FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT SEPT 11 , 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- 10680 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 01 -000 19 -C V -W L S -6 P A U L A C . H I L L , B O B B Y B A T T L E , R A L P H C L A R K , C H A R L I E H O M E R , J A M E S K N O L T O N , S R ., M I C H A E L M I X O N , P la in tif f s - A p p e lla n ts , v ersu s O I L D R I C O R P O R A T I O N O F G E O R G I A , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ 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 id d le D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 11, 2006) B efo re B L A C K , B A R K E T T an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:Plaintiffs filed their first complaint in J anuar y 2000, but dismi ssed it by consent motion 1 in September 2000. In addition to § 1981 claims, plaintiffs’ complaint also asser ted Title VIIclaims of racial 2 discrimination and retaliation and a statelaw claim of neg ligence. The district cour t’s dismiss al 2 In thi s e m pl oym entdi sc ri m i nat i on ac t i on , pl ai nt i ff s app ea l the di stri ct c o u rt’s o r d e r s ( 1 ) g r a n tin g s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t to O il D r i C o rp o r a tio n o f G e o r g ia ( “ O i l D r i ” ) ; ( 2) de ny i ng the i rm ot i on t o a l t e rora m e nd the j udgm e nt ; a nd ( 3) g r a n tin g O il D r i’s m o tio n to s tr ik e p o rtio n s o f p la in tif f s ’ a f f id a v its a n d e x h ib its . A f t e rr e v i e w , w e a f

f i rm. I . B AC KG RO UN D In 19 97 , pl ai nt i ff

s B ob by B att l e, R alph C l ark, C harl i e H om er , Ja m es K no w l t on and M i chae l M i xo n, w ho ar e A fr i can A m er i can, fi l ed charges of ra ce di s c r i m i na t i on a ga i ns tthe i re m pl oy e r , O i l D r i , w i th the E qua l E m pl oy m e nt O pp ortun i ty C om m i ss i on (“ E E O C ”) . P l ai nt i ff s c l ai m ed thatO i l D ri had p ai d them l e s s tha n w hi t e e m pl oy e e s a nd s ubj e c t e d the m t o di f f e r e ntt e rm s a nd c ondi t i ons of e m p lo y m e n t b a s e d o n th e irr a c e . T h e E E O C in v e s tig a te d . I n M a r c h a n d A p r il 19 98 , the E E O C i ss ued n earl y i dent i ca l det erm i nat i on s f i nd i ng thati tw as r e a s o n ab le to b e lie v e O il D r i h a d d is c r im in a te d a g a in s t p la in tif f s b a s e d o n th e ir ra ce i n v i ol at i on of T i t l e V II . In M ar ch 20 01 , pl ai nt i ff s f i l ed thi s a ct i on agai nstO i l D ri , as se rt i ng , i nt er 1 al i a, a cl ai m o f raci al d i scri m i n at i o n i n v i o l at i o n o f 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 9 8 1 . P l ai n t i ffs’ 2of the Title VIIand state la w claims is not challeng ed on appe al. In addition, the district court dis mis se d p laintif

f P a ula Hi ll’ s T itl eVIIse x discrimin atio n a nd Eq ual Pay Act c laims . H illis no t a pa rt y to t hisa pp e al. Thu s, wefo cusonly on plaintif fs ’ § 19 81 c laims . 3 com pl ai ntal l eged i n g ener al t erm s thatsi m i l ar l y s i tuat ed w hi t e e m pl oyee s w er e p ai d ata h i g h er rat e an d w ere affo rd ed b ett er w o rk i n g co n d i t i o n s an d p ri v i l eg es. A . O i lD r i ’ s M o t i o n f o r Sum m a r y J udg m e nt O i l D ri fi l ed a m o t i o n fo r p art i al su m m ary j u d g m en t , arg u i n g th atp l ai n t i ffs’ § 1 98 1 cl ai m s ari si ng pri or t o M ar ch 23 , 19 99 w er e barre d b y G eorgi a’ s tw o-ye ar s t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons f

