### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T N ove m be r 30, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ 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. 05- 13259 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 02 -031 80 -C V -B M A R I A J O H N S O N , P la in tif f
- A p p e lla n t,
v ersu s J I M N I C H O L S O N , S e c r e ta r y o f

V e te r a n s ' A f

f a ir s , 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 N o r th e r n D i s tr i c to f A l a b a ma

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 30, 2005) 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: M a r i a J ohns on, a F i l i pi no nur s e , appe a l s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s or de rgr a nt i ngWe reviewde novo a district c ourt' s order grantingsummary

judgment, “viewingall the 1 evidenc e, and drawingall rea sonable inferenc es, in favor of the non-movingparty .” Ve ssels v. Atlanta Ind ep. Sc h. Sys. , 4 08 F .3 d 7 63 , 7 67 (1 1th Cir . 2 00 5) . Summa

ry judgment i s a

pp ropriate when the record shows that “there is no g enuine issue a s to any material fac t, and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”I d. (citingFe d. R. Civ. P . 56(c) ). 2 sum m ary j ud gm enti n favor of her emp l oyer , B i rm i ng ham V et er ans A ff ai rs M e d ic a l C e n te r( “B V A M C ” ) , in h e ra c tio n a lle g in g r a c ia l a n d e th n ic di s c r i m i na t i on a nd r e t a l i a t i on unde rT i t l e V I I of the C i vi l R i ght s A c tof 1964 (“ T i t l e V II ”) , 42 U . S . C . § 2 00 0e-2(a) (1) & 20 00 e- 3(a) . T he di stri ctcourtgrant ed
sum m ary j ud gm entbecause J oh nson fa i l ed t o p roff ersuff i ci entevi dence that B V A M C ’s le g itim a te , n o n d is c r im in a to r y a n d n o n - r e ta lia to r y r e a s o n s f o rits
e mp l o y me n ta c t i o n s w e r e p r e t e x tu a l . A f t e rr e v i e w , w e a f

f i r m. 1 I . B AC KG RO UN D John son w as em pl oyed as a N urse M anager i n t he A m bu l at ory C ar e a re a a t B V A M C . I n 1996, J ua n M or a l e s be c a m e B V A M C ’ s C hi e f N ur s i ng S upe r vi s or and w as i n Joh nson ’ s s up ervi sory chai n. B egi nn i ng i n 1 99 7, John son t w i ce t es t i fi ed i n E E O C proceedi ng s i n favor of a former co-w orker, A del ai da B al t az ar , w ho c l a i m e d tha tJ ua n M or a l e s ha d di s c r i m i na t e d a ga i ns the rba s e d on he rA s i a nP a c i f i c / F i l i pi no de s c e nt . J ohns on f i r s tt e s t i f i e d f orB a l t a z a ri n O c t obe r1997 a nd th e n a s e c o n d tim e o n M a r c h 6 , 1 9 9 8 . J ohns on a l l e ge s tha t , a f

t e rhe rt e s t i m ony , M or a l e s be ga n di s c r i m i na t i ng a ndM o ra l e s l at e r a gr e e d t o r e s t o r e$ 1 6 7 . 2 4 o f

th eo v e rt i m ep ay. 2 3 re t al i at i ng agai nsther. S ho rt l y a ft erJohn son’ s f i rs tE E O C t es t i m on y, M oral es ordered the re m ov al of ov er t i m e pay i n t he am ou ntof $3 58 . 24 thathad b ee n aut om at i ca l l y deposi t ed i n Joh nson ’ s bank account . M oral es di d so b ec ause i tw as h i s p o l i c y t o r e q u i r e s u p e r v i s o r s t o g e th i s p r e - ap p r o v a l b e f o r e w o r k i n g o v e r t i me and Joh nson had n otre ce i ved h i s app roval for thatov er t i m e. 2 S om et i m e a ft erJohn son’ s O ct ob er19 97 t es t i m on y f or B al t az ar , bu tbefore her M ar ch 19 98 , t es t i m on y, John son at t ended a N urse M anagers ’ m ee t i ng i n w hi ch Mo r a l e s s a i d th a ta n o th e rh o s p i t a l e m p l o y e e , Do r i s B l u e , h a d f i l e d “ a n E E O” ag ai n sth i m an d th ath e n eed ed th e N u rse M an ag ers’ su p p o rt . H e st at ed th atM s. B lu e “ju s t d o e s n ’t u n d e r s ta n d c u ltu r e ” a n d th e n e x p la in e d , “F o re x a m p le , o r ie n ta ls d o n ’ tl o o k yo u i n th e eye w h en th ey t al k t o yo u . ” M o ral es d i rect ed th ese co m m en t s t o th e g ro u p , n o tt o Jo h n so n sp eci fi cal l y. W hen M oral es arri ved atB V A M C i n 1 99 6, he began p l anni ng t o res tructure the e nt i r e nur s i ng s t a f

