra c ia l ha ra ssm e nt.
Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

pr op e rl y g ra nte d s umm ary jud g me nt in f a vo r o f t he Un ive rs ity

e xce pt w ith
re sp e c t to c la ims ba se d o n thre e ins tanc e s o f m ino r d isc ipl ine
. Al tho ug h Cam pb e ll c ann ot e sta

bli sh a prima f acie case of di scrimination or har assment with respe ct to sever al of the disciplinar y actions the Un ive rs ity too k a g a ins t hi m, a s w e ll a s th e Un ive rs ity ’s fa ilure to p ro mot e him , h e c an e sta bli sh a prima f acie case with re s p ec t to three disciplinary actions the Unive rsity

took ag ainst him—a verba l warningfor violating a sa fety -lock policy , and an or al war ning a nd a wr itten warningfor violating a

lunch-bre ak pol ic y . T h e Un iv e rsity conce des that these a ctions were adver se employ ment actions under Title VI I
. The University prese nts suf ficient leg itimate, non-discriminatory rea sons for e ach w arning , but Campbell presents enoug h evidenc e to re but the University ’s re asons as pr e te xt. We up ho ld t

he re ma ini ngde te rm inatio ns of the dis tr ic t c ourt
. Bac kgr ound Robert Campbell has wor ked at the University as a Certified Master Heating Ve ntilation and Ai r Conditioning (“ HVAC”) Tec hnician in the Univer sity ’s Phy sical F acilities Oper ation CenterNo. 05-4528

Campbell v. Unive rsity of Akron

- 3 - (“PF OC”) since 2002. Prior to 2002, Campbell worked at the Univer s i t y as a Ma ster HVA C Te c hn ic ian. Campb e ll i s th e on ly Af ri c an- Am e ri c an in the HV AC sh op , a div isi on wi thi n the PF OC , and on ly on e of tw o Ce rt if

ie d M a ste r H VA C Te c hn ic ians . On Au g us t 28 , 2 00 2, Campb e ll s e ttl e d a laws uit wi th the Un ive rs ity , re le a sin g the Un ive rs ity from cla ims of discrimination and rac ial hara ssment and re tal i at i o n. Campbell alleg es that he continues to experience rac ial discrimination, rac ial hara ssment, and re taliation.
Di sc ipli nar y A c ti ons th e Uni ve r sit y To ok A ga inst Ca m pbe ll
Sin c e the se ttl e me nt o f C a mpb e ll’ s p re vio us laws u i t , t h e Un i v e r s i t

y h a s d i s c ipl ine d Ca

mpb e ll on five sepa

rate occa sions. Campbell has been disciplined for committing insubordination, twice violating the PF OC lunch-bre ak policy , violating the PF OC “l o ck o u t/tagout” proce dures, a nd fa lsi fy ingre c or ds
. I nsubordination First, in 2003, the P FOC iss ued C ampbell a verba l warningfor insubordination bec ause of his con du ct t owa rd h is superv is or, Ro bert Krau s. Dur in g a “coach in g sess io n” w it h Kr aus , C amp be ll
a lle g e dly “ re fu se d to dis c us s th e su bj ect ” of th e co a c hin g se ssi on , a nd “ a c te d in an in a pp ro pr iate fashion,” requiring Kra

us to e nd the session prematurely . J .A. 38 (Af f. of Rober

t Kraus at ¶¶3-6)
. The Unive rsity

contends that in 2004, a w hite employ ee w as al s o gi ven a ve rbal wa rning for insubordination toward his supervisor.No. 05-4528

Campbell v. Unive rsity of Akron

- 4 - Lunch bre aks Second, t h e P FO C disciplined Campbell for violating its lunch-brea k policy in 2003 and 2004. The PFO C require s an employ ee to take his lunch break from 11-11:30 a .m. eac h d ay , and to call his supervisor if he cannot take his break at the schedule d time.
I n 2003, the P FOC iss ued a verba l war ning to Campbell for takinghis lunch break later tha n the sche duled time without rece iving permission. Campbell had been wor king out ( i.e., lifting weig hts) with J ames Car starphen, a n Afric an-A merica

n Master Ele ctricia

n within the PFOC, and J ames Stewa

rt, an HV AC Master Te chnician at the University ’s Depa rtment of Residenc e L ife a nd Ho us ing , w ho wa s n ot a

P FOC employ e e a t th e tim e . T he PF OC a lso iss ue d a ve rb a l w arn ingto Carstarphe n.
I n 2004, Campbell rec eived a written wa

rning for, a g ain, taking his lunch break later tha n the
sc he du le d ti me wi tho ut f ir st r e c e ivi ngpe rm iss ion . Ca mpb e ll h a d b e e n w or

kin g ou t wi th T im Ho wa rd (a wh ite PF OC e mpl oy e e ), Cars tarp he n, and Ste wa rt . Ca mpb ell and

Cars tarp he n b oth
rec eived wr itten warning s, beca use for eac h it was his second offense , wher eas Howard r ece ived a verba l warningbeca

use this was his first offe nse. Afte r a g riev ance hear ing, the PFOC dropped Campbell’s written wa

rning , and noti fied Campbell that if he took a late lunch a g ain without asking permission, he would be suspe nded.
Th e Un ive rs ity

po int s o ut t

hat “ [i]n 2 00 4, a

Ca uc a sia n emp loye e wa s d isc ipl ine d f or the same issue [of violating the lunch-bre ak policy ]” and that “other Cauca sian employ ees r ece ived disciplineNo. 05-4528

Campbell v. Unive rsity of Akron

- 5 - during the fisca l y ear s of 2000-2003.” J .A. 44 (Af f. of Sandra S mith). Campbell prese nts evidence that this policy is rar ely enfor ced, including affidavits and de position t estimony of white e mploy ees statin g that the y have fr e qu e ntl y vio late d the po lic y wi tho ut b e ingpunis he d. J.A. 16 5 ( Af f. of Ti m Howar d at ¶¶ 13- 14); 168 (Af f. of Car l My ers at 2); 171 (Aff . of James St ewa

rt at ¶¶ 19-22).
Campb e ll a lso po int s to e vid e nc e that Kr a us ha s, on mul tip le oc c a sio ns , f

a lse ly re po rt e d to J oseph Gre g or, Dire ctor of Phy sical F acilities at the Unive rsity , that Campbell returned l at e fr om lunch. J .A. 164 (Af

f. of Tim Howa

rd at ¶¶ 10-12). Finally , Campbell prese nts evidence that he wa s being “ w a tc h e d ” b y G r e g o r ; Sa n dr a Sm it h , A s s o c iate D ir e c to r , A dmi n is tr a ti o n o f th e PF O C; and Kra us “bec ause of

his prior lawsuit and for

voicing his opinions about his treatment.” J .A. 162 (Af f. of James Carstarphe n at 2).
L ocks Third, in Dec ember

2004, the PFOC disci p l ined Campbell for violatingthe PFOC “lockout/tag out proce dure” —a new policy that was im plemented on De cembe r 1, 2004. The PF OC desig nates certain locks for “lockout/tag out.” L ocks t hat are desig nated f or “loc kout/tagout” may only be used to lock out store d or kinetic e n er gy
— in other words, the y

may only be used on a machine w ith stored or kinetic ener g y that is turned off, to pr event the ma chine f rom beingturned ba c k on and po ssi bly c a

us inginj ur

y . T he PF OC ha s a

wr itt e n p oli c y

to t his e ff e c t and re qu ir e s a ll
em p l o y ee s t o re ce i v e t ra i n i n g.
Th e PF OC iss ue d a

ve rb a l w arn ing to Campb e ll f or imp ro pe rl y

us ingon e of

the seNo. 05-4528

Campbell v. Unive rsity of Akron

- 6 - “lockout/tag out” locks to secur e a la dder. The PFOC resc inded the war ning a fter Campbell ag ree d to c omp le te and

pa sse d a no the r t ra ini ngc ours e in “ loc ko ut/ta g ou t” pr oc e dure s.
The Unive rsity

contends that in Oc tober 2004, a white employ ee w as g iven a ve rbal wa rning for violating the “lockout/tagout” policy
. Campbell claims that afte r he w as disciplined for violating the po lic y , he pe rs on a lly

ob se rv e d lo c ks be lon g ingto P F OC su pe ri nte nd e nts be ingus e d o n lo c ke rs , in v iol a tio n o f the po lic y . Kr a us state d that a lth ou g h s uc h lo c ks ha d b e e n u se d o n lo c ke rs in t he pa st, the se loc ks we re no t us e d o n lock ers aft er the ne w p oli c y wa s a do pte d. Campb e ll a lso po int s to statements by

other PFO C employ ees that the locks are commonly used i mproperly and no discipline comes fr om it. J .A. 162 (Af f. of J ames Carstarphe n at 2-3); 165 (Aff . of Tim Howar d at ¶¶ 17- 18); 167 (Aff . of Carl My ers at 1); 172 (Aff . of James St ewa

rt at ¶ 23- 25).
Fa lsify ing r ecor ds Finally , the PFOC disciplined Campbell for a lleg edly filling out an inaccur ate timeca rd for F e br ua ry 1, 20 05
. On his tim e c ard , Cam pb e ll wr ote that he w a s w or kin g fr om 1 1 a .m. un til 1 p .m. Both the University and C ampbell agr ee that Campbell was at the weight room at some point during this ti me, with Campbell claiming that he wa s in the weig ht room for only five-to- ten minutes befor e he wa s called a

way on a job. Campb el l also claims that videotape evidenc e ag ainst him was falsified. Campbe ll rece ived a ten- day suspensio n

f o r th is action. The Unive rsity prese nted evidenc e that “[t] here have been Cauc asian PFO C employ ees suspe nded and r ecommende d for ter mination by the PFOC for

falsification of rec ords” a nd that “Cauc asian PFO C employ ees ha ve bee n su s p e n d edNo. 05-4528