orpe r s ona l i nj ury a c t i ons . I n oppos i t i on t o O i l D r i ’ s m ot i on, p la in tif f s s u b m itte d th e s a m e d o c u m e n ts a n d a f f id a v its s u b m itte d to th e E E O C in 1997. P l a i nt i f

f s ’ r e s pons e br i e f

a gr e e d tha tthe tw o- y e a rs t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons ge ne r a l l y appl i e d t o § 1981 a c t i ons f orm one y da m a ge s , buta r gue d tha tthe a c t s of di s c r i m i na t i on the y s uf

f e r e d w e r e “ t a nt a m ountt o” ahos t i l e w ork e nvi r onm e nta nd c ons t i tut e d c ont i nui ng vi ol a t i ons . T he y a l s o a r gue d tha tthe i r§ 1981 c l a i m s f or i nj unc t i ve a nd de c l a r a t ory r e l i e f w e r e gove rne d by G e or gi a ’ s tw e nty - y e a rs t a tut e of l i m i t at i on s f

or ac t i on s s ee ki ng t o enforce s t atut ory r i gh t s. T he di stri ctcourt grant ed O i l D ri sum m ary j ud gm enton pl ai nt i ff s’ § 1 98 1 cl ai m s, fi nd i ng thatthey i nvol ve d di s c r e t e a c t s a nd thus pl a i nt i f f s ’ c l a i m s w e r e ba rr e d by G e or gi a ’ s tw oy e a rl i m i t a t i ons pe r i od. B. Pl a i nt i f

f s ’ M o t i o n t o A l t e r o r A m e nd4

O n M a y 7 , 2 0 0 4 , p la in tif f s f ile d am o tio n to a lte ro ra m e n d th e ju d g m e n t, a r g u in g c o rr e c tly th a t O il D r i h a d n o t m o v e d f o rs u m m a ry ju d g m e n t w ith r e g a r d to a ny § 1981 c l a i m s a r i s i ng a f t e rM a r c h 23, 1999. I n r e s pons e , O i l D r i c a l l e d t o the d i stri ctco u rt ’ s att en t i o n th e n ew l y d eci d ed o p i n i o n i n Jo n es v . R . R . D o n n el l ey & S o n s C o ., 5 4 1 U .S . 3 6 9 , 1 2 4 S . C t. 1 8 3 6 ( 2 0 0 4 ) , in w h ic h th e S u p r e m e C o u rt h e ld th a t th e f o u r - y e a rs ta tu te o f

lim ita tio n s p r o v id e d in 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 6 5 8 ap p lie d to c e rt a i n § 1981 c l a i m s . O i l D r i a r gue d, how e ve r , tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s j udgm e nt sh o u l d st an d b ecau se p l ai n t i ffs h ad fai l ed t o p ro d u ce ev i d en ce o f an y ad v erse em p lo ym en t actio n s o cc u rr in g af ter M ar ch 2 3 , 1 9 9 7 , an d th er ef o re p lain ti ff

s’ § 19 81 ac t i on fi l ed on M ar ch 23 , 20 01 w as barr ed even un der the new four-y ear l i mi t a t i o n s p e r i o d o f

J o n e s . I n th e i rr e p l y b r i e f , p l a i n t i f f s a r g u e d f

o rth e f i r s tt i me th atth e fo u r-year statu t e o f l i m i t at i o n s i n 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 6 5 8 sh o u l d ap p l y. T he di s tr i c tc ourtgr a nt e d i n pa rtpl a i nt i f f s ’ m ot i on t o a l t e rora m e nd the j udgm e nt , r e c ogni z i ng tha ti ts houl d notha ve e nt e r e d s um m a ry j udgm e nts ua spon t e on p l ai nt i ff

s’ cl ai m s ari si ng af

t erM ar ch 23 , 19 99 w i tho utfi rs tgi vi ng prop er not i c e . H ow e ve r , the di s tr i c tc ourtde ni e d pl a i nt i f f s ’ m ot i on t o a l t e rthe j udgm e nt t o the e xt e ntpl a i nt i f

