FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T AUGUST 17, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 8- 16 13 5

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 9 6- 03 25 7- CV-RRA-M ANTHONYASH, etal., Pl ai nt iff s, JOHN HITHON, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an tCro ss -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us TYSON FOODS, INC., a cor po rat io n, Defen dant -Ap pe ll eeCro ss -Ap pe ll an t, THOMAS HATLEY , an i nd iv idua l, Defen da nt .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ern Dis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Au gu st17 , 20 10 )Befo re CARNES a ndPRYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg es , andDOWD, Dis tri ctJu dg e. * PER CURI AM: Thi s ca se is be fo re u s fo r th e fo urth ti m e. See As h v . Ty so n F oo ds , Inc ., 31 Fed . App ’x 93 8 (1 1t h C ir. Fe b. 6 , 20 02 ) (As h I) ; As h v . Ty so n F oo ds , Inc ., 12 9 Fed . App ’x 52 9 (1 1t h C ir. Ap r. 19 , 20 05 ) (As h II ), va cat ed , 54 6 U.S. 4 54 , 12 6 S
. Ct . 11 95 (20 06 ), rei ns ta te d, As h v . Ty so n F oo ds , Inc ., 19 0 F ed . App ’x 92 4 (1 1t h Ci r. Aug . 2, 2 00 6) (Ash III). Itus edto in vo lv e m ul ti pl e p la in ti ffs with c la im s o f
em pl oym en t d is cri m in at io n a ris in g o utof t he op erat io n o f a Ty so n F oo ds ch ic ke n pr oc es si ng pl an t i n Gad sd en , Alab am a. See As h I, 3 1 F ed . App ’x 93 8. No w th ere is on ly one pl ai nt iff

an d o ne cla im

lef t: Jo hn Hitho n a ndhi s 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 81 cl ai m ba se d o n Tyson ’s fai lu re t o p ro m ot e h im to sh iftm an ag er atth e p la nt . See As h II I, 19 0 F ed . App ’x 92 4. Inth e se co ndap pe al of t hi s ca se we rev ers edth e d is tri ctco urt’s Fe de ral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 5 0( b) jud gm en t as a m at te r of law fo r Ty so n o n t hi s cl ai m , co nc lu di ng th atth e ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t t o p erm ita jury to re as on ab ly findth at th e rea so n Hi th on , who was Afr ic an -Am eri can , was n otpro m ot edto sh iftm an ag er was be cau se of r aci al di sc riminat io n. Se e Ash II, 12 9 F ed . App ’x at 5 34 , vac at ed ,
Honora ble David D. D owd, J r., United States District Judge f or the Nor

thern District of * Ohio, sitti ngby

designation. 254 6 U.S. 4 54 , 12 6 S . Ct. 1 19 5 (2 00 6) , rei ns ta te d, As h II I, 19 0 F ed . App ’x at

92 6– 27 . W e aff

irmed, ho wev er, the di st ric t co urt’s al te rn at iv e ru li ng un de r Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 5 0( c) tha t Ty so n was en ti tl edto a ne w tri al on th at cl ai m be cau se th ere was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o s up po rt any award o f pu ni ti ve da m ag es (th e jury hadaward ed$1 ,50 0,0 00 ) an d b ecau se th e jury’ s awa rdof $2 50 ,00 0 i n c om

pe ns at ory da m ag es was e xc es si ve . See i d. Whe n t he cas e wen t b ackto th e d is tri ctco urt, i t was bi fu rcat edin to li ab il it y an d d am ag es ph as es . After Hi th on ha d p res en te d h is ev id en ce i n t he li ab il it y ph as e, Ty so n m ov edforjud gm en t as a m atte r of law, ar gu in g t ha t Hi th on ha d fai le d t o p res en t en ou gh ev id en ce o f di sc riminat io n fo r hi s cl ai m to go to th e jury. The di st ric t co urt d en ie d t ha t m ot io n. Atth e cl os e o f al l ev id en ce i n t he li ab il it y ph as e Ty so n a ga in m ov edfora di rect edve rd ic t an d t ha t m ot io n was als o d en ie d. The jury returne d ave rd ic t ag ai ns t Ty so n o n Hi th on ’s di sc riminat io n c la im , andas da m ag es award edhi m

co m pe ns at ory dam ag es to ta li ng $3 35 ,00 0 a ndpu ni ti ve da m ag es in th e am ou ntof $ 1,0 00 ,00 0. The di st ric t co urt d en ie d Tyson ’s ren ewed Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 5 0( b) m ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of law o n th e co m pe ns at ory da m ag es award , ho ld in g tha t t he re was su ffi ci en t ev id en ce fo r Hit ho n’s d is cri m in at io n c la im to ha ve go ne to th e jury. The co urt g ran te d t he Ru le 50 (b ) m ot io n, h owe ve r, in so far a s t he pu ni ti ve da m ag es awardwas c on cern ed , 3ho ld in g t ha t t he re was in su ffi ci en t “ ev id en ce t o s up po rt afin di ng th atHatl ey ’s

act io ns warran ti ng pu ni ti ve da m ag es co ul d b e im pu te d t o Tyson .” Ty so n a ls o fil eda Ru le 59 m ot io n fo r rem it ti tu r or , alt ern at iv el y , a ne w tri al , whi ch th e co urt de ni ed
. Thi s ca se is he re b ecau se bo th si de s d is ag reedwith t he co urt’s ru li ng s. Hit ho n app eal edth e co urt’s d eci si onto setasi de th e p un it iv e d am ag es award
. Ty so n c ro ss -ap pe al edth e co urt’s d en ia l o f it s re ne wedm ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of law an d i ts m ot io n fo r rem it ti tu r ora ne w tri al . Ty so n a ls o app eal ed cert ai n e vi de nt ia ry

rul in gs th atth e co urt m ad e.

I. In19 82 Jo hn Hitho n g radua te d fr om hi gh sch oo l an d s ta rte d wo rk in g i n t he Ty so n c hi ck enpl an t i n Gad sd en , Alab am a. The po si ti on s h e h el d a t t he pl an t 1
were ea ch a pr og res si ve st ep in hi s ca reeras apo ul try pro ces so r. He st art ed
worki ng at t he pl an t as a “ li ve ha ng er,” re qu ire d t o h an g 2 4 c hi ck en s a m in ut e. Nex t h e worke d i n t he pa rt o f th e p lantres po ns ib le for“ ki ll in g a ndpi ck in g.” Afte r a return t o t he li ve ha ng in g d ep art m en t as a fro ntli ne supe rv is or , he wo rk ed
as a supe rv is or

of t he “ ev is cera ti ng ” an d “ de bo n[ in g]” d ep art m en ts . In19 90
At that time, the plant was owne d by Spring V alley , but we re fer to it as “Ty son” for 1 consistency
. 4Hit ho n was pro m ot edto a supe rin te nd en t p os it io n, wo rk in g t he ni gh t s hi ft. He

ha d wo rk edas asupe rin te nd en t i n b ot h o f th e d ep artm en ts th atm ak e up t he ch ic ke n p ro ces si ng op erat io n (f irs t- a ndsec on d- pr oc es si ng ) be fo re h e ap pl ie d fo r a sh iftm an ag er job in 19 95
. Whe n Hi th on so ug hta sh iftm an ag er job , th e p la nthi erar ch y was l ik e th is fro m to p t o b ot to m : o ne pl an t m an ag er, two s hi ft m an ag ers , si x s up eri nt en de nt s, an d t he n anu m

be r of supe rv is or s, l eadpe rs on s an d h ou rly work ers . The Gad sd en pl an t h adne ve r ha d abl ackpl an t m an ag er o r sh iftm an ag er, b utfiv e o f th e si x supe rin te nd en ts th ere wer e b la ck
. InApri l 1 99 5 To m

Hatl ey , who is whi te , was h ire d a s m an ag er o f th e Gad sd enpl an t. So on aft er h e b ecame pla ntm an ag er, Hat le y withh el d wag e in crea se s fo r th e two sh iftm an ag ers (who were wh it e) b ecau se th e p la ntwas pe rfo rm in g p oo rly, caus in g t he two of t he m to res ig n i n J un e o r Ju ly of th aty ear, whi chcrea te d t wo o pe n p os it io ns . At th atti m e Ran dy King was wo rk in g a s a s hi ft
m an ag er ata Ty so n p la ntin Pin e Bl uf f, Arka ns as . Hatl ey

ask edhi m

to co m e to th e Gad sd enpl an t t o wo rkas s hi ft m an ag er, an d h e tr an sf erre d i nt o t ha t p os it io n i n Ju ly 199 5. St ev e Dad e was work in g a t a s m al l Ty so n p la ntin Bo az, Alaba m a. At Hatl ey ’s reque stDade tra ns ferr edto th e Gad sd enpl an t t o wo rkas am ai nt en an ce