f a tthe hos pi t a l . T he r e s truc tur i ng be ga n i n 1997 i n the A cut e C ar e S ervi ce s a re a. T he nu m ber of N urse M anagers i n A cut e C ar e S ervi ce s w a s r e d u c e d f

r o m n in e to s e v e n . T he A m bul a t or y C a r e a r e a , i n w hi c h J ohns on w or ke d, w a s the s e c ond
nur s i ng uni tt o be r e s truc tur e d, w hi c h be ga n i n 1998. A tthe t i m e of theNone of the other Nurse Ma

nag ers wa s Asian or F ilipino. 3 In a statement given to the EEOC investigator, J ohnson testified that she attende d a 4 meetingwith Parris on Marc h 16, 1998, in which she view ed an org anizational char t which listed her na me, but not as part of

manag ement. This cha

rt does not appe ar in the record. 4 r e s tru c tu r i n g , th e A mb u l a t o r y Ca r e a r e a h a d f o u rN u r s e M a n a g e r s – J o h n s o n , Er ma Ja ckson, R ut h F i el ds and F ra nces M cC re e. B ef ore the re organi za t i on John son w as 3 th e N u rse M an ag er fo r p ri m ary care an d th e m ed i cal an d su rg i cal sp eci al i ty cl i n i cs, I da F i e l ds f

ora m bul a t or y s ur ge r y , F r a nc e s M c C r e e f orthe bl i nd r e ha bi l i t a t i on c e n te r , a n d E r m a J a c k s o n f o rth e e m e r g e n c y r o o m . O n M arch 6 , 1 9 9 8 , A u d rey M o o re, w h o su p erv i sed th e fo u r N u rse M a na ge r s , c a l l e d a m e e t i ng a nd a s ke d the m t o br a i ns t or m a bouts ol ut i ons i f the
num be rof

N ur s e M a na ge r s w e r e r e duc e d f r om f ourt o thr e e . D ur i ng the m e e t i ng, Mc R e e s t a t e d th a ts h e w o u l d r e t i r e w i th i n th e n e x ty e a r . O n Ma r c h 1 6 , B V A MC D i r e c t orY . C . P a r r i s a nnounc e d the r e s truc tur i ng of the A m bul a t or y C a r e a r e a i n a m ee t i ng and ci rc ul at ed a proj ec t ed organi za t i on al char t , w hi ch show ed John son as N u r s e M a n a g e rin p r im a r y c a r e b u t n o t in th e m e d ic a l a n d s u r g ic a l s p e c ia lty cl i ni cs . T he chartdesc ri bed b y J oh nson i s noti n t he re cord. H ow ever , the re cord

4
co n t ai n s an u n d at ed o rg an i zat i o n al ch artth attw i ce i n cl u d ed Jack so n ’ s n am e as a N ur s e M a na ge r , butdi d notc ont a i n the na m e s of J ohns on, F i e l ds , M oor e or M oral es or thei r posi t i on s. A ta s ub se qu entm ee t i ng on ei ther M ar ch 22 or M ar ch 2 6 , M o r a le s a n n o u n c e d th a t th e n u m b e ro f N u r s e M a n a g e r s w a s b e in g r e d u c e d toAlso in late Marc h, Moore, who w as transf erring to a

nother medic al center, a

ppointed 5 J ac k s o nt o b e A ct i n g Amb u l at o ry C ar e Nurs i n g S u

p erv i s o r ( “A CNS ”) i nh er p l ac e, ev enth o u gh J ohnson had held the position in the past. In addition, in the sixmonths following her Marc h 6 testimony , J ohnson lost som e of her duties, includingsupervision of the spe ciality clinic, one- onon eint e rv iew d