Campbell v. Unive rsity of Akron

- 7 - for 10 da y s for rule s violations.” J .A. 45 (Af f. of Sandr a Smith ¶ 16).
F ailure to P rom ote
Campb e ll a lle g e s that on fo ur se pa ra te oc c a sio ns he wa s d e nie d a pr omo tio n. Campb e ll d id not apply for the f irst position, interim Superintendent of the HVAC Shop, but did apply for the othe r thr e e po sit ion s.
I nterim Superintendent First, in la te 2 0 0 2 , Ca

mpbell was not promoted to interim Superintendent of the HVAC Shop, a position that went instead to Kra us, who shortly b ef

o re had bee n promoted to a full-time zone superintende nt positi on. The PFO C did not post t he interim Superintende nt positi on beca use,
ac co rd i n g t o Gr ego r, h e wa n t ed a fu l l -t i m e s u p er i n t en d en t i n t h e p o s i t i o n , an d t h er e w as n o ten o u gh time or money

to go thr oug h the ordinar y proce ss of posting the opening and intervie wing candidates. Campbell claims that the fa ilure to post this posi tion “wasn’t f air” but acknowle dg ed that he did not be lieve that it wa s rac ial discrimination. J .A. 77. Kra us was subseque ntly

g iven the Superintendent posit ion on a full-tim e basis beca use, according to Gre g or, Kra us had re cently

g one throug h the interviewproce ss to become a zone su p er i n t endent, and thus had the qualifications
nece ssary for the position.
After Kra us was g iven the full-time position, Campbell complained to the Univer sity ’s EEO Offic er. Campbe ll claims that he then suffe red harassment in the f orm of additional jobs that othersNo. 05-4528

Campbell v. Unive rsity of Akron

Campb e ll c la ims that he ha s six y e ars of e xpe ri e nc e in po ol m a int e na nc e . T he Un ive rs ity 1 claims that Campbell took the course to become a Certified Pool Operator, but failed that c ourse. For example, Campbell alleg es t hat a University employ ee told him to take the cer tification 2 course , which cost $200, but he w as told that someone h ad been hir ed on the da y he took the cer tification test. J .A. 103. - 8 - did not want to do and complaints about t he amount of time he would spend on jobs (inc luding a n officia l investigation). Superintendent of Ma intenance Second, Campbell applied f or a position as Superinten d en t of Maintenanc e at the Student Recre ation Center. This position, which wa s not within t he PFOC, wa s awa rded to Richar d Grizer, a white man. Campbell alleg ed that he was denied this promotion beca use he is Afr ican- Americ an. The University claims that it hired Grizer over Campbe ll because Campbell was less qualifie d, had le ss e xpe ri e nc e (p art ic ula rl y “ wi th b uil din g s tr a de s is su e s and
. . . p oo l ope ra

tio ns ” ), and wa s n ot a

“ Ce rt if ie d Po ol O pe rator .” J.A. 62 (A ff . of Cha rl e s Kun sma

n at ¶¶ 6- 7)
. Th e Un ive rs ity a lso c la ims t h a t b e i n g a “ C e rt i f

i e d P o o l O p e r a t o r ” w a s a m i n i m u m r e qu i r e m e n t f o r t h e p o s i t i o n . Ca mpb e ll 1 admits that he did not know the qualific ations or bac kg round of Gr izer, but thought that the hiring was on the ba sis of rac e bec ause G rizer was w hite, and because his treatment during the application proce ss “wasn’ t fair.” J .A. 103 (De p. of Robert Campbell at 127- 28). 2 2004 Building Maintenanc e Z one Superintende nt Third, in Dec ember

2004, Campbell interviewe d for the position of Building Maintenanc eNo. 05-4528

Campbell v. Unive rsity of Akron

The c ommitt ee did not ra nk Campb ell as one of

the top three applicants, a nd noted that 3 a lth ou g h Ca

mpb e ll “ int e rv ie we d w e ll, ” he ne e de d “ to d e ve lop his c omm un ic a tio n and

le a de rs hip skills.” J .A. 47-49 (D ef.’ s Mot. for Summ. J ., Ex . B- 1). - 9 - Z one Superin t en d en t within the PFOC. The committee that intervie wed the c andidates, w hich included Kr aus, dete rmined that James Mill er, w ho is white, was the most qualified a pplicant. The

3 committee conc l u d ed that Miller “inter viewed ve ry

well and possesse s the leade rship, experience and knowledg e nece ssary” for the position, and stated that his “ dedication, strongwo rk et h ic,
su pe rv isi on e xpe ri e nc e , k

no wl e dg e of th e cam pus and pu bli c re latio n s kil ls” ma de him the fi rs t choice for the positi on. J .A. 47 (De f.’s Mot. for Summ. J ., Ex . B- 1)

. Campbell claims that Miller was not qualified be ca u s e h e “almost elec trocuted himself” and he “ used to hanglights up [inc or re c tly ] an d th e y ’d fa ll on stu de nts .” J.A. 99 (D e p. of Rob e rt Campb e ll at 11 0- 11 ). Campb e ll claims that the hiring of Miller over himself constituted rac ial discrimination beca use he was the most qualified applicant a nd beca use Miller is white. 2005 Building Maintenanc e Z one Superintende nt Finally , in April 2005, Campbell interviewe d for the position of Building Maintena nce Z one Superintendent (in a

differ ent zone within the PFOC). The inter view committee r anked John Gr omo fs ky , w ho is wh ite , as the mos t qu a lif ie d a pp lic ant, c on c lud ingthat he “ int e rv ie we d v e ry we ll and possesses the leade rship, experience and knowledg e nec essar y ” for the position, and noted that h e “ d e mo n s tr a

te s e xc e ll ent communication skills, is very profe ssional ear

ning the respe ct of his pee rs and Univer sity colleagues” and is a “team pl ay er.” J .A. 51 (De f.’s Mot. for Sum m. J ., Ex
. B- 2). TheNo. 05-4528

Campbell v. Unive rsity of Akron

- 10 - committee ra

nked Campbell as the third most qualifi ed ap p l i cant, but noted that the c ommitt ee would not consider him if the first-choic e applicant ref used the position. The committee conc luded that Campbell “interview ed we ll providing a ccur ate a nswers to a ll of the interview que stions,” but that he “w as no t the most qualified candidate and de ficient in his supervisory experience and leade rship skills.” J .A. 51. Gre g or acknowledg ed that Campbell was qualifie d for the position, but stated that Campbell was not the most qualified c andidate an d wa s no longe r under consideration for the position.
With re sp e c t to e a c h of the se po sit ion s, Campb e ll c la ims that he “ wa s a nd is o ne of the mos t qualified employ ees” in the PFOC. See Campbell’s Br . at 8. Stewar t, Campbell’s former

supervisor, claimed that “Robert Campbell was more qualified to be a supervisor than was Rob Kraus[e].” J .A. 16 9

- 7 0 ( A f

f
. o f Jam e s S t e w art a t ¶

¶ 2 , 7 , 1 3 )
. F i n a l l y , C ar s t ar p h e n s t a t e d t h a t w h e n h e a sk e d h is
su pe rv iso r, Mark

Coo ntz, wh y

Campb e ll h a d b e e n d e nie d th e Z on e Sup e rv iso r p os iti on s, Coo ntz stated that “a s long a s Greg or and that outfit are in cha rg e ther e would b e no brown skinned
su pe rv iso rs .” J.A. 16 3 (A ff . of Jame s Ca

rs tarp he n at 3) . Ca

rs tarp he n a lso state d th a t Co on tz to ld him to “watch out when Robert Campbell” was with him beca use C ampbell was being “watched” and “ta rg et[ed]” by

Gre g or, Smith, and Kraus. J.A. 162 (Aff. of J ames Car starphen at 2).