5supe rv is oran d t hr ee m on th s l at er, i n Au gu st19 95 , Hatl ey pro m ot edhi m

to th e ot he r sh iftm an ag er p os it io n. Bo th Kin g andDade are wh it e. Hit ho n, al on g wi th so m e o th er p la in ti ffs , lat er fi le d alaws ui t al le gi ng em pl oym en t d is cri m in at io n. Hi th on cla im ed , am on g o th er thi ng s, t ha t h e was di sc riminat edag ai ns t o n the ba si s o f race invi ol at io n o f 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 1 wh en Hatl ey fai le d t o p ro m ot e h im

to eit he r of

th e sh iftm an ag er p os it io ns . The d is tri ct
co urt d en ie d Tyson ’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t o n t ha t p art ic ul ar cl ai m al th ou gh itdi d g ran t Ty so n s umm ary jud gm en t o n s om e o th er cl ai m s. Inan in te rlo cu to ry

ap pe al , we affi rm ed . AshI, 31 Fed . App ’x 93 8. Bac k i n the di st ric t co urt, the pre -tr ia l o rd er the pa rti es fil edin cl ud eda se ct io n e nt it le d “ Co nt en ti on s o f th e Parti es ,” whi ch co nt ai ne d t hi s “ Agr eed Su m m ary” of th e fac ts Hitho n a ll eg edreg ard in g h is cla im : Hit ho n: Jo hn Hitho n was a supe rin te nd en t atth e Gad sd enpl an t fo r fiv e y ears pri orto th e ti m e b ot h S hi ft M an ag er p os it io ns be cam e av ai labl e in Ju ly – Aug us t o f 19 95 . Hith on m etTom Hatl ey , pl an t Man ag er, an d e xp res se d ade si re t o b e co ns id eredforSh iftMan ag er, an d t ha t h e wou ldals o n eeda co ll eg e d eg ree, wh ic h Hi th on di d n ot ha ve . W it hi n wee ks , th e Fi rs t Sh iftMan ag er p os it io n was fil le d b y Ran dy King , a whi te m al e, who di d n otha ve a co ll eg e d eg ree, an d who was tran sf

erre d i n fr om

an ot he r Ty so n fa ci li ty. Hatl ey to ld Hit ho n h e was no t g oi ng to fil l t he ot he r sh iftm an ag er p os it io n fo r si x m on th s, b utwithi n o ne week , he app oi nt edSte ve Dade , a whi te m al e, wit h l es s ex pe rie nc e an d abi li ty in b ei ng a Sh iftMan ag er, than Hit ho n. As a m at te r of

fact , th ree o th er Bl ackm al es who ap pl ie d fo r th e p os it io n o f Sh iftMan ag er were m or e ex pe rie nc edan d qua li fie d th anSte ve Dade . Hith onbro ug hta cl ai m forrace di sc riminat io n i n 6th e p ro m ot io n d eci si on to Sh iftMan ag er an d c la im s b ackpa y , fro nt

pa y , in te res t, co m

pe ns at ory an d p un it iv e d am ag es , att orne y ’s fees an d co st s o f th is act io n. The cas e was tri edbe fo re a jury . The jury fou ndHitho n h adpro ve n h is raci al di sc riminat io n c la im

ag ai ns t Ty so n i nv ol vi ng th e fai lu re t o p ro m ot e h im to sh ift
m an ag er, an d i t awa rd edhi m com pe ns at ory an d p un it iv e d am ag es . The di stric t co urt g ran te d Tyson ’s Rul e 5 0 m ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of law o n Hi th on ’s pro m ot io n d is cri m in at io n c la im . In i ts ord er d oi ng so th e co urt
su m m ari zedHatl ey ’s tes ti m on y ab ou t h is reas on s fo r ch oo si ng Kin g a ndDade
ov er Hi th on as f

ol lo ws: “ ex pe rie nc e in th e p ou lt ry in du st ry in a su cces sf

ul pl an t; le ad ers hi p a ndorg an iz at io na l s ki ll s; ex pe rie nc e in m or e th anon e p la nt ; h av in g a co ll eg e d eg ree; an d, as th e p rimary co ns id erat io n, Hat le y ’s bel ie f th atitwou ldbe be tt er t o h av e as sh iftm an ag ers pe rs on s wh o wer e n otass oc ia te d wi th th e ba dl y -p erfo rm in g Gad sd enfaci li ty.” T he co urt co nc lu de d t ha t “ th e ev id en ce o f pr et ex t i s i ns uf

fic ie ntto supp ort a f

in di ng th atth e rea so ns gi ve n b y Hatl ey for
m ak in g Ki ng an d Dad e sh iftm an ag ers were l ie s i nt en de d t o c ov er-up ra ci al di sc riminat io n a ga in stHitho n.” The co urt al so gra nt edTy so n’s m ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of

law o n the pro m ot io n d is cri m in at io n c la im bro ug htby
an ot he r pl ai nt iff

, Ant ho ny Ash. Inth e al te rn at iv e, th e co urt g ran te d Tyson ’s 2 Ash is not a party

in this appeal. He is involved in the issues beforeus only to the extent 2 that he testified in the se cond trial a bout how he subjec tively

interpre ted Hatley ’s use of the term 7m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l, fi nd in g t ha t t he jury’ s v erd ic t i n fa vo r of bo thpl ai nt iff

s was ag ai ns t t he gre atweig htof t he ev id en ce. Hit ho n a ndAshap pe al ed . Ash II, 12 9 F ed . App ’x 52 9, v acat ed , 54 6 U.S. 45 4, 1 26 S. Ct. 1 19 5 (2 00 6) , rei ns ta te d, As h II I, 19 0 F ed . App ’x 92 4. Th ey co nt en de d t ha t Ty so n’s re as on s fo r Hat le y ’s dec is io n n otto pro m ot e th em were pr et ex tu al be cau se : (1 ) Hat le y

pro vi de d s hi fti ng reas on s fo r hi s d eci si on no t t o h ire th em ; (2 ) Hat le y

us edqu al ifi cat io ns th at(a) were no t re qu ire d b y co m pa ny po li cy , and(b) ex cl ud ed[Hit ho n a ndAsh ]; (3) Hatl ey on ly check ed refe ren ces forbl ackcan di da te s an d d idno t re vi ew Kin g’s o r Dad e’s pe rfo rm an ce re vi ews or p ers on ne l fi le s; (4) Hatl ey li edab ou t a co ll eg e d eg ree r equi rem en t fo r th e sh iftm an ag er p os it io n; (5) Hatl ey of fere d Ki ng th e sh iftm an ag er p os it io n b efo re i nt erv ie win g Hi th on fo r th e job ; (6 ) Hat le y

ha nd -p ic ke d Dad e fo r th e sh iftm an ag er po si ti on de sp it e te ll in g t he supe rin te nd en ts th athe wou ldho ldth e po si ti on op enbe fo re d eci di ng on th e p ro m ot io n; (7) Ty so n fa il edto pr ov e th atth e Gad se n p la ntwas l os in g m on ey whenAsh an d Hi th on were s up eri nt en de nt s; an d (8 ) Hat le y ’s dec is io n was m ad e in an at m os ph ere wh ere b la ckem pl oyees wer e tr eat eddi ffer en tl y , in cl ud in g Hatl ey ’s coo l d em ean orto wardth e ap pe ll an ts an d h is st at em en ts refe rri ng to [Hit ho n a ndAsh ] as “bo y s.” Ash II, 12 9 F ed . App ’x at 5 31
. InAsh II we fi rs t co ns id eredth e ev id en ce ab ou t Hat le y ’s us e o f th e wor d

“bo y ” an d h el d: “ Whi le th e u se of ‘bo y ’ whe n m od ifi edby a racia l cl as si fic at io n li ke ‘ bl ack ’ or‘ whi te ’ is ev id en ce o f di sc riminat ory in te nt , th e u se of ‘bo y ’ al on e “boy .” We will address that testimony later in this opinion. 8is no t ev id en ce o f di sc riminat io n.” Id. at53 3 (c it at io n o m it te d) . W e al so ob se rv ed

th atde vi at io n fr om

co m pa ny po li cy

do es no t, b y

it se lf, e st ab li sh anin te ntto di sc riminat e, bu t i t ca n b e ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce o f di sc riminat io n, “ es pe ci al ly whe re the rul es were b en t o r br ok ento gi ve a no n- m in or it y ap pl ic an t an ad va nt ag e.” Id . W e ex pl ai ne d tha t “ ‘in a fa il ur e to pro m ot e cas e, a p la in ti ff
can no t p ro ve pre te xtby sim pl y sh owi ng th athe was b et te r qu al ifi edth anth e in di vi du al who rece iv edth e p os it io n t ha t h e wan te d.’” Id . (qu ot in g Lee v. GTE Fl or id a, In c., 22 6 F .3d12 49 , 12 53 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ) (al te rat io ns om it te d) ). W e st at edth atwhen qu al ifi cat io ns are co m pa redin a di sc riminat io n c as e, pr et ex t ca n be est ab li sh ed“ on ly whe n ‘th e d is pa rit y in qu al ifi cat io ns is so ap pa ren t as vi rtu al ly to ju m

p o ff the pa ge an d s lap youin th e fac e.’” Id. (quo ti ng Co op er v . So ut he rnCo ., 39 0 F .3d69 5, 7 32 (11 th Cir .20 04 )). App lying th os e ru le s, we h el d: Afte r rev ie win g t he reco rdin th e p res en t ca se , we con cl ud e th atAsh di d n otpre se ntsu ffi ci en t ev id en ce fo r a rea so nabl e jury to fi ndth at Ty so n d is cri m in at edag ai ns t h im be cau se no ne of t he ev id en ce ap pl ic ab le to hi s cl ai m s es tabl is he s d is cri m in at io n. Ho wev er, we co nc lu de th atHitho n p res en te d asu ffi ci en t ca se of d is cri m in at io n be cau se he de m on st rat edth atHatl ey in te rv ie wedhi m

aft er Hat le y

ha d al read y hi redKin g, i nd ic at in g t ha t Hat le y ’s st at edreas on s fo r reject in g Hi th on—h is lac k o f a co ll eg e d eg ree, h is po si ti onas a m an ag er ata fi na nc ia ll y

tro ub le d p lant , andhi s l ackof e xp eri en ce ou ts id e o f th e Gad se n p la nt—wer e p ret ex tu al . Thi s ev id en ce o f pr et ex t al on g wi th Hitho n’s p rima facie cas e o f di sc riminat io n was su ffi ci en t fo r th e jury to d eci de whet he r Ty so n d is cri m in at ed
. Acco rd in gl y , we con cl ud e th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err in gr an ti ng Ty so n’s [Rul e 5 0( b) ] m ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of law 9on Ash ’s cla im s, b utth e co urt erredin gra nt in g t he m ot io n fo r

jud gm en t as a m at te r of

law o n Hi th on ’s cla im s. Id . at 5 33 –3 4. We dec id ed , ho wev er, tha t t he di st ric t co urt’s al te rn at iv e d eci si on un de r Ru le 50 (c) t o g ran t Ty so n’s re qu es t fo r a n ew tr ia l was co rrec t “ be cau se th ere was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o s up po rt the jury’ s p un it iv e d am ag es awardan d th e co m pe ns at ory da m ag es awardwas e xc es si ve .” Id . at 5 36 . On th atba si s we rem an de d t he cas e fo r a n ew tr ia l. See id
. Ourjud gm en t was va cat edby the Supr em e Co urt. Ash v. Ty so n F oo ds , In c., 54 6 U.S. 4 54 , 12 6 S . Ct. 1 19 5 (2 00 6) (pe r cu ria m). The C ou rt c on cl ud ed th at : “ The jud gm en t o f th e Co urt o f App eal s, an d t he tri al co urt ru li ng s i t affi rm ed , m ay

be co rrec t i n the fin al an al y si s. In th e co ur se of i ts op in io n, ho wev er, the Co urt o f App eal s erredin two res pe ct s, re qu iri ng th atit s ju dg m en t
no w be v acat edan d t he cas e rem an de d fo r fu rth er co ns id erat io n.” Id. at45 6, 1 26 S. Ct . at 1 19 6. Fi rs t, the Supr em e Co urt t oo k i ss ue with t hi s C ou rt’s a na lysis of the raci al im pl ic at io ns of t he word“bo y .” It i ns tru ct edus th atwhi le th e u se of t he word