uti e s and dutie s re latin gto p lann ingreno vatio ns and re loc atio ns . 5 tw o. A ft erthe re organi za t i on , the new l y- cr ea t ed N urse M anager posi t i on s w er e 5 for: (1) a m bu l at ory s urgery , ob se rvat i on un i tand speci al i ty c l i ni cs , and (2) pri m ary c a r e , e m e r g e n c y r o o m a n d b lin d r e h a b ilita tio n c e n te r . In June and Jul y of 199 8, John son’ s off i ce , al on g w i th t he offi ce s of other
e m pl oy e e s , w a s r e l oc a t e d due t o c ons truc t i on i n the hos pi t a l . J ohns on’ s s e c ond
m ov e w as t o a vacantar eaof the si xt h fl oo r i n a room thatw as di rty a nd had h ol es i n the c a rpe t . T he de c i s i on t o m ove of f i c e s , i nc l udi ng J ohns on’ s of f i c e , w a s m a de by a c ons truc t i on c om m i tt e e c ha i r e d by the B V A M C di r e c t or . M or a l e s w a s on the construct i on com m i tt ee and g ave i np utt o t he com m i tt ee w hen h i s a re as w er e a f f e c t e d. In Jul y 199 8, the tw o n ew l y- re structured N urse M anager posi t i on s w er e pos t e d. J ohns on appl i e d f orboth pos i t i ons . F i e l ds a nd J a c ks on e a c h appl i e d f or o n e o f th e p o s i t i o n s . A p a n e l c o n s i s t i n g o f Mo r a l e s a n d tw o o th e rB V A MC
e m pl oy e e s s e l e c t e d by M or a l e s i nt e r vi e w e d the thr e e c a ndi da t e s . D ur i ng the i nt e r vi e w , e a c h c a ndi da t e w a s a s ke d the s a m e thi r t e e n que s t i ons a nd s c or e d by the
e va l ua t or s . A l l thr e e e va l ua t or s ga ve J ohns on a l ow e rs c or e tha n e i the rJ a c ks on orTh esc ore s f ro m th ethre ee valuator s w e rea s f oll ow s: 6 Dicker son Hahn Morales J ohnson 24 37 16 J ackson 31 39 31 Fields 38 39 28.5 Eac h candidate was a sked the samethirteen que stions, which wereworth up to threepoints. I f a candidate did not answer

a question, she rece ived a zero. D ependingupon how well the c andidateans were d a

qu e sti on , s hec ould re c e ivebe tw e e n o neand thre epo int s. Th ehighe st sc orea c andidatec ould re c e ivewa s 3 9 p oints. With reg ard to the c andidates’ experience , J ohnson had 30 year s of nursingexperience , 7 six teen of those in manag ement. Jackson had eighteen year s of nursingexperience , with four ye ars in m anag e ment. F ie lds had e ighte e n ye ars of nurs inge xpe ri e nc e , w ithten ye ars in manag ement. B oth J ackson a nd J ohnson had ten year s of experienc e with the acute ca re unit, the emerg ency

room and the blind rehabilitation center . With reg ard to the a mbulatory

surg ery, the observation unit, and the specialty clinics, J ohnson had ten year s of experienc e and F ields had nine. 6 F i el d s. 6 M o ral es w as th e fi n al sel ect i n g o ffi ci al an d sel ect ed Jack so n t o b e th e N u rse M a n a g e rf

o re m e r g e n c y r o o m , p r im a r y c a r e a n d b lin d r e h a b ilita tio n a n d F ie ld s to be the N ur s e M a na ge rf ora m bul a t or y s ur ge r y f a c i l i ty , obs e r va t i on uni ta nd spec i al i ty c l i ni cs . M oral es expl ai ned t hatJohn son w as no tse l ec t ed for e i ther pos i t i on be c a us e s he r e c e i ve d the l ow e s ti nt e r vi e w s c or e s a nd be c a us e , unl i ke J a c k s o n a n d F ie ld s , s h e d id n o t h a v e a M a s te r ’s d e g r e e o ra d d itio n a l c e r tif ic a tio n . I n a d d itio n , M o r a le s c o n s id e r e d th e th r e e c a n d id a te s ’ s p e c if ic e x p e r ie n c e in the vari ou s uni t s of A m bu l at ory C ar e. A cc ordi ng t o M oral es , al l three ca nd i dat es ha d c om pa r a bl e nur s i ng a nd m a na ge m e nte xpe r i e nc e . B ut , M or a l e s e xpl a i ne d i n a 7In the district court, Johnson also allege d that BVAMC retaliate d ag ainst her by 8 chang ing a