P roce dural Hi story
Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

g ra nte d th e Univ e rs ity ’s mot ion fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt o n a llNo. 05-4528

Campbell v. Unive rsity of Akron

- 11 - counts—rac ial discrimination, retaliation, and r acia l hara ssment. The dist rict court held that none of the disciplinary

actions take n ag ainst Campbell—for committing insubordination, violating the lunch-bre ak policy , violating the “ lockout/tag out” policy , and fa lsify ing r ecor ds—constituted rac ial dis c ri min a tio n. F or

e a c h f or m of dis c ipl ine , th e c ourt

he ld that Campb e ll fa ile d to e sta bli sh a pr ima fac ie case of discrimination bec ause he could not show that similarly -situated white e mploy ees w ere tr e a te d mo re fa

vo ra bly tha n Ca mpb e ll. F or

e a c h f or m of dis c ipl ine , the dis tr ic t c ourt a lso he ld t

hat, assuming that Campbell could establish a prima f a c ie c ase of

discrimination, the University provided
a le g iti mate , n on -d isc ri min a tor y re a so n f or the dis c ipl ine that Campb e ll fa ile d to s ho w w a s p re te xt.
The district cour

t also held that the University ’s failure to pr omote Campbell, on eac h of four
occa sions, was not rac ial discrim i n at i on. The c ourt first held that Coontz’s comment that under
curr ent manag ement ther e would not be a ny “brow n skinned supervisors” was not direc t evidence of discrimination. The c ourt then held that Campbell fa iled to establish a prima fa cie c ase of discrimination with respe ct t o the Univer sity ’s fa ilure to promote him to the interim Superintendent position i n 2002, the Mana g er of Maintenanc e pos i t i o n in 2004, and the Z one Superintende nt position i n 2004, beca

use C ampbell failed to show that these posit ions wer e given to less qualifie d non-minorities. The court also held that even if Campbell were able to esta blish a prima fa cie c ase, the Univer sity p resented leg itimate, non-discriminatory rea sons for not promoting Campbell, and Campbell did not rebut these re asons as pr et ex t
. Finally , with respec t to the 2005 Z one Sup e ri nte nd e nt p os iti on , the dis tr ic t c ourt he ld t hat a lth ou g h Ca

mpb e ll e sta

bli sh e d a pr ima fa c ie c a se beca use the posit i o nre m ai n edu n fi l l ed , t h e U n i v er s i t y aga i np re s en t edleg itimate, non-discriminatoryNo. 05-4528

Campbell v. Unive rsity of Akron

Th e dis tr ic t c ourt a lso re ite rate d it s r e je c tio n o f C a mpb e ll’ s a

rgume nts tha

t th e Un ive rs ity 4 treated white employ ees diff ere ntly , for the sa

me re asons g iven in its discussion of Campbell’s dis c ri min a tio n c la ims
. - 12 - re a so ns fo r n ot p ro mot ingCampb e ll that he did no t r e bu t a s p re te xt. On Campbell’s re taliation claims, the district court first held that Campbe ll’s alleg ed dire ct
e vid e nc e of

re ta liatio n ( Coo ntz’ s com me nt that man a g e me nt wa s tar g e tin g and watc hin g Campb e ll) was insuffic ient to establish a prima fa cie c ase be cause the evidenc e was a conc lusory statement by
a no n-d eci sion- make r. Th e c ourt the n h e ld t

hat Campb e ll’ s in dir e c t e vid e nc e wa s in su ff ic ie nt t o establish a prima f

acie case of re taliation beca use Campbell could not show a cau s al connection b e t w e e nt h e a dv e r s e e mp l o ym e n ta c t i o n s an d C a mp b e l l ’ s e x e r c i s e o f

p r o t e c t e d a c t i v i t y. 4
F ina lly , th e dis tr ic t c ourt

g ra nte d s umm ary

jud g me nt t o th e Un ive rs ity on Campb e ll’ s c la ims of ra cial har assment. The district c ourt found that Campbell’s Response to the University ’s Motion for Summary

J udg ment failed to addre ss this claim, and conseque ntly revie wed only the suffic iency of the Unive rs i t y ’s argument. The c ourt found that Campbell’s a lleg ations that he is often for ced to work alone and g ets less favor able wor k assig nments were not supported by evidenc e, and the re
was no e vidence that these a lleg ed for ms of hara ssment were based on Campbell’s rac e nor that they interfe red w ith his work perfor mance .

DiscussionNo. 05-4528

Campbell v. Unive rsity of Akron

- 13 - Th is c ourt re vie ws the dis tr ic t cou rt ’s or de r g ra

nti ngsumma

ry jud g me nt de novo
. W

right v. Murray Guard, I

nc. , 455 F.3d 702, 706 ( 6th Cir. 2006). A motion for summary judgme nt may

be g rante d only

“if the ple ading s, depositions, answers to interr og atories, a nd admissions o n file, toge ther with the aff

idavits, if any , show that there is no g enuine 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.” Fe d. R. Civ. P roc. 56( c). Summary judgme nt is not appropriate “ if the evidenc e is suc h that a rea sonable jury could re turn a ve rdict for the nonmoving pa

rty .” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, I nc. , 477 U.S. 242, 2 4 8 (1986). Campbe ll’s evidenc e is to be believe d, and all “justifiable inf ere nces” are draw n in his favor. See id. at 255.
1. Discrim ination
I t is un lawf

ul und e r Tit le VI I fo r an e mpl oy e r “t o disc ri min a te a g a ins t any ind ivi du a l w ith respe ct to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileg es of e mploy ment, beca

use of suc h individual ’ s r a c e , c o lo r , r e li g io n , s e x, o r n a ti o n a l o r ig in
. ” 4 2 U
. S. C. § 2 0 0 0 e - 2 ( a ) ( 1 )
. Suc h discrimination in the making a nd enfor cing contra cts is prohibited under 42 U.S.C . § 1981. I n the context of employ

ment discrimination, the analy sis of claims under § 1981 is identical to that under Title VI I
. Noble v. Brinke r Int’l, Inc. , 391 F.3d 715, 720 ( 6th Cir. 2004).
To succe ed in his ra ce d iscrimination claims, Campbell must navigate the fa miliar Mc Do nn e ll D ou

gla s b u rden- shifting test. See Braithwai te v. Timke n Co. , 258 F.3d 488, 493 ( 6th Cir. 2001). F irst, Campbell has the burde n to est ab l i s h a p ri ma fa cie c ase of rac ial discrimination. McD onnell Douglas Corp. v. Green , 411 U.S. 792 , 802 (1973). Sec ond, if Campbell makes suchNo. 05-4528

Campbell v. Unive rsity of Akron

For rea sons that are not entirely clea r, the Unive rsity

does not contest that the disciplinary 5 a c tio ns the PF OC too k a g a ins t Campb e ll w e re “ a dv e rs e e mpl oy me nt a c tio ns ” a c tio na

ble un de r T itl e VI I . T heref

or e , w e do no t de c ide tha t is su e , a nd a ssume fo r p ur

po se s o f t his op ini on

that th e se disciplinary

actions do constitute “a dverse employ ment actions.” Com

pa re Ha y ne s v . Le v e l 3 Com mc ’n s, LLC , 4 5 6 F. 3 d 1 2 1 5 , 1 2 2 4 (1 0 t h C i r . 2 0 0 6 ) (“ A w ri t t en wa rn i n g may be an a dv e rs e employ ment action only

if it effe cts a sig nifica n t chang e in the plaintiff’ s employ ment status.”); W hittaker v. N. Ill. Univ. , 424 F.3d 640, 648 (7th Cir. 2005) (holding that written wa rning s were not adver se employ

ment actions in that ca se for either discr imination or retaliation purposes)
. - 14 - a pr ima fa c ie show in g o f dis c ri min a tio n, the Un ive rs ity the n h a s th e burd e n “ to a rt ic ulate so me l egi t imate, nondiscriminatory rea son” for

the adve rse e mploy

ment action. See id. a t 8 02; Brait hwa ite , 2 5 8 F
. 3 d

a t 4 9 3
. F in a ll y , if

th e U n iv e r s it

y s u c c e s s f u ll y arti c u late s a

le g itimate, nondiscriminatory

rea son for the adverse employ ment action, C ampbell has the burden to show that the Univer sity ’s re ason for the adve rse e mploy

ment action is prete x t f

or what is, in essenc e, unlawf ul
r a c ia l d is c r im in a ti o n. S

ee McDonnell Douglas , 4 11 U. S. at 80 4; Brait hwa ite , 258 F.3d at 493. Campbell “ca

n demonstrate pr etext by showing that the [University ’s] prof fer ed rea son (1) ha s no basis in fac t, (2) did not actua lly motivate the [University ’s] challeng ed conduc t, or (3 ) was insufficient to wa

rra nt the challeng ed conduc t.” Dews v. A.B. D ick Co. , 231 F .3 d 101 6, 10 21 (6 th Cir. 2000).

a. Discipline Campbell has pre sented suff icient evidence to establish a prima fac ie case of discr imination wi th r e sp e c t to the dis c ipl ine he re c e ive d fo r vio latin g the PF OC lun c h- br e a k and “ loc ko ut/ta g ou t” policies, and is able to r ebut the University ’s purporte d leg itimate, non-discriminatory rea sons for 5 the discipline as pre text . Campbell is not, however, a b l e to establish a prima fa cie c ase ofNo. 05-4528