f s s oughtt o r e l y on the f our - y e a rs t a tut e of

l i m i t a t i ons i n § 1658. T he di s tr i c tc ourtc onc l ude d tha tpl a i nt i f f s w a i ve d the i rr i ghtt o a s s e rtthe four-y ear l i m i t at i on s per i od by concurri ng i n thei r i ni t i al sum m ary j ud gm entbri ef5

tha tthe tw o- y e a rl i m i t a t i ons pe r i od appl i e d. T he di s tr i c tc ourta l t e r e d the j udgm e nt to r e f le c t th a t th e p o s t- M a r c h 2 3 , 1 9 9 9 c la im s , if a n y , r e m a in e d a n d d ir e c te d O il D ri t o fi l e an y ad d i t i o n al su m m ary j u d g m en tm o t i o n w i th i n t en d ays. C . O i lD r i ’ s R e ne w e d M o t i o n f o r Sum m a r y J udg m e nt O i l D ri m ov ed for s um m ary j ud gm entas t o p l ai nt i ff s’ re i nst at ed po st -M ar ch 2 3 , 1 9 9 9 c la im s . P la in tif f s r e s p o n d e d , a tta c h in g d o c u m e n ts o r ig in a lly f ile d in th e ir 1997 E E O C pr oc e e di ngs a s w e l l a s the E E O C ’ s 1998 de t e rm i na t i ons . A m ong the E E OC d o c u m e n t s we r e a f f i d a v i t s f i l e d b ye a c h p l a i n t i f

f wi th th e E E OC a n d two uns w orn s t a t e m e nt s of

othe rO i l D r i e m pl oy e e s . O i l D r i m ove d t o s tr i ke ( 1) the un sw orn st at em ent s; (2) the E E O C ’ s det erm i nat i on s; and (3) po rt i on s of e ac h p l ai n t i ff’ s E E O C affi d av i t , arg u i n g th atth ey co n t ai n ed co n cl u so ry al l eg at i o n s, u n su p p o rt ed o p i n i o n s an d i n ad m i ssi b l e h earsay. T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt g r a n te d O il D r i’s m o tio n s to s tr ik e th e u n s w o rn s ta te m e n ts a n d th e E E O C ’s 1 9 9 8 d e te rm in a tio n s a n d g r a n te d in p a rt O il D r i’s m o tio n s to stri ke po rt i on s of e ac h p l ai nt i ff’ s E E O C af fi davi t . T he di stri ctcourtal so grant ed O i l D ri sum m ary j ud gm enton the re m ai ni ng § 1 98 1 cl ai m s, concl ud i ng that p la in tif f s h a d f a ile d to e s tab lis h ap r im af a c ie c a s e o f

r a c ia l d is c r im in a tio n . S pe c i f i c a l l y , the di s tr i c tc ourtc onc l ude d tha tpl a i nt i f f s ha d f a i l e d t o pr e s e nt adm i ss i bl e e vi dence thatthey s uffe re d adv er se em pl oym entac t i on s or that“Thedecision to alter or amend a judgment is committed to the sound discretion of the 3 district court,” a

nd we “will not overturn a denial of a Rule 59 motion absent a buse of discretion.” O ’Ne al v. Kenna mer, 958 F .2d 1044, 1047 (11th Cir. 1992).

6 si m i l ar l y s i tuat ed w hi t e e m pl oyee s w er e tre at ed m ore f avorabl y. T he di stri ctcourt the n e nt e r e d f

i na l j udgm e nti n f

a vorof O i l D r i . T hi s appe a l f

ol l ow e d. I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . M o t i o n t o A l t e r o r A m e nd t he J udg m e nt O n ap p e a l, p la in tif

f s a r g u e th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ab u s e d its d is c r e tio n in denyi ng thei r m ot i on t o al t eror am end the j ud gm entas i tre l at ed t o the four-y ear st atut e of l i m i t at i on s. W e di sa gree . F e de r a l R ul e of