nd delay ing her performanc e evaluation. J ohnson makes only two passingref

erences 7 s t a t e m e ntgi ve n dur i ng a dm i ni s tr a t i ve pr oc e e di ngs i n the E qua l E m pl oy m e nt O pp ortun i ty C om m i ss i on thatJa ckson and F i el ds had exp er i ence i n p ar t i cul arar ea s tha tpl a y e d a r ol e i n hi s de c i s i on. F ore xa m pl e , J a c ks on ha d e m e r ge nc y r oom experi ence , and Joh nson di d n ot . B ec ause the em er gency r oo m w as “ a very c ruci al
a r e a t o m a na ge , ” J a c ks on’ s “ l i tt l e bi tm or e e xpe r i e nc e ” ga ve he rthe e dge . F i e l ds

“ ha d be e n m a na gi ng the A m bul a t or y S ur ge r y a nd O bs e r va t i on a r e a f ora l ong t i m e” and “ had a l otof i nt er ac t i on w i th t he spec i al i ty c l i ni cs . . . . and h ad a very go od un ders t andi ng abou tthe spec i al ty c l i ni cs ac t i vi ty. ” M oral es al so bel i eved tha tboth J a c ks on a nd F i e l ds ha d de m ons tr a t e d be tt e rl e a de r s hi p a bi l i t i e s a nd i nt e rpe r s ona l s ki l l s tha n J ohns on. P r i ort o the r e or ga ni z a t i on, J ohns on w a s a N ur s e I I I , S t e p 11. A f t e rthe
re organi za t i on , John son w as pl ac ed un der J ac kson ’ s s up ervi si on as a S t af f N urse , w hi c h w a s a N ur s e I I I , S t e p 9 a nd i nvol ve d f e w e rr e s pons i bi l i t i e s . L a t e r , J ohns on w a s r e a s s i gne d a nd i s c ur r e nt l y a N ur s e I I I , S t e p 12. John son fi l ed thi s a ct i on , al l egi ng thatB V A M C di sc ri m i nat ed and ret al i at ed agai nsther w hen i tfa i l ed t o sel ec ther f or on e of the new l y- cr ea t ed N urse M anager p o si t i o n s an d i n st ead tran sferred h er t o a S t aff N u rse p o si t i o n an d ret al i at ed ag ai n st her w hen i tre m ov ed ce rt ai n o vert i m e pay fr om her bank account. T he di stri ct 8in her a

ppeal brief to the de layed and chang ed performanc e evaluation, but does not challeng e on appeal the district court’s grant of summar y judgment on this claim. Theref ore, w e do not addre ss this claim. S ee A cce ss Now, Inc., v. Southwest Airlines, Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1330 ( 11 th Cir. 2004) (statingthat an appe llant must clearly and spec ifically

identify issues on appeal in the brief) . 8 c our tgr a nt e d B V A M C ’ s m ot i on f ors um m a r y j udgm e nt , c onc l udi ng tha tJ ohns on h a d f a ile d to p r e s e n t s u f

f ic ie n t e v id e n c e th a t B V A M C ’s a r tic u la te d r e a s o n s f o rits
a c tio n s w e r e p r e te x t. I I . DI S CUS S I ON O n app ea l , John son argues thatthe di stri ctcourterre d i n g ra nt i ng sum m ary j udgm e ntbe c a us e s he pr e s e nt e d s uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e of

pr e t e xt . W e di s a gr e e a nd
a ddr e s s e a c h e m pl oy m e nta c t i on i n tur n. A . R e - s truc tur e d N ur s e M a na ge rP os i t i ons Jo h n so n i n i t i al l y co n t en d s th atsh e p resen t ed d i rectev i d en ce o f M o ral es’ di s c r i m i na t or y bi a s a nd poi nt s t o M or a l e s ’ c om m e nttha tO r i e nt a l s do notl ook p e o p le in th e e y e w h e n th e y ta lk to th e m . M o r a le s ’ c o m m e n t d o e s n o t c o n s titu te di re ctevi dence. D i re ctevi dence i s e vi dence that , i f bel i eved, prov es the exi st ence of a f ac t
w i thouti nf