Campbell v. Unive rsity of Akron

- 15 - discrimination with respec t to the discipline he rec eived f or commi t t i n g i n subordination and fa lsi fy ingre c or ds . B e c a

us e thi s is a dis pa

ra te -t re a tme nt c a se , Campb e ll may e sta bli sh a pr ima fa c ie
case of discrimination by

showing “(1) that he wa s a member of a protected c lass and (2) that for the
same or simil ar conduct he was treated diff ere ntly than similarly -situated non-minority employ ees.” Mitchell v. Toledo Hospital , 964 F.2d 577, 582- 83 (6th Cir. 1992).
i. W arning for Insubordinat ion
The district cour

t corre ctly

held that Campbell did not establis h a p ri m a facie c ase of discrimination wit

h r e s p e c t t o h is discipline for insubordination beca use he f ailed to demonstrate that a similarly -situated white employ ee was t reated l ess favorably for a simil ar a ct of insubordination. To e sta bli sh a pr ima fa c ie c a se of dis c ri min a tio n, Campb e ll mus t sh ow that he wa s tr e a te d d if fe re ntl y than s imilarly -situated white employ ees. See id. Campbell has not ref err ed to any

evidenc e in the
re c or d th a t w ou ld s ug g e st that he wa s tr e a te d d if fe rentl y th an s imi larl y -s itu a te d w hit e e mpl oy e e s. I n f a c t, th e U n iv e r s it

y p r o v id e d e v id e n c e th a t a

w h it e e mp lo y e e w a s g iv e na v e r b a l w ar n in g f or insubordination in 2004.
Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

a lso c or re c tly c on c lud e d t

h a t , a ssu min g Campb e ll c ou ld m a ke a pr ima fa c ie showing , the Univer sity

had provided a legitimate non-discriminatory rea son for the discipline in the form of e vidence that Campb el l had bee n insubordinate. The University prese nted evidenc e that Campbell was insubordinate by ref using to pa

rt icipate in a c oachingsession with Kraus a nd by calling Kra

us a “r acist” a

nd a “ba by fac e boy .” See J .A. 41.No. 05-4528

Campbell v. Unive rsity of Akron

- 16 - Campbell has not prese nted evi d ence suffic ient to rebut the Unive rsity ’s leg itimate, nondiscriminatory

rea s o n as prete x t. Campbell can “ demonstrate pr etext by showing that the [University ’s] prof

fer ed rea son . . . has no basis in fac t.” De ws , 231 F.3d at 1021. Campbell arg ues only that he wa s not insubordinate, and provide s his own testimony as evide nce. H oweve r, this court has held that “ the plaintiff’s de nial of the de fenda nt’s articulated leg itimate r e a s o n w it h o ut pr oducing substantiation for t he denial is insufficient for a ra ce disc rimination claim to withstand a motion for summary judgme nt.” Mi tc he ll , 964 F.2d at 585. Here , Campbell has fa iled to present a ny evidenc e to s ho w that the PF OC dis c ipl ine d h im f or a re a so n o the r t

ha n h is a c tua l in su

bo rd inatio n. He sim

ply de nie s th a t he wa s in su

bo rd inate ; th a t is no t su ff ic ie nt t o d e mon str a te pr e te xt.
I n addition, this court has held in an unpublished dec ision that, in t he conte x t of discipline fo r v iol a tin g e mpl oy e r r

ule s, “ an e mpl oy e r m ay

su c c e ssf ull y re bu t any pr ima fa c ie c a se of

dis pa rate treatment by

showing that it honestly

believed that the employ ee c ommitt ed the violation.” Ha rri s v. Elec . Data Sys. Corp. , No. 94 -18 88 , 19 96 WL99 31 1, a t *6 (6 th C ir . M ar. 6, 19 96 ); se e als o Brait hwa ite , 258 F.3d at 493-94. Campbell admits in his depositi on testimony that he ca lled Kra

us

“ ho me bo y ” and

sa id t hat K ra us wa s a c tin g lik e a

ra c ist , th a t he ra ise d h is voi c e , an d that th e purp os e of the meeting never was accomplished because he beg an an off- topic discussion of Kra us’s abilities as a P FO C em p loy ee. G iven these a dmissions , the Univer sity was justified in conc luding that Campbell was beinginsubordinate. Reg ardle ss, Campbell d o es n o t ch all eng e the f act that the University

honestly believed that Campbell was beinginsubordinate.
ii. W arnings for Viol ating Lunch-break PolicyNo. 05-4528

Campbell v. Unive rsity of Akron

- 17 - Campbell has m ade a prim a facie showing that the disc ipline that he re ceive d for violating t h e P FO C l u n ch -b re akp o l i cy , wh i ch re qu i re d em p l o y ee s t o n o t i fy th ei r sup erv i s o rs b ef o re t ak i n g a lunch bre ak outside of their allotted time period, wa s rac i al d i s cr i mination. The PFOC twice disciplined Campbell for violating the lunch bre ak policy : in 2003 (verba l warning ) and in 2004 (written warning ). Both ti mes, Campbell took his lunch break out side his schedule d time without first rec eiving permission from a supe rvisor. Assuming the e mploy

ment action wa s sufficiently adver se, see supra note 5, Campbell has
e sta bli sh e d a pr ima fa c ie c a se of

dis c ri min a tio n b e c aus e he has pr e se nte d e vid e nc e that w hit e employ ees were treated di ffe rently for sim ilar conduct. Se e Mi tc he ll , 96 4 F .2 d a t 58 2- 83 . Ca mpb e ll prese nted af

fidavits of other PF OC employ ees who claimed that they have violate d the lunch bre ak policy without being disc i plined and that the policy is commonly

violated without the offe nders being punished. See J .A. 165 (Aff. of Tim Howar d at ¶¶ 13-14) ( “I t was and still is common practice for PFO C employ ees to re turn late fr om lunch. The only people I know who re ceive d any

discipline for r eturninglate fr om lunch are people like my self who we re se en w ith Robert Campbell.”); 168 (Aff . of Carl My ers at 2) (“I h av e persona lly

started lunch late and g one over and neve r bee n dis c ipl ine d. ” ); 17 1 ( Af

f. of Jame s Ste wa

rt a t ¶ ¶ 1 9-2 2) (“I kn ow tha t it

is c omm on

fo r w or ke rs to return late from t h ei r l unch bre ak whe n they have le ft late for

their lunch bre ak. I

was ne ver disciplined for re turning late fr om lunch. Ihave ne ver know n any wh i t e employ ee who was dis c ipl ine d f

or re tur nin g late fr om l un c h. ” ). Th e dis tr ict cou rt r e je c te d th is e vid e nc e be c a us e it deter mined that Campbell failed to e stablish that the PFOC knew that these employ ees ha d violatedNo. 05-4528

Campbell v. Unive rsity of Akron

The Unive rsity

prese nts evidence that a white e mploy ee w as disci p lined for violating the 6 lun c h p oli c y

in 2 00 4. Th is a

pp e ars to refe r t o H ow ard , w ho wa s w ithCampb e ll w he n Ca mpb e ll violated the policy
. The University also prese nts evidence that other white e mploy ees w ere punished fr om 2 00 0- 03 , b ut d oe s n ot p ro vid e numbe rs or date s. I n li g ht o f t he a tte statio ns of

Ho wa rd , M y e rs , and Stewar

t, a rea sonable jury

could still believe that Campbell was be ing tr eate d differ ently than wh ite e mpl oy e e s. The fa ct that Howa

rd re ceive d a ver

bal war ning where as Campbell re ceive d a wr itten 7 wa rn ing is imm a te ri a l be c a

us e thi s wa s Ho wa

rd ’s fi rs t of

fe ns e and Campb e ll’ s se c on d. Campb e ll also rec eived only

a ver bal war ning a fter his fir st offense
.