C i vi l P r oc e dur e 59( e ) pe rm i t s adi s tr i c tc ourtt o a l t e ror a m e nd aj udgm e nta f

t e ri tha s be e n e nt e r e d. F e d. R . C i v. P . 59( e ) . R ul e 59 3 m ot i ons “ s houl d notbe us e d t o r a i s e a r gum e nt s w hi c h c oul d, a nd s houl d, ha ve be e n m a de be f

or e the j udgm e ntw a s i s s ue d. ” O ’ N e a l v. K e nna m e r , 958 F . 2d 1044, 1 0 4 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ) . T h e d e n ia l o f aR u le 5 9 m o tio n r a is in g n e w a r g u m e n ts is

“ e s pe c i a l l y s oundl y e xe r c i s e d w he n the pa rty ha s f a i l e d t o a rt i c ul a t e a ny r e a s on f or the f a i l ur e t o r a i s e [ a n] i s s ue a ta n e a r l i e rs t a ge i n the l i t i ga t i on. ” I d. ( quot i ng L ussi erv. D ug ger, 90 4 F . 2d 66 1, 66 7 (11 th C i r. 19 90 )) . P r i ort o 1990, f

e de r a l c ourt s appl i e d the m os ta na l ogous s t a t e s t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons t o § 1981 c l a i m s . S e e G oodm a n v. L uke ns S t e e l C o. , 482 U . S . 656,7

66 0-61 (198 7). H ow ever , i n 1 99 0 C on gres s e nact ed 28 U . S . C . § 1 65 8(a) , w hi ch cr ea t ed a “ ca t ch-a l l ” f

ou r- ye arl i m i t at i on s per i od for f eder al cl ai m s c re at ed af t er tha tda t e . S e e 28 U . S . C . § 1658. O ne y e a rl a t e r , i n the C i vi l R i ght s A c tof 1991, C ongr e s s a m e nde d § 1981 t o i nc l ude c l a i m s of di s c r i m i na t i on i n t e rm s a nd c ondi t i ons of

e m pl oy m e nt . S e e 42 U . S . C . § 1981. W he n O i l D r i ’ s s um m a ry j udgm e ntm ot i on w a s f i l e d i n S e pt e m be r2003, the c ir c u its w e r e s p lit o n w h e th e r§ 1 6 5 8 's lim ita tio n p e r io d ap p lie d to § 1 9 8 1 c la im s . T h r e e c i r c u i t s ( th e T h i r d , S e v e n th a n d E i g h th ) h a d h e l d th a ti td i d n o t , b u ttwo ci rc ui t s ( the S i xth and T enth) had reac hed a contraryconcl usi on . C om pare Jones v . R. R. D o n n e l l e y & So n s Co . , 3 0 5 F. 3 d 7 1 7 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 2 ) ; M a d i s o n v . I BP, Inc. , 25 7 F . 3d 78 0 (8th C i r. 20 01 ) and Z ub i v. A T & T C orp. , 21 9 F . 3d 22 0 (3d C i r. 2000) w i th A nthony v. B T R A ut o. S e a l i ng S y s . , I nc . , 339 F . 3d 506 ( 6th C i r . 2003) and H arri s v. A l l st at e I ns. C o. , 30 0 F . 3d 11 83 (10th C i r. 20 02 ). A d d itio n a lly , th is c ir c u it h a d n o t y e t a d d r e s s e d th e ap p lic ab ility o f § 1 6 5 8 . S e e , e . g. , T a y l orv. A l a . I nt e rtr i ba l C ounc i l T i t l e I V J . T . P . A . , 261 F . 3d 1032, 1034 & n. 2 ( 11th C i r . 2001) ( a c know l e dgi ng the i s s ue of § 1658' s appl i c abi l i ty t o § 1981 c l a i m s , butde c l i ni ng t o a ddr e s s i t ) . F ur the rm or e , by the t i m e s um m a ry j udgm e nt bri ef i ng began i n the fa l l of 20 03 , the S up re m e C ou rthad al re ady gra nt ed ce rt i orar i o n M a y 1 9 , 2 0 0 3 t o r e v i e w th e Se v e n th Ci r c u i t ’ s d e c i s i o n i n J o n e s . Se e J o n e s v . R.On appe al, plaintiffs do not challeng e the district cour t’s rulingstriking unswor n 4 statementsof