“bo y ” d oe s n otalwa y s ev id en ce ra ci al an im us , nei th er i s i ts us e witho utm od ifi ers al way s b en ig n. Id ., 12 6 S . Ct. at11 97 . The Co urt s ta te d: “ The sp eak er’s m ean in g m ay de pe ndon va rio us fact or s i nc lu di ng co nt ex t, i nf le ct io n, t on e o f vo ic e, lo cal
cu st om , andhi st or ic al us ag e.” Id
. 10Seco nd , th e Co urt re jecte d t he “

jum p o ff the pa ge an d s lap youin th e fac e” st an da rdforin ferr in g p ret ex t b as edon a co m paris on of qua li fic at io ns . Id. at 45 6– 57 , 12 6 S . Ct. at11 97 . Fin al ly, th e Supr em e Co urt d ire ct edth is Co urt t o

“ de te rm in e in th e fi rs t i ns ta nc e whe th er the two asp ect s o f it s d eci si on he re de te rm in edto ha ve be enm is ta ke n wer e es se nt ia l t o i ts ho ld in g” an d re m an de d fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs co ns is te ntwith i ts op in io n. Id . at 4 58 , 12 6 S . Ct. at11 98
. On re m an d, i n re ga rdto Hatl ey ’s us e o f th e wor d “ bo y ,” we he ld : Afte r rev ie win g t he reco rd , we con cl ud e o nc e ag ai n t ha t t he us e o f “bo y ” b y Hatl ey was n otsu ffi ci en t, ei th er al on e o r wit h t he ot he r ev id en ce, t o p ro vi de a ba si s fo r a jury reas on ab ly to fi ndth atTy so n’s st at edreas on s fo r no t p ro m ot in g t he pl ai nt iff s was raci al di sc riminat io n. Th e u sa ge s wer e co nv ers at io na l an d a s fo un d b y th e di st ric t co urt wer e n on -rac ia l i n c on te xt . Butev enif s om eh ow co ns tru edas r aci al , we con cl ud e th atth e co m m en ts were am

bi gu ou s st ray rem ark s n otut te redin th e co nt ex t o f th e d eci si on s atis su e an d are n otsu ffi ci en t ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce o f bi as to pro vi de a reas on ab le ba si s fo r a fi nd in g o f raci al di sc riminat io n i n t he de ni al of th e p ro m ot io ns . The l ackof am od ifi er i n t he co nt ex t o f th e u se of t he wor d “ bo y ” in th is cas e was no t es se nt ia l t o t he fin di ng th atitwas n ot us edraci al ly, orin su ch a co nt ex t as to ev id en ce ra ci al bi as , in th e de ci si on s atis su e, ev enif “ bo y ” is co ns id eredto ha ve ge ne ral raci al im pl ic at io ns . The s ta te m en ts were re m ot e in ti m e to th e em pl oym en t de ci si on , to ta ll y

un rel at edto th e p ro m ot io ns at i ss ue , andsh owe d n o in di cat io n o f ge ne ral raci al bi as in th e d eci si on m ak in g p ro ces s atth e pl an t o r by Hatl ey . Mo reo ve r, th ere i s n ot hi ng in th e rec or d abo utth e rem ai ni ng fact or s t o s up po rt a n i nf eren ce o f rac ia l an im

us in th e u se of th e te rm “bo y .” Ash III, 1 90 Fed . App ’x at 9 26 . W e al so ex pl ai ne d t ha t the “ ‘j um p o ff the pa ge te st ’ was no t es se nt ia l t o [o ur ] in it ia l co nc lu si onth atth e co m pa rat iv e 11qu al ifi cat io ns ev id en ce d idno t p ro vi de su ffi ci en t ev id en ce o f pr et ex t.” Id . at 9 27
.

W e st at ed : “ On t hi s re co rd , we con cl ud e th atth e p la in ti ffs di d n otm eetth ei r bu rd enun de r Co op er t o s ho w th atth e d is pa rit ie s b etween th ei r qu al ifi cat io ns an d th e qua li fic at io ns of Ki ng an d Dad e were ‘of s uc h wei gh t an d s ig ni fic an ce t ha t n o reas on ab le pe rs on , in th e ex erci se of i m pa rti al jud gm en t, co ul d h av e ch os enth e can di da te sel ect edov er the pl ai nt iff for th e job in qu es ti on .’ ” Id . (qu ot in g a nd ap pl y in g t he st an da rdfro m Co op er v . Sou th ern Co ., 39 0 F .3d69 5, 7 32 (11 th Cir
. 20 04 )). Afte r rea ch in g t ho se co nc lu si on s, we “ rei ns ta te [d ] th e p rev io us ho ld in gs of ou r [As h II ] de ci si on .” Id . at 9 27 . The b ot to m li ne forHitho n’s ca se was: W e rev ers e th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f jud gm en t as a m at te r of law i n fav orof Tyson on Hitho n’s d is cri m in at io n c la im s b ut , with re sp ectto Hit ho n, we af

firm th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er al te rn at iv el y gra nt in g a ne w tri al be cau se th ere was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o s up po rt t he jury’ s pu ni ti ve da m ag es award , andth e co m pe ns at ory da m ag es awardwas ex ces si ve . W e rem an d thi s ca se to th e d is tri ctco urt t o c on du ctfurth er pr oc eed in gs co ns is te ntwith t hi s o pi ni on . Id . Thatlef

t t he cas e in th e sa m e p ro cedur al po stur e th atitha d b een in when we is su edAsh II, be fo re the Supr em e Co urt v acat edou r de ci si on an d re m an de d t he
cas e to us . See As h II , 12 9 F ed . App ’x 52 9. Be cau se a jury mig htreas on ab ly find th atHatl ey

ha d n otin te rv ie wedHitho n u nt il he ha d a lre ady hi redKin g, t he re was en ou gh ev id en ce o f pr et ex t al on g wi th th e p rima facie cas e o f di sc riminat io n fo r th e jury to d eci de whet he r Ty so n d is cri m in at edag ai ns t Hi th onin fil li ng th at
12pa rti cu la r po si ti on . Id. at53 4. Hi th on ha d n ot , ho wev er, p res en te d e no ug h

ev id en ce t o s up po rt aco m pe ns at ory da m ag es awardin th e am ou ntof $ 25 0,0 00 or an y pu ni ti ve dam ag es awardat a ll . Id. at53 6. Fo r th os e rea so ns a ne w tri al was ne ces sa ry . See i d. Bac k i n the di st ric t co urt, a p re-t ria l o rd er d ire ct edth e p art ie s t o s ub m itth ei r factua l co nt en ti on s b efo re the retria l. Hit ho n c on ti nu edto ass ertth athi s di sc riminat io n c la im

was b as edon Hatl ey ’s dec is io n n otto pro m ot e h im to eit he r of th e two op ensh iftm an ag er p os it io ns , andhi s fa ctua l co nt en ti on s re ferr edto bo th th e sh iftm an ag er p os it io n a ward edto Kin g, wh ic h we wi ll cal l “ th e Kin g sl ot ,” an d t he sh iftm an ag er p os it io n a ward edto Dade , whi ch we wil l ca ll “ th e Dad e sl ot .” Ty so n re sp on de d i n i ts factua l co nt en ti on s t ha t Hi th on ha d n ot

“pr es en te d s uf

fic ie ntev id en ce t o a ll ow an y pro m ot io n c la im

reg ard in g t he pr om ot io n o f St ev e Dad e to be pre se nt edto th e jury, andth is cla im is no t
co nt em pl at edby [Ash I II].” Inpre -tr ia l m ot io ns Ty so n a rg ue d t o t he di st ric t co urt t ha t ev id en ce ab ou t th e Dad e sl otsh ou ldbe ex cl ud ed , bu t t he co urt re jecte d tha t ar gu m en t. Bef or e th e ret ria l Ty so n a ls o fi le d t hr ee m ot io ns ask in g t he di stric t co urt t o l im itth e ev id en ce in acco rd an ce wi th th e la w of t he cas e. [DE:3 55 , 35 6, 3 57 ] In o ne of i ts m ot io ns in li m in e, Ty so n c on te nd edth atth e “bo y ” ev id en ce s ho ul d b e ex cl ud edfro m th e 13ret ria l. Inan ot he r m ot io n Tyson arg ue d t ha t t hi s C ou rt h adres tri ct edth e rem an d

so le ly to ev id en ce tha t Hat le y ha d o ffer edKin g t he sh iftm an ag er job be fo re h e in te rv ie wedHitho n. Ina th irdm ot io n Tyson ass ert edth aton ly evi de nc e rel at edto th e Kin g p ro m ot io n “ cl ai m ” (an d n o e vi de nc e ab ou t the Dade pro m ot io n “ cl ai m ”) sh ou ldbe adm it te d. Ty so n b as edth atpo si ti onon ou r st at em en t i n As h II , whi ch we rei ns ta te d i n As h II I, th at“ Hit ho n p res en te d asu ffi ci en t ca se of d is cri m in at io n be cau se he de m on st rat edth atHatl ey in te rv ie wedhi m

aft er Hat le y

ha d a lre ady hi redKin g.” Ash II, 12 9 F ed . App ’x at 5 34 ; s ee al so Ash III, 1 90 Fed . App ’x at 92 7. Ty so n c on te nd edth atth is Co urt h adth ereb y ex cl ud edfro m

th e ret ria l al l ot he r “ cat eg or ie s o f ev id en ce” e xc ep t ev id en ce ab ou t wh ethe r Hat le y off ereda sh iftm an ag er job to Kin g b efo re h e in te rv ie wedHitho n. The di st ric t co urt reject edth atco nt en ti on . Inrul in g o n Tyson ’s m ot io ns in li m in e, th e d is tri ctco urt ex pl ai ne d t ha t i t
wou ldno t m ak e a p re-t ria l d eci si on ab ou t “ each an d e ve ry bi t o f ev id en ce” t ha t
wou ldbe adm it te d o r ex cl ud ed
. It d en ie d Tyson ’s m ot io n t o l im itth e ev id en ce i n acco rd an ce wi th th e la w of the cas e, ex cep t as to th e “bo y ” co m m en t ev id en ce. The co urt s ta te d t ha t “ [o ]rdin ari ly, a n ew tr ia l d oe s n otli m ita pl ai nt iff to pr es en ti ng th e ex actsame evi de nc e h e p res en te d i n t he ori gi na l t ria l.” It
reco gn iz ed , ho wev er, tha t t he law o f th e cas e d oc tri ne “pr ecl ud es a reex am in at io n 14of

a factua l o r le ga l i ss ue pre vi ou sl y de ci de d b y

anap pe ll at e co urt.” Bas edon ou r Ash II an d As h II I de ci si on s, t he di st ric t co urt d eci de d t ha t ev id en ce ab ou t Hatl ey ’s us e o f th e te rm