- 18 - the policy , and thus, these e mploy ees w ere not simi larly -situated. J.A. 232-34. Campbell’s evidenc e is sufficie nt to permit the infere nce that the PFOC d id indeed have kn ow le dg e of

vio latio ns of

the lun c h b re a k p oli c y . O n a mot ion fo r summa ry jud g me nt, a

c ourt mus t believe the plaintiff’s evide nce a nd all “justifiable infe renc es” a re dr awn in his favor
. See A nderson , 477 U.S. at 255. I f a juror wer e t o b el i ev e Howard, My ers, a nd Stewart, a

nd deter mine that the lunch-bre ak policy

is commonly

violated, the juror c ould easily make the sma ll inferential step that the PFOC must have known that the pol icy was be ing violate d. See E EOC v. Minne apolis Elec. 6 S t ee l Casti ng Co. , 5 5 2 F
. Su p p . 9 5 7 , 9 6 3 ( D
. M inn . 1 9 8 2 ) ( f in d in g w id e s p r e a d

r u le v io lations sufficie nt to establish that employ er kne w of violations). Such an infere nce become s even strong er wh e n c omb ine d w ith the fa c t that Kr a us a dmi ts t o h a vin g vio late d th e lun c h- br e a k p oli c y on mul tip le
occa sions when he wa s a tec hnician. J.A. 205.
The Unive rsity , though, a rg ues that the fact that Howar d, who i s white, was disciplined for
v i o l a t i n g t h e l u n c h b r e a k p o l i c y i s e v i d e n c e t h a ts i m i l ar l y s i tu a t e d e mp l o ye e s w e r e t r e a t e d

e qu a l l y. 7 Howeve r, Howa

rd cla ims that the only

time he was disciplined f or violating the l unch break policyNo. 05-4528

Campbell v. Unive rsity of Akron

- 19 - was whe n he wa s with Campbell. Campbell also presents evidence showingthat Gre g or, Kra us, and Smith w e re targ e tin g him , and th at Krau s wa s sp yingon him wh e n h e wo uld

wo rk ou t du ri nghis lun c h b re a k. I f a

jur or be lie ve d thi s evi den ce, he o r s he c ou ld c on c lud e that H ow ard wa s o nly punished bec aus e o f h i s association with Campbell, or that he w as only punished to avoid what would have be en an othe rwise una voidable appe ara

nce of discrimination. Campbell has also demonstrated that the Univer sity ’s purporte d leg itimate, nondiscriminatory

rea son for Campbell’s discipline—Campbell’s violation of the lunc h-bre ak policy —was pre text . To demonstrate p re t ex t , Campbell may demonstrate that the University ’s
rea son “wa s insufficient to war rant [the University ’s] challeng ed conduc t.” De ws , 231 F.3d at 1021. Campbell has done this by providing evidenc e that co u l d s h o w t hat the PFOC kne w about widespre ad violations of the rule, but only chose to punish Campbell. Se e Pe rry v . M c Gi nn is , 209 F .3 d 5 97 , 6 02 (6 th C ir
. 20 00 ) (no ting that e vid e nc e of dis c ipl ine of

bla c k e mpl oy e e fo r r

ule vio la tio ns fo r w hic h o the r e mpl oy e e s we re no t di sc ipl ine d s up po rt s argume nt t hat vi olatio n o f r

ule
wa s p re te xt fo r d isc ipl ine ); cf. Mc Donnell Douglas , 41 1 U. S. a t 80 4 ( statin g that f a ilure to f ir e wh ite employ ees w ho eng ag ed in same a ct that was e mploy er’ s purported r eason f or firingblack e mploy ee
c ou ld b e e vid e nc e of

pr e te xt). Th e re fo re , Ca

mpb e ll h a s me t hi s b ur de n o f e sta bli sh ingpr e te xt.
iii. W arning for Viol ating “L ockout/tagout” Procedures Campbell also established a pr ima fa ci e ca se of discr imination with respect to the ver bal
war ning he rec eived f

or violating the PFOC “loc kout/tagout” policy by using a “lockout/tag out” l ockNo. 05-4528

Campbell v. Unive rsity of Akron

- 20 - to secure a ladde r bec ause he prese nted evidenc e that he is the only PFOC employ ee to have be en disciplined for violating the policy and that other

employ ees f

reque ntly violate the p o l i cy

without being disciplined. Se e Mi tc he ll , 9 64 F .2 d at 58 2- 83 . Ca rs tarp he n c la ime d th a t “ loc ko ut /t ago ut” locks “a re use d for many

purposes includinglocking up equipment, ladder s, g ener ators, tools, tool bo xes, and loc ke rs .” J.A. 16 2. Ste wa rt c la ime d that he ha d u se d “ loc ko ut/ta g ou t” loc ks imp ro pe rl y in th e p a s t w it

h o u t b e in g d is c ip li n e d , an d th a t th e lo c k s ar e “ r o u ti n e ly an d c u s to ma rily ” used i mp r o p e r l y , y e tt h e o n l y

e mp l o y e e h e kn o w s o f

w h o w a s p u n i s h e d

f o r i ti s C a mp b e l l
. J
. A
. 1 7 2
. In addition, Campbell claims to have personally observe d the improper use of “loc kout/tagout” locks on locker s after

he wa s disciplined.
T h e Univer sity

argues that evide nce that white employ ees ha d violated the policy without punishment is i n s u fficie nt to establish a prima fa cie c ase be cause these e mploy ees w ere not simil arly -situated in that (1) the re w as no evide nce that these employ ees wer e ever caug ht and not disciplined; and (2) Campbell did not show that these e mploy ees violate d the new policy (instituted in Dece mber 2004) instea d of the old policy . Although the question is close, the re cord shows sufficie nt evidence to ge t past summary judgme nt. First, a r easona ble juror c ould infer f

rom evidenc e that employ ees “ro u t i n el y and customar ily ” used “ lockout/tag out” locks improper ly and from evide nce that Campbell personally observe d these locks being used in the open on locke rs, that manag ement wa s awa

re that other employ ees were violating the policy . Second, a r easona ble juror could infer

from Campbell’s e vidence that white employ ees c ontinued to use “lockout/tag out” locks improperly

under the new policy . Campbell claims to ha ve persona lly observe d improper use of theNo. 05-4528

Campbell v. Unive rsity of Akron

The Unive rsity

argues that evide nce that a white employ ee w as punished in 2004 shows that 8 simil arly situated employ ees were treated s imilarly
. Howeve r, i n light of Campbell’s evidenc e that the “lockout/tag out” policy was routinely

violated by

white employ ee s wh o wer e not disciplined, t h e r e i s s t i l l a

g e nu i n e i s s u e o f

m a t e r i a l f

a c tf o r t h e j u r y. - 21 - loc ks after

he wa s pun ish e d und e r the ne w pol ic y . J.A. 87 . A lso , th e c la ims of wi de sp re a d mi su se of locks by Stewart and Carstarphe n, althoug h not expl icitly stating a time frame , permit an infe renc e that the misuse of the locks c ontin u ed af t er the new policy

was a dopted in Dec ember 2004. For
e xamp le , St e wa

rt state d in an a ff

ida vit date d July 29 , 20 05 , that th e se loc ks “ were and are ro uti ne ly
and c us tom ari ly ” mis us e d in the PF OC
. Th e re fo re , Cam pb e ll’ s evi de nc e is suf

fi c ie nt t o e sta

bli sh a prima f acie case of ra cial discrimination. Campbell also succe ssfully rebuts the University ’s purported leg itimate, non-discriminatory
rea son for the discipline—violation of the “ lockout/t agout” policy —as pre text
. Campbell may

8 demonstrate prete x t by showing that the University ’s proff ere d rea son “wa s insufficient to war rant [t h e Un iversity ’s] challeng ed conduc t.” De ws , 231 F.3d at 1021. Campbell’s evidenc e that sim ila rl y -s itu a te d whi te e mpl oy e e s we re no t disc ipl ine d f or vio latin g the “ loc ko ut/ta g ou t” po lic y is sufficie nt to permit a finding of pre text
. Se e Pe rry , 209 F.3d at 602.
iv. Suspension for Falsif ying Rec ords
The district cour

t corre ctly

held that Campbell’s ten-da y suspension in Febr

uary 2005 does not establish a prima fa cie case of rac ial discrimination. To establish a prima f acie case of dis c ri min a tio n, Campb e ll mus t sh owthat he wa s tr e ated diff e re ntl y tha n s imi larl y -s itu a te d w hit eNo. 05-4528

Campbell v. Unive rsity of Akron

- 22 - employ ees. Se e Mi tc he ll , 964 F .2 d at 582 -8 3. Th e on ly e vid e nc e Campb e ll r e fe rs thi s c ourt to i s h is claim that the videotape which ser ved as e v i d en ce in Campbell’s disciplinary hear ing w as alter ed or fa lsified. See J .A. 92-93. Campbell has not a lleg ed that white e mploy ees w ho wer e ca ug ht fa lsi fy ingre c or ds we re no t si mil arl y dis c ipl ine d. Th e re fo re , Cam pb e ll f a ile d to e sta

bli sha pr ima fac ie ca se of discr imination.
Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

a lso c or re c tly c on c lud e d that, e ve n h a d Ca mpb e ll e sta

bli sh e d a pr ima fa c ie
case o f d is c r im in a ti o n , th e U n iv e r s it y p r e s e n te d a le g it im a te , n o n - d is c r im in a to r y r e a s o n f

o r the dis c ipl ine that Campb e ll ha s not sho wn to be pr e te xt. Th e Un ive rs ity pr e se nte d e vid e nc e that w hit e
e mpl oy e e s, in fa c t, have be e n susp e nd e d an d re c omm e nd e d for te rm inatio n f

or fa lsi fy ingre c or ds
. J .A. 45. Campbell’s mere alleg ation that the evidenc e ag ainst him wa s altere d is insufficient to show prete x t. Mi tc he ll , 964 F.2d at 585 (holding that “the plainti ff’ s denial of the def endant’ s articulate d leg itimate rea son wit h o u t p ro d ucing substantiation for the denia l is insufficient for a rac e discrimination claim to withstand a motion for summary judgme nt”).
b. Fa ilu re to Pro mo te
Campb e ll fa ils to e sta

bli sh ra c ia l dis c ri min a tio n wi th re sp e c t to the Un ive rs ity ’s f ail ure to promote him. Campbell attempts to use both direct and indire ct evidenc e to establish discrimination. See W exle r v. W hite’s Fine Furniture, Inc