oth er O il D riempl oye e s su bmitte d totheEE OC . 8 R . D on nel l y & S on s C o. , 53 8 U . S . 10 30 , 12 3 S . C t . 20 74 (200 3). U nde rthe s e c i r c um s t a nc e s , pl a i nt i f f s c oul d ha ve a nd s houl d ha ve r a i s e d the ap p li ca b il ity o f § 1 6 5 8 ' s f o u r- ye arli m it atio n s p er io d in re sp o n se to O il D ri’s su m m ary j u d g m en tm o t i o n . In d eed p l ai n t i ffs’ R u l e 5 9 o p en i n g b ri ef d i d n o trai se th e § 1 6 5 8 is s u e e v e n th o u g h th e S u p r e m e C o u rt h a d ru le d th r e e d a y s e a r lie rin Jo n es th at§ 1 6 5 8 ' s fo u r-year li m i t at i o n s p eri o d ap p l i ed t o so m e § 1 9 8 1 cl ai m s, in c lu d in g n e w lyc o g n iz ab le § 1 9 8 1 c la im s c r e a te d b y th e C iv il R ig h ts A c t o f 1 9 9 1 . 541 U . S . a t377- 83, 124 S . C t . a t1842- 45. A c c or di ngl y , the di s tr i c tc ourtdi d not abus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n r e f us i ng t o c ons i de rthe § 1658 f our - y e a rl i m i t a t i ons i s s ue r a i s e d f orthe f i r s tt i m e i n pl a i nt i f

f s ’ r e pl y br i e f

i n s upportof

the R ul e 59 m ot i on. B . E vi d e n t i ar y R u l i n gs P la in tif f s a ls o ar g u e th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr e d in s tr ik in g p o rtio n s o f th e ir E E O C a f f i da vi t s a nd the E E O C ’ s de t e rm i na t i ons . W e r e vi e w f orabus e of 4 di s c r e t i on adi s tr i c tc ourt ’ s e vi de nt i a ry rul i ngs . H a l l v. U ni t e d I ns . C o. of A m . , 367 F . 3d 12 55 , 12 59 (11th C i r. 20 04 ). P l ai nt i ff s have notshow n thatthe di stri ctcourt abused i t s di sc re t i on i n excl ud i ng thi s e vi dence.

E E O C det erm i nat i on s gener al l y are adm i ss i bl e i n b ench tri al s und erF eder al9

R ul e of E vi dence 803 (8)( C )’ s pub l i c r ec ords except i on t o the hears ayrul e. W al ker v. N at i on sB ank o f F l a. N . A . , 53 F . 3d 15 48 , 15 54 (11th C i r. 19 95 ). H ow ever ,

“ publ i c r e c or ds , othe rw i s e a dm i s s i bl e unde rR ul e 803( 8) ( C ) , m a y none the l e s s be e xc l ude d i n w hol e ori n pa rti f the tr i a l c ourtf

i nds tha tthe y a r e e i the ri rr e l e va ntor m or e pr e j udi c i a l tha n pr oba t i ve . ” H i ne s v. B r a ndon S t e e l D e c ks , I nc . , 886 F . 2d 2 9 9 , 3 0 2 ( 1 1 th C i r . 1 9 8 9 ) . He r e th e d i s tr i c tc o u rte x c l u d e d th e 1 9 9 8 E E OC d e te rm in a tio n s a s irr e le v a n t b e c au s e th e y r e la te d o n ly to in c id e n ts o c c u rr in g w e ll before M ar ch 23 , 19 99 and thu s di d n otpert ai n t o the cl ai m s a ti ss ue on sum m ary j u d g m e n t . Gi v e n th a tp l a i n t i f f s ’ p r e - Ma r c h 2 3 , 1 9 9 9 c l a i m s a r e t i m e - b a rr e d , we c a n n o ts a y th a tth e d i s tr i c tc o u rtab u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n s tr i k i n g th e 1 9 9 8 E E OC d et erm i n at i o n s. T he di s tr i c tc ourta l s o s truc k port i ons of e a c h pl a i nt i f