“bo y ” sh ou ldbe li m it edin th e se co ndtri al : “ Ass um in g th atth e p la in ti ffs ha ve pre se nt edall of t he ev id en ce co nc ern in g Hat le y ’s us e o f th e wor d ‘bo y ,’
. . . su ch ev id en ce h as no ev id en ti ary va lu e, an d, t he refo re, the de fen da nt ’s m ot io n t o l im itor e xc lu de th is ev id en ce i s g ran te d.” Dur in g t he tri al , ho wev er, the di st ric t co urt re co ns id eredth atis su e an d
as ke d Hi th on ’s cou ns el , “ [W] ha t i s g oi ng to be di ffer en t ab ou t t he ev id en ce [o f th e us e o f th e te rm

“bo y ”] in t hi s ca se ? ” Hit ho n’s co un se l an swe redth atth e Supr em e Co urt’s o pi ni on ha d i ns tru ct edth atatt en ti on sh ou ldbe pa idto “ to ne , in fle ct io n, an d c on te xt ” in th e u se of t he wordan d t ha t s he in te nd edto de ve lo p tho se fact s th ro ug h wi tn es s t es ti m on y . The di st ric t co urt d eci de d t o a ll ow t ha t ev id en ce, ex pl ai ni ng th at : “ [T]his is a ne w tri al . The wi tn es se s ar e n otrequi redto co m e in
an d g iv e th e ex actsame tes ti m on y . If th ey were, y ou m ig htas we ll jus t b rin g t he m in an d l etth em

readth e tr an sc rip t fr om

th e p rev io us tes ti m on y .” Afte r he ari ng all of t he ev id en ce t he jury, in an swe r to th e sp eci al in te rro ga to rie s, fo un d t ha t Hat le y di d n otdi sc riminat e ag ai ns t Hi th on ba se d o n race whenhe hi redKin g fo r a s hi ft m an ag er p os it io n, b uthe di d d is cri m in at e whe n h e p utDade in th e o th er s hi ft m an ag er p os it io n. The jury award edHitho n 15$3 5,0 00 in ba ck -p ay , $3 00 ,00 0 i n c om pe ns at ory (m en ta l an gu is h) da m ag es , and $1 ,00 0,0 00 in pu ni ti ve da m ag es . On Ty so n’s Ru le 50 (b ) m ot io n, t he di st ric t co urt
va cat edth e p un it iv e d am ag es awardbu t re jecte d Tyson ’s arg um en t t ha t the
ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t t o s up po rt afin di ng of d is cri m in at io n o r th e awardof
co m pe ns at ory da m ag es . The co urt en te redjud gm en t o n t he jury’ s v erd ic t i n fa vo r of Hitho n i n t he am ou ntof $ 36 4,0 49 .33
. Bo th si de s ap pe al ed
. II . Hit ho n’s d ire ctap pe al ch al le ng es th e d is tri ctco urt’s d eci si on to va cat e th e pu ni ti ve da m ag es award . Ty so n’s cr os s- ap pe al ch al le ng es : the di st ric t co urt’s refu sa l t o e nt er jud gm en t i n i ts fav orba se d o n t he law o f th e cas e; th e co urt’s de ni al of i ts m ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m atte r of law b as edon in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce of di sc riminat io n; a nu m

be r of ev id en ti ary ru li ng s t he co urt m ad e; an d t he co urt’s refu sa l t o o rd er re m it ti tu r of th e jury’ s awa rdof c om

pe ns at ory dam ag es . W e wil l ta ke up Ty so n’s cr os s- ap pe al , whi ch is en ou gh to res ol ve th e ap pe al
. A. Ty so n fi rs t co nt en ds th atin Ash III thi s C ou rt r em an de d t he cas e fo r th e so le pu rp os e o f de te rm in in g wh ethe r Hat le y raci al ly dis cri m in at edag ai ns t Hi th on when he sel ect edKin g fo r th e fi rs t av ai labl e sh iftm an ag er job
. W e n eedno t ad dr es s

16Ty so n’s l aw of th e cas e arg um en t b ecau se in an y ev en t t he jud gm en t i n t hi s ca se can no t wi th st an d t he su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce ch al le ng e. B. Ty so n a lt ern at iv el y

co nt en ds th atev enif t he law o f th e cas e d idno t p ro hi bi t th e jury from

co ns id eri ng whethe r Hit ho n was de ni edth e Dad e sl otforraci al ly di sc riminat ory

reas on s, i t was st il l en ti tl edto jud gm en t as a m at te r of law b ecau se th e ev id en ce d oe s n otsupp ort t he jury’ s fi nd in g o f rac ia l d is cri m in at io n. “ W e rev ie w th e d en ia l o f a m ot io n fo r a jud gm en t as a m at te r of law d e n ov o, an d app ly th e sa m e st an da rd s as th e d is tri ctco urt.” Go ld sm it h v . Bag by Eleva to r Co ., 51 3 F.3 d 1 26 1, 1 27 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) . “ W e wil l re ve rs e o nl y if t he fact s an d in fere nc es po in t o ve rwh el m in gl y in fav orof o ne pa rty, suc h t ha t re as on ab le pe op le
co ul d n otarri ve at aco nt rary verd ic t.” Id . (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . W e v ie w all th e ev id en ce an d d raw al l i nf eren ces fro m

itin th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to Hitho n be cau se he is th e n on m ov in g p art y . See i d. Ty so n c on te nd s t ha t i t p ro ffer edrace -n eu tra l re as on s fo r se le ct in g Dad e in st eadof Hi th on an d tha t the ev id en ce attri al was n otsu ffi ci en t t o s ho w th atit s reas on s wer e p ret ex tu al . The l aw of th is cir cu itis th ata pl ai nt iff m us t m ak e an ev id en ti ary sh owi ng crea ti ng a ge nu in e is su e o f fac t as to pre te xtforeach of t he de fen da nt ’s pro ffer edreas on s, n otm erel y for so m e o r m os t o f th em . Chapm anv. 17AI Tran sp ., 22 9 F .3d10 12 , 10 24 –2 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 0) (enbanc ) (“ If the pl ai nt iff

do es no t p ro ffersu ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o c reat e a g en ui ne is su e o f m at eri al fact reg ard in g wh ethe r eac h o f th e d efen da ntem pl oyer’s art ic ul at edreas on s i s pr et ex tu al , th e em

pl oyer is en ti tl edto su m

m ary jud gm en t o n t he pl ai nt iff 's cl ai m .”); id . at 1 03 7 (s am e); Co m bs v. Pl an ta ti on Pat te rn s, 1 06 F.3d15 19 , 15 43 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 7) (pl ai nt iff can av oi d ju dg m en t as a m at te r of law o nl y by

“pr oduc in g e vi de nc e su ffi ci en t t o d is cred itin th e m in d o f a rea so nabl e juro r al l o f th e d efen da nt ’s pro ffer edno nd is cri m in at ory reas on s fo r it s ac ti on s” ). W it h t ha t l aw inm in d, we fo cu s o n wh atTy so n p ro ffer edas i ts pri m ary reas onforsel ect in g Dad e in st eadof Hi th on : the Gads de n p la ntha d b een pe rfo rm in g p oo rly for t wo years andHatl ey , who ha d b een bro ug htin as t he ne w pl an t m an ag er, wan te d t o p utin to th e sh iftm an ag er p os it io ns pe op le who ha d n ot be enina m an ag eri al po si ti on at t he pl an t wh il e itha d b een ha vi ng pro bl em s. Bec au se th is is un do ub te dl y a race -n eu tra l re as on , if Hi th on fai le d t o i nt ro du ce ev id en ce fr om

whi ch a reas on ab le jury co ul d fi ndth atitwas p ret ex tu al , Ty so n was en ti tl edto jud gm en t as a m at te r of law. See C om

bs , 10 6 F .3dat 1 54 3 (h ol di ng th atth e d efen da ntwas e nt it le d t o ju dg m en t as a m at te r of law b ecau se th e pl ai nt iff “ fai le d t o p ro du ce ev id en ce s uf fic ie ntto pe rm ita reas on ab le juro r to rejectas s pu rio us [th e d efen da nt ’s] expl an at io n tha t i t p ro m ot ed[an othe r 18em

pl oyee] in st eadof [ th e p la in ti ff] to supe rv is orbe cau se [th e o th er em pl oyee] ha d
supe rio r supe rv is ory