. , 317 F.3d 564, 570 ( 6th Cir. 2003). Campbell’s s upposed direc t evidence of discrimination with respe ct to the Univer sity ’s failure to promote him is insufficient. “ [D] irec t evidence is that evidence which, if be lieved, re quiresNo. 05-4528

Campbell v. Unive rsity of Akron

For the same rea son, we also reje ct Campbell’s ar gument that Coontz ’s comment is indirect 9 evidenc e of discr imination. - 23 - the conc lusion that unlawful disc ri mination was at lea st a motivating fa ctor in the e mploy er’ s actions.” Jack

lyn v. Sc hering-Plough He althcare Products Sales Corp. , 176 F.3d 921, 926 ( 6th Cir. 1999). I f Campbell ca

n establish direc t evidence of discrimination, the Univer sity then h as the burden to show that it would have taken the sa me adve rse e mploy

ment action without the motivation of di scrimination. See id. Her e, Campbell’s direc t e vidence of discrimination is that Car starphen attested that his supervisor, Coontz, said that “ as long as Gre g or and that outfit are in cha rg e ther e would be no brow n skinned supervisors.” J .A. 162.
The district cour

t held that this was not direct e vidence of discrimination bec ause the re cord contra dicts Coontz ’s statement a nd beca use Coontz was not a decisi on-make r with respe ct to the promotions Campbell did not rec eive. Coont z’s statement i s not direc t evidenc e of discr imination beca use it is prese nted as simply Coontz ’s opinion of the motives behind the PFOC’s ma nag ement decisions. The r ecor d does not sug g est that Coontz based this statement on any objective e vidence such as state ments made by Gre g or or other manag ement officia ls w ithin the PFOC. This c ourt has held that “[m] ere persona l beliefs, conje cture and speculation a re insuff icient to support an infe renc e of” discr imination. Chappell v. GTE Products Co rp. , 8 0 3 F. 2 d 2 6 1 , 2 6 8 (6 t h C i r. 1 9 8 6 ) ( age discrimination); Grizzell v. City of Col umbus Div. of Police , 461 F.3d 711, 724 ( 6th Cir. 2006) (ra cial discrimination). There fore , Coontz ’s conclusory comment is not sufficient dire ct evidenc e of discrimination. 9No. 05-4528

Campbell v. Unive rsity of Akron

- 24 - Campbell also prese nted indirect e vidence of discrimination with respe ct to the Univer sity ’s failure to promote him on four sepa rate occa sions. Campbell can establish a prima facie case if he shows that “(1) [he] is a m ember of a pr otected c lass; (2) [he] applied for and w as qualified f or a promotion; (3) [ h e] was consider ed for and wa s denied the pr omotion; and (4) an individual of sim ila r q ual if ica ti ons w ho wa s n ot a

me mbe r o f t

he pr ote c te d c la ss r e c e ive d th e job a t th e tim e [C ampbell’s] request for

the promotion was denie d.” W hite v. Columbus Metro. Housing Auth. , 429 F.3d 232, 240 ( 6th Cir. 2005).
i. Interim Superintende nt First, Campbell ca n n o t es tablish a prima fa cie c ase of discrimination with respec t to the Un i v er s i t y ’s failure to promote him to the interim posit ion of Z one Superintende nt in 2002. To establish a prima f

acie case , Campbell must show that his qualifications for the position wer e similar to Kraus’ s. Campbell has not alleg ed that he had simil ar qualifications, only that Kra us was not as qualified a s he was, acc ording to his own opi nion, and the opinion of S tewar t (the for mer super visor of both Campbell and Kr aus). F urthermor e, the e v i d ence Campbell prese nts is not t he objec tive evidenc e of qua lifications require d for establishing a prima fa cie c ase. See W

exle r , 317 F.3d at 575 (“ At the pr ima fa c ie sta g e , a cou rt sh ou ld f oc us on a pla int if f’ s objectivequalifications to determine whether he or she is qualified for the rele vant job.”).
Th e dis tr ic t c ourt als o corre c tly he ld t hat, e ve n if

Campb e ll w e re a

ble to e sta

bli sha pr ima f a c i e c a s e , t h e U n i v e r s i t y’ s e x p l an a t i o nt h a tK r a u s w a s p r o m o t e d

b e c a u s e h e w a s a l r e a dy aNo. 05-4528

Campbell v. Unive rsity of Akron

Campbell argues that he ha s simil ar qua lifications beca use he ha s six y ear s of experienc e 10 in p oo l main te na

nc e . But th e fa c t th a t Campb e ll d id n ot p a ss t he c e rt if ic a tio n e xam s ug g e sts that hi s experience was not the e quivalent of a ctual ce rtification. Reg a r d le s s , b e c a

use Campbell ca

nnot rebut as pr et ex t t h e University ’s leg itimate non-discriminatory rea son for hiringGrizer, he still cannot pr e va il o n th is c la im. - 25 - su p e r v is o r w a s n o t s h o w nb y

Ca mp b e ll to b e p r e te xt. G r e g o r te s ti f ie d a t h is d e p o s it io nth a t t

he
re a so n t he po si ti on wa s n ot p os te d w a s b e c a us e Kr a us vo lun te e re d, and

Kr a us wa s h ir e d b e c a

us e there was a

need f or someone to f

ill that posi tion quickly
. Campbell has not pr ovided any evidenc e to s ug g e st that th is r e a so n w a s p re te xt.
ii. Superintendent of Maintenanc e
Se cond, the dist rict cour t corre ctly

held that Campbell failed to satisfy his burden of
e sta bli sh inga pr ima fa c ie c a se of

ra c ia l di sc ri min a tio n w ithre sp e c t to the Un ive rsi ty ’s fa ilure to pr omo te him

to M ana g e r o f M a int e na

nc e fo r t he De pa rtme nt o f Stu de nt R e c re a tio n a nd Wel lne ss Service s in 2004. Campbell cannot show that he had qualifications sim ilar to the per son who was g iven the job, R ichar d Grizer. One of the m inimum require ments for the job was that the applica nt be a “ Certified Pool Operator or equiva lent.” J .A. 61, 64. Campbell was not a “ Certified Pool Oper ator,” and, in fa ct, fa iled the test to become one. Campbell has not alleg ed that Gr izer is not 10 a “Ce rtified Pool Operator” or is other wise unqualified f

or the position. Even if Campbe ll were able to esta blis h a p ri m a facie ca se, he ha s not shown that the University ’s re ason for

promoting G rizer i n s te a d of him—the fac t that Campbell was not a “Ce rtified Pool Operator” —was pre text . I n his deposition testi mony , Campbell, when asked why he thoug htNo. 05-4528

Campbell v. Unive rsity of Akron

- 26 - the Univer sity ’s fa ilure to promote him to this position wa s rac ial discrimination, only answe red that it was b ecause Gr izer is white and that he wa s led to believe that he could take the ce rtification
course and be considere d for the job. This evidenc e is insufficient to show prete x t beca use it is not
e vid e nc e tha

t th e e mpl oy e r’ s le g iti mate , n on dis c ri min a tor y re a so n f or hir ing Gr ize r “( 1) ha s n o b a sis in fac t, (2) did not actua lly motivate the [University ’s] challeng ed conduc t, or (3) was insufficie nt to warr ant the cha lleng ed conduc t.” Se e De ws , 231 F.3d at 1021.
iii. 2004 Building Maintenance Zone Supe rintendent Third, the dis trict court corre ctly held t hat C ampbell failed to establish a prima fa cie c ase of discrimination with respec t to his la ck of promotion to the position of B uilding Maintena nce Z one Sup e ri nte nd e nt i n D e c e mbe r 2 00 4. Th e c ourt he ld that Campb e ll did no t e sta bli sh a pr ima fa c ie c a se beca u s e h e f a il e d to p r e s e n t e v id e n c e s h o w in g h o w h e w a s mo r e qu a li f ie d th a n Ja me s M il le r , the white man who g ot the job. Campbell does not point to any evidenc e in the re cord showingthat he and Miller ha d simil ar qualifications for the Superintendent position. Campbell only makes the c onclusory statement that he wa s the most qualified applica nt and states that M i l l er once “ almost electroc uted himself” a nd “used to ha

ng lights up [incorrec tly ] and they ’d fa ll o n s t u d ents.” J.A. 99. First, Campbell’s statement that he w as the most qualified a pplicant ca

nnot establi s h a p ri m a fac ie ca se of discrimination beca

use per sonal beliefs a

re insuff icient t o support an infe renc e of discr imination. Cha pp e ll , 8 03 F .2 d a t 26 8. Se c on d, Campb e ll’ s de po sit ion te sti mony that Mil le r ma de mis take s inNo. 05-4528