f’ s E E O C a f

f i da vi tf or fa i l ure t o com pl y w i th F eder al R ul e of C i vi l P roce du re 56 (e ). R ul e 56(e) re qu i re s af fi davi t s, supp ort i ng or op po si ng sum m ary j ud gm ent , t o b e m ade on p er sonal know l e dge a nd t o s e tf

orth f a c t s tha tw oul d be a dm i s s i bl e e vi de nc e . F e d. R . C i v. P . 56 (e ). In a tho roug h o rder , the di stri ctcourtse para t el y c on si dere d eac h c h a lle n g e d a v e rm e n t o ra tta c h m e n t a n d g a v e s p e c if ic r e a s o n s f

o rits ru lin g w ith reg ard t o i t s ad m i ssi b i l i ty. O n appe a l , pl a i nt i f

f s do nott a ke i s s ue w i th a ny of the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s rul i ngsIn contra st, plaintiffs devote several pag es of their appeal brief to re

jectingOil Dri’s 5 argument m adein t

hedis tric t c ourt

that pl aintif

fs ’ E EO C a ff

ida vit s should b estr

uck b e c a us e they were not produc ed duringdiscovery . However, this argument was not the ba sis for the district court’s de cision to strike portions of plaintiffs’ af fidavits. Plaintiffs also challeng e the district cour t’s decision to strike several letter s that had been submitt ed to the EEOC in support of plaintiffs’ 1997 charg es of discrimination. P laintiffs argue that these letter s wereoffered a s evidenc e of pretext and arethere forerelevant. However, the district court excluded these letters, not on relevancegrounds, but on grounds that they “were replete with hearsay

and conc lusory, factually unsupported statements.” 10 w i th regard t o p art i cul araverm ent s. Indeed, pl ai nt i ff s m er el y s t at e i n o ne se nt ence , uns upport e d by c i t a t i on t o l e ga l author i ty , tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourts houl d ha ve w ei gh ed the af

fi davi t s i n l i gh tof the sum m ary j ud gm entst andard and d et erm i ned w he the rthe y r a i s e d age nui ne i s s ue of m a t e r i a l f

a c t . S uc h ape r f

unc t ory s t a t e m e nt 5 i s i nsuffi ci entt o chal l enge the di stri ctcourt ’ s c ar ef ul l y c on si dere d i nd i vi du al e vi de nt i a ry rul i ngs . S e e D oe v. M oor e , 410 F . 3d 1337, 1349 n. 10 ( 11th C i r . 2005) (ex p l ai n i n g th atan ap p el l at e b ri ef m u stn o to n l y st at e co n t en t i o n s, b u tm u stal so gi ve re as on s f

or them , w i th ci t at i on s t o autho ri ty and t o the re cord, t o p re se rve a n i s s ue on appe a l ) ; F l a ni ga n’ s E nt e r s . , I nc . of G a . v. F ul t on C ounty , 242 F . 3d 976, 987 n. 16 ( 11th C i r . 2000) ( e xpl a i ni ng tha tthe f a i l ur e t o e l abor a t e upon a n i s s ue r a i s e d i n a n appe l l a t e br i e f ort o pr ovi de c i t a t i on of author i ty i n s upportr e s ul t s i n a w ai ver of thatar gu m ent ); F ed. R . A pp . P . 28 (a )( 9). C . S e c t i on 1981 C l ai m s A r i s i n g A f t e r M ar c h 23, 1999 F i na l l y , pl a i nt i f

f s c ha l l e nge the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s gr a ntof s um m a ry j udgm e nt i n f a vorof O i l D r i on the i rc l a i m s tha tw e r e notba rr e d by the tw o- y e a rs t a tut e ofMcDonne ll Dougla s Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S. C t. 1817 (1973). 6 11 lim ita tio n s . U s in g th e n o w - f a m ilia rM c D o n n e ll D o u g la s f r a m e w o rkto e v a lu a te c ir c u m s ta n tia l e v id e n c e c a s e s , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t p la in tif f s f a ile d to 6 ma k e o u tap r i maf