ex pe rie nc e”). W e ta ke up intu rneach of Hi th on ’s arg um en ts as t o wh y th e ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t t o s ho w th atTy so n’s s ta te d re as on of wa nt in g t o p ro m ot e so m eo ne no t
as so ci at edwith t he m an ag em en t o f th e p la ntwhen itwas h av in g p ro bl em s was pr et ex tu al
. 1. Hit ho n d oe s n otarg ue th atDade was a ss oc ia te d wi th th e Gad sd enpl an t’s pr ob le m s, an d h e d oe s n otarg ue th athe hi m se lf wa s n otpa rt o f th e p la nt ’s
m an ag em en t dur in g t he ti m e Ty so n s ay s i t was ha vi ng pro bl em s. In st ead , Hitho n arg ue s t ha t t he pl an t was no t ac tu al ly perfo rm in g p oo rly durin g t ha t t im e. The pa rti es di sp ut e whe th er the pl an t was actua ll y lo si ng m on ey . Alm os t al l o f th e wit ne ss es , ho wev er, t es ti fie d t ha t t he pl an t was pe rfo rm in g p oo rly. Fo r ex am pl e, Bl ak e, th e o th er Afri can -Am eri cansupe rv is orsee ki ng a sh ift
m an ag er p os it io n, t es ti fie d t ha t “ th e p erfo rm an ce o f th e fac il it y was t erri bl e atth e ti m e an d . . . I kn ew we were l os in g m on ey .” Bl ak e te st ifi edth atbe cau se of t ha t po orpe rfo rm an ce re co rd , he kne w th atHatl ey “ wou ldba si cal ly be lo ok in g t o t he
ou ts id e fo r a fre sh setof e y es ” fo r th e sh iftm an ag er p os it io ns an d t ha t Hat le y wan te d s om eo ne who “ was n’t s ta gn at edby wha t h adbe enhapp en in g” at t he 19Gad sd enpl an t. Bl ak e al so tes ti fie d tha t wh enhe in te rv ie wedforth e sh iftm an ag er

po si ti on , Hatl ey

to ldhi m th atth e o ve ral l p erfo rm an ce o f th e Gad sd enpl an t wo ul d hu rt h is ch an ces of b ei ng pro m ot ed
. Hatl ey tes ti fie d tha t t he y

“ were u nd er a tre m en do us pre ss ur e to tu rnth e p la ntaro un d.” Even th ou gh he ha d s ue d t he
co m pa ny for n otpro m ot in g h im , Ash ag reedin hi s t es ti m on y th atin Aug us t o r Sep te m be r of 19 95 a bu dg etpl anwas i n p la ce an d t he co m pa ny was try in g t o s av e m on ey at e ve ry tu rn . Ty so n’s Co m

pl ex Hum anRes ou rces Man ag er, Ri ch ard Trot te r, te st ifi edth atwhen Hatl ey to okov er as pl an t m an ag er (a s wel l as be fo re th atti m e), the Gads de n p lantwas “ no t d oi ng well .” Pl an t Hu m anRes ou rces Man ag er Hi gg in s t es ti fie d t ha t Hat le y ha d t ol d h er “ th atGads de n was no t pr oduc in g wel l, tha t i t was n’t as effi ci en t as itsh ou ldbe ,” an d s he ha d b een sh own so m e num

be rs onth e Gad sd enpl an t’s p erfo rm an ce co m pa redto ot he r pl an ts . Dad e te st ifi edth at“ [p ]roduc ti on -wis e we were n otdo in g wel l atall . I th in k we were ri gh t d own to ward s t he bo tt om of t he co m

pa ny.” He te st ifi edth atHatl ey ha d
ex pr es se d t ho se co nc ern s t o h im , andad de d t ha t “ ou r co stto pro du ce a p ou ndof ch ic ke n was wors e th analm os t al l o th er p la nt s o f Ty so n fo od s.” Dale Carr ol l, the whi te sh iftm an ag er dur in g t he pe rio d o f po orpe rfo rm an ce who qu itaft er Hat le y

de ni edhi m

a rai se an d wh os e sl otwas l at er fi ll edby D ad e, te st ifi edth athe pe rs on al ly didno t b el ie ve th atat t he ti m e Hat le y to okov er as 20m an ag er the pl an t was insu ch ba d s hape th atitne ed ed“ tu rn in g a ro un d.” But

ev enCarr ol l ad m it te d tha t “ [t]he pl an t i n s om e are as was n otpe rfo rm in g wh ere i t sh ou ldbe .” Jo hn Pit ta rd , who was i n c ha rg e o f th e p la ntas i ts m an ag er fro m 19 86 to 19 94 , tes ti fie d t ha t o n h is watc h t he pl an t was pro fit ab le “ fo r th e m os t p art .” Tha t t es ti m on y , ho wev er, was ba se d a t l eas t i nd ire ct ly on P it ta rd ’s ass es sm en t o f hi s o wn p erfo rm an ce. Itha d l it tl e o r no th in g t o d o wi th Hatl ey ’s per cep ti on of t he pl an t’s p erfo rm an ce, wh ic h i s al l t ha t co un te d. Se e Elro d v . Sears , Roe bu ck& Co ., 93 9 F .2d14 66 , 14 70 (11 th Cir . 19 91 ) (i n d et erm in in g wh ethe r anem pl oyer rel ie d o n l eg it im at e n on di sc riminat ory reas on s, we fo cu s o n t he fact s t ha t t he
em pl oyer be li ev edto be tru e). Inli gh t o f th e m as s o f te st im on y to th e co nt rary, th e te st im on y

of C arro ll an d P it ta rdis no t en ou gh fora reas on ab le jury to ha ve fo un d tha t Hat le y

di d n otbe li ev e th atth e p lantwas p erfo rm in g p oo rly whenhe to okov er as pl an t m an ag er. Andco up le d wi th th atm as s o f te st im on y th ere i s o ne un di sp ut edfactth at
un de rs co res ho w un reas on ab le itwou ldha ve be enforan y fact fin de r no t t o fi nd th atTy so n was co nc ern edab ou t p oo r pe rfo rm an ce atth e p la nt . It i s u nd is pu te d th atth e two whi te pl an t m an ag ers who se de pa rtu re o pe ne d up t he Kin g a ndDade sl ot s l eftaft er the y

were d en ie d wag e in crea se s, an d i t i s u nd is pu te d t ha t the y were de ni edwage in crea se s b ecau se th e p la ntwas p erfo rm in g p oo rly. It wo ul d b e 21il lo gi cal to say tha t the pl an t was no t p erfo rm in g p oo rly for p ur po se s o f fi ll in g t wo m an ag er p os it io ns th atha d b eco m e v acan t b ecau se th e p la ntwas p erfo rm in g po or ly. Co ns id eri ng th is an d a ll of t he ot he r ev id en ce p res en te d, n o re as on ab le jury cou ldha ve fou ndth atth e p la ntwas n otpe rfo rm in g p oo rly at th e ti m e th at Hit ho n, wh o h adbe enin m an ag em en t t he re fo r y ears , was p as se d o ve r in fav orof Dad e, who was n otass oc ia te d wi th th e p la ntan d i ts pro bl em s. 2. Hit ho n a ls o c on te nd s t ha t ev enif t he pl an t was pe rfo rm in g p oo rly at th e ti m e th e p ro m ot io n d eci si on was m ad e, th e ev id en ce s ti ll sh owe d t ha t Ty so n’s st at edreas on of p refe rri ng so m eo ne no t i nv ol ve d i n t he pl an t’s p as t m an ag em en t
was pre te xtua l. Eve n t ho ug h Hi th on di d n otap pe al th e jury’ s fi nd in g tha t t he re was no raci al di sc riminat io n i n Hat le y ’s dec is io n t o fi ll th e fi rs t s hi ft m an ag er s lo t wit h Ki ng in st eadof Hi th on , he d oe s at te m ptto us e so m e o f th e ev id en ce reg ard in g t ha t d eci si on to sh ow p ret ex t co nc ern in g t he st at edreas onforpro m ot in g Dad e to th e se co ndsl ot . Sp eci fic al ly, Hitho n a rg ue s t ha t t he factth atHatl ey di d
no t ev enin te rv ie w hi m

forth e Kin g s lo t u nt il he ha d a lre ady de ci de d t o p utKin g in itsh ows pre te xtas t o t he st at edreas on forpro m ot in g Dad e to th e o th er s lo t. The lo gi cal co nn ect io n e sc ap es us , bu t ev enass um in g t he re i s o ne , th e ev id en ce at

22th e ret ria l d idno t s up po rt t he pre m is e th atHatl ey in te rv ie wedHitho n fo r th e Kin g sl oton ly after i t was to o l at e. Whe n t hi s ca se was h ere b efo re an d we wer e co ns id eri ng th e ev id en ce pr es en te d a t t he fir sttri al , we di d c on cl ud e th atat t ha t t ria l “ Hitho n p res en te d a
su ffi ci en t ca se of d is cri m in at io n b ecau se he de m on st rat edth atHatl ey in te rv ie wed hi m aft er Hat le y

ha d a lre ady

hi redKin g.” Ash II, 12 9 F ed . App ’x at 5 34 , vac at ed , 54 6 U.S. 4 54 , 12 6 S .Ct. 1 19 5 (2 00 6) , rei ns ta te d, As h II I, 19 0 F ed . App ’x at 92 6– 27 . Hith on di d n ot , ho wev er, p res en t s uf fic ie ntev id en ce t o d em on strat e th at atth e ret ria l. The ev id en ce atth e ret ria l d em on strat edjus t t he op po si te . Bas edon al l o f th e retria l ev id en ce, i nc lu di ng Hitho n’s o wn t es ti m on y , no reas on ab le jury
co ul d h av e fo un d tha t Hi th on was i nt erv ie wedforth e Kin g s lo t af te r Kin g a lre ady ha d b een hi red , whi ch un do ub te dl y ex pl ai ns th e jury’ s fi nd in g a t t he retria l t ha t Ty so n d idno t d is cri m in at e ag ai ns t Hi th on infil li ng th atsl ot . It i s t ru e th atHatl ey

ha d n ot es in hi s d ay -ti m er i nd ic at in g tha t: he in te rv ie wedKin g o n J ul y 21 , 19 95 ; Ki ng acce pt edth e sh iftm an ge r po si ti on on Ju ly 24; an d t he n Hat le y

in te rv ie wedHitho n o n J ul y 25
. If tha t ev id en ce were co ns id eredin is ol at io n, a ju ry co ul d re as on ab ly infe r fro m itth atHitho n was ne ve r actua ll y co ns id eredforth e Kin g s lo t b ecau se Hatl ey di d n otin te rv ie w hi m