Campbell v. Unive rsity of Akron

- 27 - the past is also insufficient be cause Campbell does not show how t hose m istakes made dur ing the
course of Miller’s e mploy ment as a te chnician r elate to his qua l i fi ca t i o ns as a supe rvisor, and Campb e ll’ s te sti mony

do e s n ot co nc e rn the ty

pe s of obj e c tiv e qu a lif

ic a tio ns thi s c ourt

e xami ne s to deter mine whether a prima f

acie case has bee n established. See W exle r , 317 F.3d at 575-76 (stating that w ithre g ard

to c on sid e ratio n of the pla int if f’ s qua lif ic a tio ns , “th e inq

uir y sh ou ld fo c us on

c ri te ri a such as the plaintiff’s education, e x perie nce in the rele vant industry , and demonstrated possession of the re quired g ener al skills”). Even if Campbe ll were able to esta blish a prima fa cie case of

discrimination, the district court
corr ectly held that Campbell could not rebut a s pretext the University ’s leg i t i m at e, nondiscriminatory

rea sons for choosingMiller over Campbe ll. The University o ff er ed as evidence a memorandum summarizing the selec tion committee’s assessment of ea ch ca ndidate for

the position
as well as the committee’s rec ommendations. The c ommitt ee de termined that Miller “ interviewe d very well and possesse s the leade rship, experience and knowledg e nec essar y ” for the position, and stated that his “dedic ation, strong work e thic, supervision experience , knowledg e of the campus a nd public relation skills” made him the first choice for the position. The c ommitt ee a lso determined that
a lth ou g h Campb e ll “ int e rv ie we d w e ll, ” he “ ne e ds to d e ve lop his c omm un ic a tio n a

nd le a de rs hip skill s . ” Campbell has fa iled to present a dditional evidence showing that these re asons wer e pr e te xtua l.
iv. 2005 Building Maintenance Zone Supe rintendentNo. 05-4528

Campbell v. Unive rsity of Akron

The sele ction committee made its re commendations to Smit h on April 22, 2005. Gre g or 11 acknow ledg ed that the position had not y et been filled during his de position testimony taken Ma

y 13, 2005, but stated that J ohn Gromofsky , the committee’s f irst choice, w as still under consider ation for the position. I t is not clear f rom the re cord w hether

th i s p o s i t i o n still rema ined unfilled at the t i m e o f t h e d i s t r i c tc o u rt ’ s d e c i s i o n , o r r e m a i n s u n f

i l l e d t o d ay. - 28 - Four th, even though C ampbell established a prima fac ie case of discrimination with respec t to the University ’s fa ilure to promote him to Superintendent in 2005 beca use the position remains unfilled, see M

cDonne ll Douglas , 4 1 1 U
. S
. a t 80 2; W hite , 429 F.3d at 240 n.3, the district court 11

corr ectly conclude d that the Univer sity prese nted a legitimate, non- discriminatory rea son for fa iling to promote Campbell, which wa s not rebutted by a showingthat th e re as o n was pretextual. The University

ag ain pre sented a

memorandum summarizing the selec tion committ ee’ s ass es s m ent of
eac h candidate for the position and the commi ttee’s recommendations. The c ommitt ee c oncluded that J ohn Gromofsky , a white male , was the most qua lified ca ndidate bec ause he “intervie wed ve ry well and possesses the leade rship, experience and knowledg e nec essar y ” for the position, and he “demonstrates excellent communication skills, is very profe ssional ear

ning the respe ct of his peers and Univer sity

colleagues” a

nd is a “tea

m p l ay er . ” T h e committee ra nked Campbell as the third most qualified applicant, but noted t hat i t would not consider him if the first-c hoice a pplicant re fused th e position. The committee conclude d that Campbell “interview ed we ll providing a ccur ate a nswers to a ll o f t he int e rv ie w q

ue sti on s, ” bu t that he “ wa s no t the mos t qu a lif ie d c and idate and

de fi c ie nt i n his supervisory

experience and lea dership skills.” Campbell has fa iled to present a ny evidence sug g esting that these re asons wer e pre text ual, other tha n the conc lusory

sta te me n t that “[t] he fa ct that positions are left unf

illed, r ather than filled by a qualified black man, more than raised the specte rNo. 05-4528

Campbell v. Unive rsity of Akron

F or the same re a so ns , a

ny argume nt t

hat Campb e ll’ s r e c e ipt

of un fa vo ra ble job a ssi g nme nts 12 constituted retaliation is also waive d. - 29 - of pre text .” Campbell’s B r. at 23.

c . Un

fav orab le J

ob As sig nm e nts
We decline to addr ess Cam p b el l ’s argument that the fa ct that he wa s assig ned to “dirtier ” jobs and forc ed to work a lone more f re q u en t l y than other e mploy ees c onstitut ed discrimination, beca use Campbell fa iled to make this argument until his Reply Br ief to this court. This court has held that “issues adver

ted t o in a perfunctor

y manner , unacc ompanied by some eff ort at deve loped argumentation, are deeme d waived.” Dillery v. City of Sandusky , 398 F.3d 562, 569 ( 6th Cir. 2005). Nowher e in C am pbell’s initial Brief or his Response to the Univer sity ’s Motion for Summary Judg me nt d oe s Ca

mpb e ll a rgue tha t th e Uni vers ity

dis c ri min a te d a g a ins t hi m by g ivi nghim

le ss favor able assig nment or requiring him to wor k alone more often than othe r employ ees. Campbe ll’s
me nti on of thi s argume nt i n h is R e ply B ri e f is insu ff

ic ie nt to avo id w a ivi ngthe argume nt. See, e .g. , 12 American Trim, L.L.C. v. Oracle Corp. , 383 F.3d 462, 477 ( 6th Cir. 2004).
2. Ret aliation Campbell has established a prima fa cie c ase of reta liation with respect to the discipline he
re c e ive d f or vio latin g the PF OC lun c h- br e a k an d “ loc ko ut/ta g ou t” po lic ie s. Al tho ug h th e Un ive rs ity pr e se nts le g iti mate , n on -d isc ri min a tor y re a so ns fo r C a mpb e ll’ s d isc ipl ine , C amp bell su c c e ssf ull y
re bu ts the se re a so ns a s p re te xt.No. 05-4528

Campbell v. Unive rsity of Akron

Campbell also claims that Coontz ’s comments that no brown-skinne d employ ee w ould be 13 promoted while Greg or was in char g e, and that Gre g or and other P FOC manag ement we re ta rg eting Campbell, are direc t evidence of reta liation. We r ejec t Campbell’s argument for the sa me re asons stated above with respec t to Campbell’s claims of rac ial discrimination. Coontz ’s comments re flec t only conclusory

statements of opinion and a re not a dmissibl e evide n ce to show discrimination or reta liation. Ag a in, the Univ ers it y c on c e de s th e a dv e rs e a c tio n e le me nt o f t he re ta liatio n c la im w ith 14 respe ct to verba l reprimands a nd war nings. I n Burlington N

orthern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. W hit e , – U.S. –, 126 S. Ct. 2405, 2414-16 (2006) , the Supreme Court re cog nized that the standard fo r re ta liatio n is no t a s hig h a s the sta nd ard fo r dis c ri min a tio n un de r Ti tle VI I
. Th e Cou rt he ld t hat, to prove re taliation, “a p l ai ntiff must show that a re asonable employ ee w ould have f ound the challeng ed ac tion materially adver se, ‘whic h in this context means it well m ight have dissuaded a r e a s o n a b le w o r k e r f r o m m a k in g o r

s u p p o rti n g a

c h ar g e o f

d is c r im in ation.’” Id. at 2415 (quoting Rochon v . Gonzales , 438 F.3d 1211, 1219 ( D.C. Cir. 2006)). - 30 - To e sta bli sha pr ima fa c ie c a se of

re ta liatio n u nd er Ti tle VI Iand § 1 98 1, Campb e ll mus t show that “(1) he eng ag ed in ac tivity protec ted by

Title VI I ; (2) this exercise of protec ted rig hts was kn ow n to [the Un ive rs ity ]; (3 ) [the Un ive rs ity ] the re a ft e r t oo k a dv e rs e e mpl oy me nt a c tio n a g a ins t [Ca mpb e ll]; a

nd (4 ) t he re wa s a

c a us a l c onne c tio n b e tw e e n th e pr ote c te d a c tiv ity and the a dv e rs e employ ment action.” Ford v. Ge neral Motors Corp. , 305 F.3d 545, 552- 53 (6th Cir. 2002).