a c i e c a s e o f

d i s c r i mi n a t i o n wi th r e g a r d t o th e s e c l a i ms . To es t abl i sh a pri m a f

ac i e c as e of di spar at e tre atm entun der § 19 81 , pl ai nt i ff s w er e re qu i re d t o sho w that : (1) they w er e m em bers of a prot ec t ed cl as s; (2) they w er e s ubj e c t e d t o a dve r s e e m pl oy m e nta c t i ons ; ( 3) s i m i l a r l y s i tua t e d e m pl oy e e s w ho w e r e notm e m be r s of

the i rpr ot e c t e d c l a s s w e r e tr e a t e d m or e f a vor abl y ; a nd ( 4) pl ai nt i ff s w er e qual i fi ed for the j ob or j ob benefi t s they w er e deni ed. G i l l i s v. G a. D e p ’t o f C o rr ., 4 0 0 F .3 d 8 8 3 , 8 8 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . H e r e , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t p la in tif f s f a ile d to p r e s e n t a d m is s ib le e v id e n c e o f

a n y a d v e r s e e m p lo y m e n t a c tio n s o ro f s im ila r ly s itu a te d w h ite em pl oyee s w ho w er e tre at ed m ore f avorabl y. W e a gree . P l ai nt i ff s’ on l y e vi dence of a dve r s e e m pl oy m e nta c t i ons orw hi t e c om pa r a t or s w a s the va gue a nd c onc l us ory s t a t e m e nt s c ont a i ne d i n the port i ons of the i rE E O C a f

f i da vi t s s truc k by th e d is tr ic t c o u rt. A s w e h a v e a lr e a d y d is c u s s e d , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in s tr ik in g th is m a te r ia l f r o m th e r e c o r d . F u rth e rm o r e , e v e n if

th e s e a f f id a v its h a d b e e n c o n s id e r e d , O il D r i s till w o u ld have been ent i t l ed t o sum m ary j ud gm ent . A pl ai nt i ff cann otdefe atsum m ary12

ju d g m e n t b y r e ly in g u p o n c o n c lu s o ry a lle g a tio n s o f d is c r im in a tio n . S e e H o lif ie ld v. R eno, 11 5 F . 3d 15 55 , 15 64 n. 6 (11 th C i r. 19 97 ). T o survi ve sum m ary j ud gm ent , op po si ng af

fi davi t s m ustse tforth speci fi c f ac t s s ho w i ng thatthere i s an i s s ue f ortr i a l . S e e F e d. R . C i v. P . 56( e ) ; L e i gh v. W a rne rB r os . , 212 F . 3d 1210, 1217 ( 11th C i r . 2000) . P l a i nt i f f s ’ E E O C a f

f i da vi t s w e r e t oo c onc l us ory a nd l ac ki ng i n speci fi c f

ac t s t o cre at e genui ne i ss ues of m at er i al fa ctas t o w hether they s u f f e r e d a d v e r s e e m p lo y m e n t a c tio n s o rw h e th e rw h ite e m p lo y e e s w e r e s im ila r ly si tuat ed. S ee L ei gh , 21 2 F . 3d at12 17 (s t at i ng thatun supp ort ed concl usory st at em en t s h av e n o p ro b at i v e v al u e i n o p p o si n g su m m ary j u d g m en t ). B ecau se pl ai nt i ff s f ai l ed t o m ake outa pri m a f ac i e c as e, the di stri ctcourtprop er l y e nt er ed s um m a ry j udgm e nton the i rc l a i m s a r i s i ng a f t e rM a r c h 23, 1999. I I I . CONCL US I ON F orthe s e r e a s ons , w e a f f i rm the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s gr a ntof s um m a ry j udgm e nt i n favor of O i l D ri on pl ai nt i ff s’ § 1 98 1 cl ai m s, the di stri ctcourt ’ s e vi dent i ary rul i ngs a nd the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de ni a l of pl a i nt i f f s ’ m ot i on t o a l t e rora m e nd the ju d g m e n t. AF F I RME D.