un ti l

23Kin g a lre ady ha d b een hi red . There was, h owe ve r, a lo t o f ot he r ev id en ce pr es en te d abo utth e ti m in g i ss ue . Hatl ey ex pl ai ne d h is da y -ti m er n ot es in hi s t es ti m on y at t he retria l. He t ol d ho w he i nt erv ie wedHitho n a ndBla ke be fo re h e in te rv ie wedKin g, wro te hi s n ot es ab ou t tho se in te rv ie ws o n apa d, an d l at er tran sc rib edth em in to hi s d ay -ti m er, wit h th e res ul t t ha t the Ju ly 25 d at e d oe s n otm at ch th e ti m e th atHitho n was actua ll y in te rv ie wed . Hatl ey

tes ti fie d t ha t “ th e in te rn al can di da te s, J oh n [Hi th on ] an d Ja m es [Bl ak e] bo th , m ad e itkn own ve ry qu ic kl y th atth ey were i nt eres te d i n t he job . So t he ir i nt erv ie ws ca m e b efo re an y bo dy els e’s di d.” Bla ke , li ke Hitho n, was anAfric an -Am eri can supe rin te nd en t atth e Gad sd enpl an t an d a ls o app li edforth e fir stsh iftm an ag er p os it io n. He te st ifi edth atHatl ey in te rv ie wedhi m

be fo re award in g t he job to Kin g. Bl ak e al so tes ti fie d t ha t h e n ev er fe ltth atHatl ey tre at ed hi m di ffer en tl y

fro m an y on e el se be cau se of h is race . Inad di ti on to th e te st im on y of Ha tl ey

an d B la ke , Hitho n’s o wn t es ti m on y es tabl is he d t ha t h e h adm etwith Hat le y an d d is cu ss edhi s i nt eres t i n b ei ng pr om ot edto each of the sh iftm an ag er p os it io ns be fo re ea chon e was fil le d. Ev en th ou gh Hitho n t es ti fie d a t t he tri al th athe ne ve r ha d a“ si t-d own ” m eet in g, o r “ an in te rv ie w at al l,” wi th Hatl ey ab ou t ei th er o f th e two sh iftm an ag er p os it io ns , th at

24te st im on y

was i m pe ach edwith h is earl ie r de po si ti on tes ti m on y , in whi ch he sai d th is ab ou t t he Kin g s lo t: Q: Yo u d idge t i nt erv ie wed ? A. W e sa t d own an d we t al ke d. Q. Whe re? A. In Mr . Hatl ey ’s off

ic e. * * * Q. Thatwas b efo re Ra nd y Kin g was hi redin to th atjob or t ran sf erre d i nt o th atjob ? A. Yes, si r. Hit ho n a ls o t es ti fie d tha t h e rec al le d t al ki ng in th e h al l wi thHatl ey ab ou t th e se co ndsh iftm an ag er p os it io n t o c om e o pe n. Fo ll owi ng th attes ti m on y at t he ret ria l, h e was ag ai n re m in de d o f hi s ea rli er d ep os it io n t es ti m on y . In h is de po si ti on he was a sk edif h e h adsp ok enwith Hat le y ab ou t Ty so n’s p ol ic y

on th e co ll eg e d eg ree r equi rem en t, an d h e ref erre d t o h is si t-d own m eet in g wi th Hatl ey ab ou t the Dade sl otas a n “ in te rv ie w”: A. Not u nt il I in te rv ie wedwith —well , satdo wn an d v is it edwith hi m ab ou t St ev e Dad e’s po si ti on . Q. Okay. Andwhen di d youdo th at ? A. It was in 19 95
. 25Q. W as itbe fo re Dad e g othi s jo b o r aft er?

A. Yes, si r, be fo re. * * * A. It was be fo re [Dad e] go t t he sh iftm an ag er’s job
. Inhe r cl os in g a rg um en t, co un se l fo r Hit ho n u rg edth e jury to c on si de r Hatl ey ’s day-ti m er n ot es as e vi de nc e o f “ a co ve r-up.” She arg ue d: “ Onl y aft er the fact , aft er Ki ng acce pt s t he job th athe ha nd -p ic ke d, d oe s [Ha tl ey ] feel th e n eedto
on ly doc um en t t he bl ackgu y s.” Whe n t he jury co ns id eredth atarg um en t an d weig he d a ll of t he “ in te rv ie w” ev id en ce, i t fo un d t ha t t he re was no raci al di sc riminat io n i nv ol ve d i n Hat le y ’s pro m ot io n o f Kin g i ns te adof Hi th on . In 3
m ak in g tha t fi nd in g t he jury res ol ve d i n Tyson ’s fav orth e co nf li ct in g t es ti m on y ab ou t wh ethe r Hat le y

“ in te rv ie wed ” Hitho n o r jus t h ad“ di sc us si on s” with h im ab ou t b ot h o f th e sh iftm an ag er p os it io ns , anditde ci de d i n Tyson ’s fav orth e di sp ut e ab ou t h ow Hat le y ’s day-ti m er n ot es sh ou ldbe in te rp ret ed . Becau se th ere As we ha ve alr eady

mentioned, there wer e sepa rate verdic t forms for the Kingslot and 3 the Dade slot. The jury

was spec ifically

asked: “ Do you, the jury , find that defe ndant intentionally

discriminated ag ainst the plaintiff (i.e., r ace was a substantial or motivating fa ctor) when the de fenda

nt awar ded the shift mana g er’ s position t o Randy King ? ” The jury ’s answe r was “ no.” B eca

use its answer

to the first question was “ no,” the jury did not reac h the sec ond question on the verdic t form, which a sked if ther e wa s a mix ed motive in the Kingpromotion decision: “Do you find that [the] defe ndant would have made the sa me promotion decision without the unlawful motive of discrimination? ” See Chambless v. L a.-Pac ific Corp., 481 F .3d 1345, 1348 (11th Cir. 2007) (e x plaining that the “‘mixed-motive’ defe nse . . . conc edes that an improper motive played a r ole in the employer’ s action while a ssertingthat another , valid rea son would have r esulted in the same de cision”). 26is no di sp ut e th atth e p ro ces s i ts el f an d t he in te rv ie w fact s wer e th e sa m e fo r bo th

sl ot s (s it -d own di sc us si on s wi th Hatl ey in hi s o ffi ce b efo re the sl ot s wer e fi ll ed ), aft er fi nd in g t ha t the pro ces s o f fi ll in g t he Kin g s lo t d idno t ev id en ce ra ci al di sc riminat io n, a r eas on ab le jury co ul d n otha ve fou ndth atth e sa m e p ro ces s d id
ev id en ce ra ci al di sc riminat io n a s t o t he Dade sl ot . The ev id en ce ab ou t t he in te rv ie w/d is cu ss io n p ro ces s was id en ti cal forth e Kin g s lo t an d t he Dade sl ot . The ve ry same con du ctby a defe nd an t t owa rdth e sa m e p ers oncan no t b e b ot h
no n- di sc riminat ory

an d a ls o d is cri m in at ory . The ve rd ic t o n t he Kin g s lo t t he refo re es tabl is he s t ha t t he in te rv ie ws (o r di sc us si on s b etween Hatl ey an d Hi th on ab ou t t he sh iftm an ag er p os it io ns ) di d n ot
ev id en ce d is cri m in at io n a s t o the Dade sl oteit he r. See Tec hn ic al Res . Serv s., In c. v. Do rn ie r Med . Sy s., In c., 13 4 F .3d14 58 , 14 64 (11 thCir . 19 98 ) (“ [I]t is th e dut y of th e co urts to att em

ptto ha rm on iz e th e an swe rs , if i t i s p os si bl e u nd er a fa ir read in g o f th em : ‘Whe re the re i s a v ie w of t he cas e th atm ak es th e jury’ s an swe rs to sp eci al in te rro ga to rie s co ns is te nt , th ey m us t b e res ol ve d t ha t way.’ ” (quo ti ng Gall ic k v . Bal ti m or e & Oh io R.R. Co ., 37 2 U.S. 1 08 , 11 9, 8 3 S .Ct. 6 59 , 66 6 (1 96 3) )). The jury’ s v erd ic t i n fa vo r of Hitho n o n t he othe r sl ot , th e o ne th atwent to Dade , canst an d, i f atall , on ly if th ere was so m e o th er ev id en ce t ha t i s s uf fic ie nt

27to supp ort a f in di ng of p ret ex t as to it s s ta te d re as on forpro m ot in g Dad e o ve r Hit ho n. Se e Co m

bs , 10 6 F .3dat 1 53 8. 3. Hit ho n a ls o p oi nt s t o wh athe says were d ev ia ti on s fr om co m pany hir in g o r pr om ot io n p ro cedur es as e vi de nc e o f pr et ex t. W e h av e so m e d oubtab ou t wh ethe r th atarg um en t ac tu al ly resp on ds to Ty so n’s s ta te d re as on th atitpi ck edDade be cau se he , un li ke Hitho n, was no t p artof m an ag em en t dur in g t he ti m e th e p la nt
was pe rfo rm in g p oo rly. Becau se Hitho n h as no t p oi nt edto any on e who sh ou ld ha ve be enco ns id eredforth e Dad e sl otwho ha d n otbe enass oc ia te d wi th th e pl an t’s m an ag em en t dur in g t ha t p ro bl em pe rio d, t he pro cedur es us edto sel ect Dad e m ay

well be irr el ev an t. Dev ia ti on fro m anem pl oyer’s us us al hi rin g o r pr om ot io n p ol ic ie s m ay

be rel ev an t as cir cu m st an ti al ev id en ce t ha t i t h ada pr eo rd ai ne d, p erh ap s d is cri m in at ory , res ul t i n m in d. Ho wev er, tha t l in e o f
reas on in g p ro babl y

work s o nl y

if t he pro cedur al va ria nc e o pe rat es to ex cl ud e fro m co ns id erat io n acan di da te who m eet s t he em pl oyer’s subs ta nt iv e cri te ria . In o th er wor ds , an e m