13
The Unive rsity

conce des the fir st three e lements of the pr ima fac ie ca se. University ’s B r. 14 at 32. There fore , the only element in dispute is w hether there was a causa l connec tion between the protec ted ac tivity

(Campbell’s filing of complaints and previous lawsuit ag ainst the University ) and the adve rse e mploy

ment action (the University ’s discipline of and failure to promote Campbell). To
e sta bli sha c a us a l c on ne c tio n, Campb e ll mus t sh oweit he r ( 1) te mpo ra l pr oximi ty be tw e e n h is
e xer c ise of

pr ote c te d r ig hts and

a dv e rs e e mpl oy

me nt a c tio ns , a lon e ; or

(2 ) t emp oral pro ximity

in
a dd iti on to d isp arate tr e a tme nt.No. 05-4528

Campbell v. Unive rsity of Akron

- 31 - First, Campbell possibly

may establish a prima f

acie case with evidence of only temporal proxi mity . Howeve r, this court has not bef ore he ld that a differe nce in tim e of six mont hs or more is short enoug h—without more evidenc e—to per mit an infere nce of

reta liation. Se e Ngu

y e n v . Ci ty of Cleveland , 2 29 F .3 d 5 59 , 566 -6 7 (6t h Cir. 20 00 ) (“ [P]re vio us c a se s tha t hav e pe rm itt e d a pr ima fa c ie c a se to b e ma de ba se d o n th e pr oximi ty of tim e have a ll be e n sh or t pe ri od s of tim e , u su a lly

le ss than six months.”). The only action Campbell alleg es as reta liation that oc curr ed within six months of his settlement on Aug ust 28, 2002, or his EEOC compl aint on October 10, 2003, was the dis c ipl ine fo r his lun c h br e a k in F a ll 2 00 3, wh ic h is dis c us se d b e low . Ca mpb e ll d oe s n ot a

pp e ar t o
a lle g e that th e Un ive rs ity ’s fa ilure to p ro mot e him to i nte ri m Su

pe rv iso r i n lat e 20 02 wa s in
re ta liatio n f

or his laws uit , w hic h is c on sis te nt wit h th e fact that Campb e ll h a d n ot p re vio us ly expressed interest in a promotion ( i.e., the Univer sity could not have r etaliated a g ainst Campbell by denying him a pr omotion it did not know he wante d). Second, Campbell ca

n establish a prima f

acie ca s e of r etaliation with respe ct to the University ’s discipline of him for violating the lunch-br eak a nd “lockout/tag out” policies by evidenc e of c lose temporal pr ox imity combined with e vidence of disparate treatment. Se e Mo or e
v. KUKA W

elding Systems &Robot Corp. , 171 F.3d 1073, 1080 ( 6th Cir. 1999) (holding that causa l
connec tion “may b e established by demonstrating that the adve rse a ction was take n shortly afte r plaintiff filed the c omplaint and by showing that he wa s treate d differ ently from other

employ ees” ). The only adver se employ

ment actions for which Campbell has made a prima f acie showing that he wa s treate d differ ently from other

empl o y ee s we re the discipline for his violation of theNo. 05-4528

Campbell v. Unive rsity of Akron

Campbell also prese nts evidence that he wa s being spied o n b y Kr aus and K raus’ s wife. 15 See J.A. 16 4 ( Af

f. of Ti m How ard a t ¶ 9) (“ Kr a us [e] ha d to go ou t of his wa y to w a tc h Ca

mpb e ll. I f Kra us[e] was not ava ilable, Kra us[e] ’s wife , April Kra

us[e] , who works a

t t h e [ p l ace wher e Campbell wo rk s out during lunc h], m onitored us from [the] security came ra sy stem and kept Kra us[e] informed.” ). This e vidence , if any thing, makes the prima fac ie case of reta liation stronge r. - 32 - “lockout/tag out” and lunch- brea k policies. Campbell’s discipline for violating the lunch-br eak

15 po lic y c a me in F a ll 2 00 3 a

nd F a ll 2 00 4. Hi s d isc ipl ine fo r vio latin g the loc ko ut/ta g ou t po lic y c a me in Dece mber 2004. At most, the discipline for all three violations of PFOC policy came just over one y ear afte r an a dverse employ

ment action. This tempora l nexus , when c ombined with evidence of disparate treatment, appea rs suffic ient to permit a reasonable juror to infer that the discipline was reta liatory
. See, e .g. , Litt le v. BP E xploration & Oil Co. , 265 F.3d 357, 365 (6th Cir. 2001) (holding as suffic ient a time diffe renc e of le ss t h an a y ea r between one EEOC complaint and plaintiff’ s suspension and termination, and thr ee months betwe en a se cond EE OC complaint and plaintiff’ s suspension and termination, combined w ith evidence of di sparate t reatment and evidenc e that the
e mp lo y e r e n c o u r a g ed employ ees to make false a lleg ations ag ainst plaintiff); Ha r r i s o n v. Me tro Gov’t of N as hv ill e , 8 0 F .3 d 1 10 7, 11 19 (6 th C ir . 1 99 6) (h old ing a s suf fi c ie nt a t ime dif

fe re nc e of , at mo st, fiftee n months, combined with evidence that employ ees w ho testified at plaintiff’ s EEOC hear ing fe are d r e ta liatio n for do ing so and c omm e nts by su pe rv iso r t hat “ su g g e ste d h e wo uld

no t he sit a te to run employ ees out of his de partment” ).
Once Campbell establishes a pr ima fac i e ca s e o f retaliation, the same burde n-shifting Mc Do nn e ll D ou

gla s test applied above with r espec t to discriminat i o n co n t ro l s. See Singfield v. Ak ro n M e tro . H ou sin g A uth or ity , 389 F.3d 555, 563- 64 (6th Cir. 20 0 4 ). Be cause the test andNo. 05-4528

Campbell v. Unive rsity of Akron

Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

a lso de te rm ine d th a t Ca

mpb e ll f a ile d to a dd

re s s t h i s c la im i n h is R e sp on se 16 to the University ’s Motion for Summary J udg ment. J .A. 248. - 33 - analy sis remain the same , the outcome r eg ardingeac h alleg ed for m of reta liation is the s ame a s the
o u tc o me r e g ar d in g e a c h a ll e g e d f o r m of d is c r im in a ti o n . T h e r e f o r e , Ca mp b e ll c anr e b u t a s p r e te xt the Univer sity ’s purporte d leg itimate rea sons for disciplining Campbe ll for vio l at i o n of the

“ loc ko ut/ta g ou t” and

lun c h- br e a k p oli c ie s, bu t no t f or his insubo rdin a tio n a

nd fa lsi fi c a tio n o f h is tim e c ard , n or

fo r t he Un ive rs ity ’s fa ilure to p ro mot e him
. 3. Har as sm e nt Campbell waived his rig ht to appeal the district c ourt’s g rant of summar y judgme n t t o the University

on Campbell’s claims of ra cial har assment. Ag ain, t his court has he ld that “issues 16 adver ted to in a per functory

manner , unacc ompanied by some eff ort at deve loped ar g umentation, are deeme d waived.” Di lle ry , 398 F.3d at 569. Although the word “ hara ssment” is sprinkled throug hout Campbell’s Br ief to this court, Campbell’s B rief does not have a s epar ate se ction devoted to ra cial hara ssment, does not state the leg al standar d for pr ev ai l i n g o n a claim of ra cial har assment (e ven though it does f

or t he dis crimination and re taliation claims), and doe s not refe r to a sing le ca se that illust rate s why

his alleg ed tre atment by

the University constitutes r acia l ha rassment. The fac t that Campbell’s Br ief is devoid of analy sis of racial harassment even afte r the district cour t concluded that Campbell had not responde d to the University ’s s u m m ary judgme nt motion m akes theNo. 05-4528

Campbell v. Unive rsity of Akron

Al so , in his Re ply B ri e f to thi s c ourt , Campb e ll fa ils to re sp on d to the Un ive rs ity ’s ana ly sis 17 of Campb e ll’ s r a c ia l ha

ra ssm e nt c la im, wh ic h c on sis ts o f, in f ull : “ Campb e ll aban do ne d th is argument below and doe s not appea r to have revive d it here.” See University ’s B r. at 41.

- 34 - conclusion that C ampbell has a bandoned his ra cial har assment claim eve n strong er. There fore , 17 we hold that Campbell wai ved his rig ht to appeal that pa rt of the district cour

t’s order g ranting
summa ry jud g me nt t o th e Un ive rs ity on his ra c ia l ha

ra ssm e nt c la ims
.

Conclusion
F ina lly , we no te that our dis po sit ion of thi s c a se re fl e c ts o nly the sma lle st o f d isa g re e me nts wi th t he dis tr ic t c ourt

be low : w e c on c lud e that e vid e nc e of wi de sp read rule s v iol a tio ns pe rm its a rational juror

to infer that a

n employ er kne w about the r ules vio l at i o n s . W e d o not make that infere nce he re, but de cide only that it is for a jury

to decide. F or the re asons stated a bove, we RE VE RSE , in part, the j u dg ment of the district cour t and REMAND this matter for f urther proce eding s consistent with this opi nion.