pl oyer ha s n o m ot iv e to ig no re o r vi ol at e it s o wn p ro cedur es to reac h a d eci si on if i ts subs ta nt iv e cri te riawou ldco m pe l t he same deci si on if t ho se pr oc edur es were fo ll owe d. Be cau se no bl ackcan di da te , in cl ud in g Hi th on , m etth e subs ta nt iv e cri te rio n o f no t h av in g b een inth e p la nt ’s m an ag em en t dur in g t he
28pr ob le m at ic pe rio d, an y fai lu re o f Ty so n t o fo ll ow i ts us ua l p ro cedur es in fil li ng th e Dad e sl otcan no t h av e b een m ot iv at edby a des ire to di sc riminat e ag ai ns t bl ack s. Itcan no t, the refo re, b e ev id en ce t ha t t he subs ta nt iv e cri te rio n i s pr et ex tu al
. Eve n a ss um in g, h owe ve r, th ata va ria nc e fro m co m pany pro cedur es co ul d be ev id en ce o f pr et ex t wh enwe kn ow t ha t the same resu ltwou ldha ve be en reac he d a nyway

gi ve n t he subs ta nt iv e cri te rio n, Hi th on ’s arg um en t s ti ll fai ls be cau se itha s n o e vi de nt ia ry ba si s. Hit ho n a ss ert s t ha t Ty so n d idno t p os t t he job
va can ci es forth e sh iftm an ag er p os it io ns ev enth ou gh , he s ay s, t he co m pa ny sh ou ldha ve do ne so un de r it s p ro cedur es . Hit ho n d oe s n ot , ho wev er, co nt en d t ha t th e fai lu re t o p os t t he va can ci es op erat edto hi s d is ad va nt ag e in an y way . He te st ifi edth athe kn ew ab ou t t he op ensh iftm an ag er p os it io ns an d d is cu ss edwith Hatl ey hi s d es ire to be pro m ot edbe fo re ei th er Ki ng or Da de ha d b een gi ve n t he job . Noton ly tha t, b utHum anRes ou rces Man ag er Hi gg in s t es ti fie d: Bac k t he n, i n ‘95 , so m e p os it io ns we po st edan d s om e we d idno t. Andno rm al ly if itwas a n i nt ern al th in g, i t was —ev erybod y kn ew th at so m eb od y

ha d l eftan d t ha t t he re was a va can cy . So, y ou kn ow, y ou wou ldgo to th atde partment h eadan d youwou ldjus t l etth em kn ow th aty ou were i nt eres te d. Hig gi ns als o t es ti fie d t ha t “ no rm al ly if [th e o pe n p os it io n] was i nt ern al an d we h ad
so m eb od y

in th ere t ha t co ul d d o t he job th atwe fel t was qu al ifi ed , we wou ldjus t
29no rm al ly tran sf er tha t p ers onin to th atpo si ti on .” Tha t i s wh athapp en edwith Dad e. Hit ho n a ls o a ss ert s t ha t Ty so n h ada se ni or ity po li cy an d asal ary ad m in is tra ti on pl anth atrequi redpre fere nt ia l t reat m en t fo r in te rn al ap pl ic an ts , and th atth os e requi rem en ts were d is reg ard ed
. It i s u nd is pu te d t ha t Hi th on ha d wo rk ed fo r Ty so n fo r th irt een y ears , andDade ha d wo rk edforth e co m pa ny for ab ou t t wo, so Hitho n d idha ve sen io rit y . The v ari an ce fr om th atus ua l i nt ern al sen io rit y po li cy , ho wev er, i s co ns is te ntwith Tyson ’s pro ffer edreas on for ch oo si ng Dade in th e fi rs t p la ce— Hatl ey

want edto pu t p eo pl e in th e sh iftm an ag er s lo ts who ha d n ot be enm an ag in g t he pl an t wh enitwas p erfo rm in g p oo rly. T o m eetth atob jecti ve , he ha d t o c ho os e p eo pl e wit h l es s s en io rit y at t he Gads de n p la nt . Andth ere was no ev id en ce t ha t t he sen io rit y po li cy was i nv ari ab ly foll owe d. As forbe in g a n in te rn al ap pl ic an t, i t i s u nd is pu te d t ha t Dad e h adbe enwork in g i n t he Gads de n pl an t fo r th ree m on th s as m ai nt en an ce s up erv is orwhen he was p ro m ot edto sh ift
m an ag er, an d b efo re tha t h e h adwork edat Tyson ’s Boa z p la ntfortwo y ears . So, Dad e’s pr om ot io n was an“ in te rn al ” o ne . It was hi s g oo d fo rtu ne to be at t he pl an t whe n the sl otne ed edto be fil le d b utno t t o h av e b een th ere l on g e no ug h t o b e co ns id eredpa rt o f it s m an ag em en t dur in g t he y ears th e p la ntha d p erfo rm an ce pr ob le m s. 30Hit ho n a ss ert s t ha t Ty so n v ari edfro m it s u su al hi rin g a ndpro m ot io ns pr oc edur es be cau se Dade di d n otm eetth e requi rem en ts forth e sh iftm an ag er po si ti onth atwere s etforth in a writ te n jo b s umm ary. It re qu ire d t hr ee t o fi ve y ears ex pe rie nc e. Dade on ly hadab ou t t wo years o f po ul try pro ces si ng ex pe rie nc e. The s hi ft m an ag er job su m m ary, ho wev er, d idno t s pe ci fy th atth e

“ ex pe rie nc e” re qu ire d fo r th e job ha d t o b e in po ul try pro ces si ng . It s im pl y sai d:

“ Exp eri en ce: 3– 5 yrs.” AndDade ha d m an y m or e y ears th anth atof m an ag em en t
an d l ead ers hi p e xp eri en ce (a s wel l as a Mas te r’s de gr ee i n m an ag em en t an d h um an rel at io ns ), so he m etan d e xc eed edth e ex pe rie nc e requi rem en t s etou t i n t he job
su m m ary. Fi na ll y , Hitho n p oi nt s t o e vi de nc e th atDade was n otin te rv ie wedby the hu m anres ou rces m an ag er b efo re b ei ng sel ect ed
. Hig gi ns , who was t he hu m an res ou rces m an ag er, d idtes ti fy th at : “ My bi gg es t co nc ern was t ha t I d id n’t h av e an op po rtu ni ty to t al k wi th th em . Andpre tt y m uc h t he way

itwas d on e, [Kin g a nd Dad e] were jus t b ro ug htin . AndI was b as ic al ly—or we were b as ic al ly tol d, you kn ow, t he y

ha d b eenhi redas t he sh iftm an ag ers .” Hig gi ns ’ “ co nc ern ” is no t, ho wev er, the same thi ng as aco m pa ny requ ire m en t. Whil e th ere was ev id en ce t ha t Hig gi ns us ua ll y

pa rti ci pa te d i n h iri ng de ci si on s, the re was no ev id en ce t ha t s he in va riabl y

di d s o o r th atco m

pa ny po li cy

requi redth atsh e b e g iv eninpu t i nt o a ll
31pr om ot io n d eci si on s o r th os e atth e sh iftm an ag er l ev el . Hig gi ns di d n ottes ti fy ,

fo r ex am pl e, th atsh e h adany

inpu t atall in th e se le ct io n o f th os e who ha d fi ll ed th e two sl ot s b efo re Ki ng an d Dad e. Eve n i f th ere wer e so m e ev id en ce o f va ria ti onfro m Ty so n’s u su al hi rin g o r pr om ot io n p ol ic ie s o r pr oc edur es , st an di ng alo ne th atwou ldno t ev id en ce ra ci al di sc riminat io n. Se e Mi tc he ll v. USBI Co ., 18 6 F .3d13 52 , 13 55 –5 6 (1 1t h C ir. 19 99 ) (p er cu ria m) (“ Eve n a ss um in g t ha t USB I di d d ev ia te fro m it s p ol ic y , th is de vi at io n d oe s n otrai se anin fere nc e o f di sc riminat io n. St an di ng alo ne , dev ia ti on fro m a co m pa ny po li cy

do es no t d em on st rat e d is cri m in at ory an im us .”). Here, the cl os es t t hi ng to a va ria nc e fro m Ty so n’s u su al po li ci es or p ro cedur es th ata fact fin de r rea so nabl y

co ul d fi ndis th atth e co m pa ny didno t fi ll th e sl otwith t he
can di da te who ha d t he gre at es t s en io rit y . As we h av e al read y ex pl ai ne d, h owe ve r, th ere was no ev id en ce t ha t s en io rit y was a nyth in g m or e th ana pr efer en ce, o r th atit
was to tru m

p a ll othe r co ns id erat io ns . In st ead , th e ev id en ce es tabl is he d b ey on d a ny gen ui ne di sp ut e th atth e ov erri di ng co ns id erat io n u se d i n fi ll in g t he two op ensl ot s was th atth e p ers on se le ct edbe free of t he tai ntof h av in g b een pa rt o f th e p la nt ’s m an ag em en t dur in g th e p eri oditha d p erfo rm edpo or ly. The p oo r pe rfo rm an ce p eri odis , aft er al l, wh at le d t o t he sl ot s b eco m in g o pe n i n t he fir stpl ace wh enth e two whi te em pl oyees 32who ha d fi ll edth em du rin g t ha t p eri odwere d en ie d ra is es an d l eft . As Bl ak e te st ifi ed , Hatl ey

was “ lo ok in g t o t he ou ts id e fo r a fre sh setof e y es ” fo r th e sh ift
m an ag er p os it io ns be cau se he want edso m eo ne who “ was n’t s ta gn at edby wha t ha d b een happ en in g” at t he Gads de n p la nt . 4. Hit ho n a ls o a rg ue s t ha t h is supe rio r qu al ifi cat io ns for th e sh iftm an ag er job sh ow t ha t Ty so n’s p ro ffer edreas on s fo r pr om ot in g Dad e in st eadof h im are pr et ex tu al . In As h II I th is Co urt h el d t ha t Hi th on di d n otm eetth e Co op er st an da rdforco m

pa rat iv e qua li fic at io ns . See As h II I, 19 0 F ed . App ’x at 9 27 (“ On th is reco rd , we con cl ud e th atth e p la in ti ffs di d n otm eetth ei r bu rd enun de r Co op er t o s ho w th atth e d is parit ie s b etween th ei r qu al ifi cat io ns an d t he qu al ifi cat io ns of Ki ng an d Dad e were ‘of s uc h wei gh t an d s ig ni fic an ce t ha t n o reas on ab le pe rs on , in th e ex erci se of i m pa rti al jud gm en t, co ul d h av e ch os enth e can di da te sel ect edov er the pl ai nt iff for th e job in qu es ti on .’ ” (quo ti ng Co op er, 39 0 F .3dat 7 32 , ov erru le d o n o th er g ro un ds by A sh , 54 6 U.S. at45 6– 57 , 12 6 S.Ct . at 1 19 7) ). Ty so n a rg ue s t ha t i n t he sec on d t ria l Hi th on pre se nt edno ne w or di ffer en t ev id en ce ab ou t t he di sp ari ti es be twee n h is qu al ifi cat io ns an d Dad e’s, so th e Ash III h ol di ng on co m pa rat iv e qua li fic at io ns st il l s ta nd s. Bec au se ou r

33ex am in at io n o f th e rec or d c on firm s t ha t, we s ti ckby the co nc lu si on we reac he d i n

Ash III, wh ic h p ro babl y

is law o f th e cas e an yway . 4

5. Fi na ll y , th e te st im on y

ab ou t t he two oc cas io ns whenHatl ey us edth e te rm

“bo y ” was no t en ou gh ev id en ce t o c reat e a jury is su e as to whet he r Ty so n’s pr of fere d re as on forch oo si ng Dade was apre te xtforraci al di sc riminat io n. In 5 Ash III we ap pl ie d t he fact or s s etforth by the Supr em e Co urt t o t he ev id en ce o n th e rec or d b efo re u s atth atpo in t, an d we c on cl ud edth at“ th e [‘bo y ’] co m m en ts
were am bi gu ou s s tra y

rem ark s n otut te redin th e co nt ex t o f th e d eci si on s atis su e an d a re n otsu ffi ci en t ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce o f bi as to pro vi de a reas on ab le ba si s fo r a fi nd in g o f rac ia l d is cri m in at io n i n t he de ni al of t he pro m ot io ns .” 19 0 F ed
.

The e vidence about compar ative qualific ations is such that one of Ty son’s proff ere d 4 rea sons for sele ctingDadeinstead of Hithon is that Dade was more qualified for the position. Ty son argues that in light of the evidenc e about qua lifications it is also entitl ed to judg ment as a matter of la

w on that ground. In light of our decision that Hithon did not create a g enuine issue of pre textabout Ty son’s stated re ason of wa nting someone who had not bee n associate d in a manag eria l capa city

with the plant when it was pe rfor ming poor ly , we ne ed not dec ide whethe r Ty son would be entitled to judg ment on its comparative qua lifications rea son as well. A defe ndant is entitled to judgment a s a matter of law if the pla intiff fails to cre ate a g enuine issue of material fac t as to any

one of the proff

ere d rea sons. Chapman, 229 F.3d 1012, 1024–25; Combs, 106 F.3d at 1543. In its brief to this Court, Ty son also contends that the district c ourt’s dec ision to admit 5 testimony about the use of

the word “ boy” wa s an abuseof discre tion that warra nts a new tria l. At oral a rgument, howeve r, counse l for Ty son agree d that this iss ue had be en wa ived bec ause counsel made a strate g ic dec ision to foreg o a mistrial on that basis. 34App x. at92 6. Un de r th e la w of t he cas e d oc tri ne on ly if “ ne w andsubs ta nt ia ll y

di ffer en t ev id en ce em erg e[d ] at[th e se co nd ] tri al ,” Sch ia vo ex rel . Sch in dl er v . Sch iavo , 40 3 F .3d12 89 , 12 92 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) , canwe rev is itth atco nc lu si on of l aw. See i d. New an d s ub st an ti al ly diff eren ce ev id en ce ab ou t the us e o f th e wor d “ bo y ” was no t p res en te d a t t he retria l. Hit ho n’s co un se l el ic it edth is tes ti m on y fro m Ash ab ou t o ne in st an ce i n J ul y 19 95 (be fo re the pro m ot io n d eci si on s atis su e) wh enHatl ey us edth e wor d “ bo y ” whe n t al ki ng to Ash : A.
. . . . [I]t was b reakti m e, itwas l un ch ti m e. Andwe were jus t si tt in g i n t he cafe te riaha vi ng lu nc h. An d M r. Hatl ey walk s up to th e tabl e wit ho utsayin g a nyth in g, b uthe jus t s ai d, “ Bo y , y ou be tt er g etgo in g.” So I l oo ke d a t h im . I was s ho ck edth athe sa idit , bec au se , y ou kn ow, I fe ltli ke he sai d i t i n am ean an d de ro ga to ry

way . * * * Q. Andwhy was th atoff en si ve to y ou ? A. Bec au se th e “bo y ” wor d i s o ffen si ve . * * * Q. Can y ou ex pl ai n t o t he lad ie s an d g en tl em enof t he jury why th atco m m en t was off

en si ve to y ou , Mr. Ash ? A. Bec au se , y ou kn ow, b ei ng in th e So ut h, an d e ve ry bo dy kn ow be in g i n t he So ut h, a wh it e m ansays b oy to abl ackm an , th at ’s an of fen si ve word
. 35Q. Wha t d o youequa te th atto , us in g t he word“bo y ” to a bl ack

m an ? A. I equa te th atto jus t a r aci al co m m en t b ecau se y ou m ig htas we ll us e th e “ N” wor d i f y ou are g oi ng to say tha t. Q. He m ig htas we ll ha ve walk edup an d s ai d “ ni gg er” t o you ; rig ht ? A. Yeah
. [Co un se l fo r Ty so n]: I o bjec t t o t ha t, Yo urHon or . Thatis so ou t o f li ne . The Co urt: I su st ai n t he ob jecti on . * * * The Co urt: You ’re lead in g t he witne ss . [Co un se l fo r Ty so n]: Th at ’s a m is le ad in g que st io n. Th at ’s th e in te rject io n of a wor d i n t hi s ca se th atha s n ev er b een in it
. The Co urt: The que st io n was im pr op er b ecau se itwas l ead in g t he witne ss , su gg es ti ng anan swe r. 6
* * * Q. Who m ad e a co m

m en t b ack[to Hatl ey ]? A. My wife
.
We agree . The que stion was also highly improper be cause through it counsel for H ithon 6 interjec ted the emotionally charg ed “N ” wor d into the trial, a word that there w as no evide nce at all that Hatley

or anyone else at the plant eve r used. This misconduct by Hithon’s counsel may explain why

the jury returne d a verdict in his favor, e ven though there was insuffic ient evidenc e to support it. W e nee d not speculate about that, thoug h, beca use the judgment is due to be reve rsed f or evide ntiary

insufficienc y

any way . 36Q. Wha t d idsh e sa y ?

A. Sh e sa id , “ He’s no t a b oy. He’s a m an .” Ash ’s wife a ls o t es ti fie d abo utth atin ci de nt , st at in g t ha t Hat le y “ jus t l oo ke d a t [h er] with a sm irkon hi s fa ce l ik e itwas fu nn y an d t he n h e wal ke d o ff.” Hit ho n te st ifi edth atso m et im e aft er Ma y bu t b efo re J ul y

19 95 he he ardHatl ey

sai d “ he y , bo y ” as Hitho n was lea vi ng a co nf eren ce ro om . All of t he tes ti m on y at r etria l 7 ab ou t the us e o f th e wor d “ bo y ” was ba si cal ly the same evi de nc e th atwas pr es en te d i n t he fir sttri al . The o nl y ad di ti on al ev id en ce p res en te d a t t he retria l
was Ash ’s andHitho n’s t es ti m on y ab ou t h ow an d wh y

th e u se of t he term

“bo y ” is of fen si ve to th em , bu t t he is su e is no t wh atwas i n t he ir m in d wh enth ey he ardth e te rm bu t wh atwas i n Hat le y ’s m in d wh enhe us edit , andth ere was no ne w ev id en ce ab ou t tha t. The ev id en ce p res en te d a t t he sec on d t ria l was no t “ ne w and
subs ta nt ia ll y

di ffer en t,” S ch iavo , 40 3 F .3dat 1 29 2, en ou gh forus to rev is itth e co nc lu si on of l aw m ad e inou r Ash III d eci si onaft er the Supr em e Co urt’s re m an d. W e rei te rat e th atco nc lu si onas p artof t he law o f th e cas e. II I.

Hithon testified: “More tha n likely we we re ta lking a

bout numbers of some kind. And 7 as I was lea ving, [Hatley] said, ‘Hey , boy .’ And I hesitated, but I

continued to walk.” 37Viewi ng th e ev id en ce as a who le in th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to Hitho n, s ee

Gol ds m it h, 5 13 F.3dat 1 27 5, a r eas on ab le jury co ul d n otha ve fou ndth atraci al di sc riminat io n was th e rea l re as on for Hatl ey ’s dec is io n t o p ro m ot e Dad e in st ead of Hitho n. Th e d is tri ctco urt erredby refus in g t o g ran t Ty so n’s m ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of

law b as edon th e su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce t o s up po rt a fin di ng of i nt en ti on al di sc riminat io n. Bec au se we co nc lu de th atth e ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t t o s up po rt t he jury’ s ve rd ic t t ha t Ty so n i nt en ti on al ly dis cri m in at edag ai ns t Hi th on ba se d o n h is race whe n Hat le y

pro m ot edDade , we nee d n otreac h t he othe r is su es th e p art ie s h av e rai se d. Th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ctco urt i s R EVERSED, andth e cas e is REMANDED foren try of jud gm en t i n fa vo r of Ty so n.

38DOW D, Dist ric t Jud ge , di ss en ti ng :

I res pe ct fu ll y

di ss en t. Two ju rie s h av e fo un d t he is su es in fav orof t he pl ai nt iff Hitho n a ndgra nt edbo th co m pe ns at ory an d p un it iv e d am ag es . In m y vi ew, th e rec or d s up po rts anaffi rm an ce o f th e se co ndjury ve rd ic t as to
co m pe ns at ory da m ag es . W ith re sp ectto pu ni ti ve da m ag es , th e rec or d a ls o supp orts a co nc lu si onth ata pu ni ti ve da m ag es awardis jus ti fie d, b utin m y vi ew, th e am ou ntof p un it iv e d am ag es award edby the jury is ex ces si ve . As a c on se qu en ce, I wo ul d a ffi rm th e awardof c om

pe ns at ory da m ag es an d return the cas e to th e d is tri ctco urt fo r a n ew tr ia l o n p un it iv e d am ag es , un le ss th e pl ai nt iff acce pt s a r em it ti tu r.

39