e r e nc e . C a r t e rv. T hr e e S pr i ngs R e s i de nt i a l T r e a tm e nt , 132 F . 3d 635, 64 1-42 (11 C i r. 19 98 ). In the T i t l e V II cont ext , for ast at em entt o b e di re ct

th
e vi de nc e , i tm us tr e f

l e c t“ a di s c r i m i na t or y orr e t a l i a t or y a tt i tude c or r e l a t i ng t o theBe causeJ ohnson attempts to prove her claims through circumstantial evidence , we 9 evaluate her

claims using theburden- shifting f ramework of Mc Donnell Doug las Corp. v. Gre en, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S. C t. 1817 (1973). With reg ard to Johnson’s discrimination claims, the parties do not dispute that J ohnson established her prima facie c ase a

nd that BVAMC articulate d le g iti mate , n on -disc rimin ator y re a so ns fo r i ts empl oy

ment de c isi on s. Ho wever, wi th re g ard to John so n’ s re taliatio n c laims , B VAMC a rgue s o n a

pp e a l th at John so n did n ot m akeout a prima fac ie ca se bec ause shefailed to show shesuffered a n adver se employ

ment action. Thedistrict c ourt a ssume d Johns on

had s uf fere d a n adv e rs ee mpl oy

ment ac tio n, but c on c lude d th at B VAMC wa s enti tle d tosumma

ry judgment b e c a

us eJohn so n f

aile d tosh owthat B VAMC’ s re a so ns fo r i ts a c tio ns werepre te xt. B e c a us ewea ff

ir m th edis tric t c ourt ’s pre te xt rulin g , w ene e d n ot add re ss BVAMC’s argument that J ohnson did not suffer a n adver se employ

ment action. 9 di s c r i m i na t i on orr e t a l i a t i on c om pl a i ne d of by the e m pl oy e e . ” I d. ( quot a t i on m a r ks
an d ci t at i o n o m i tt ed ). In o th er w o rd s, t o b e d i rectev i d en ce, th e rem ark m u st i nd i ca t e thatthe em pl oym entdeci si on i n q uest i on w as m ot i vat ed by an i m pe r m i s s i bl e f

a c t or . D a m on v. F l e m i ng S upe r m a r ke t s of F l or i da , I nc . , 196 F . 3d 1354, 1358- 59 ( 11 C i r . 1999) . M or a l e s ’ c om m e ntw a s m a de m onths be f or e the th p a n e l in te r v ie w s a n d h ir in g d e c is io n s f o rth e n e w N u r s e M a n a g e rp o s itio n s a n d d id
n o t r e la te to th e d e c is io n n o t to s e le c t J o h n s o n f o ro n e o f th o s e p o s itio n s . S e e , e .g ., S c ottv. S unc oa s tB e ve r a ge S a l e s , L t d. , 295 F . 3d 1223, 1227- 28 ( 11 C i r . 2002) th ( h o ld in g th a t d e c is io n m a k e r ’s c o m m e n t m a d e b e f o r e a n d n o t d ir e c tly r e la te d to pl ai nt i ff’ s t erm i nat i on w as no tdi re ctevi dence of di sc ri m i nat i on ). Jo h n so n al t ern at i v el y co n t en d s th atsh e p resen t ed ev i d en ce th atM o ral es’
re as on s f or no tse l ec t i ng her f

or on e of the new N urse M anager posi t i on s w er e p re tex tu al. M o ra les o ff er ed se v er al re as o n s f

o r h is d ec isio n , i n clu d in g Jo h n so n ’s 9 lo w e rin te r v ie w s c o r e s , h e rla c k o f a n a d v a n c e d d e g r e e a n d h e rle s s e re x p e r ie n c e in10

pa r t i c ul a ra r e a s of

a m bul a t or y c a r e . J ohns on’ s e vi de nc e doe s notr e buta ny of th ese reaso n s. A pl a i nt i f

f m a y ove r c om e the e m pl oy e r ’ s a s s e r t e d l e gi t i m a t e r e a s ons a nd
a v o id s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t “e ith e rd ir e c tly b y p e r s u a d in g th e c o u r t th a t a di s c r i m i na t or y r e a s on m or e l i ke l y m ot i va t e d the e m pl oy e rori ndi r e c t l y by s how i ng tha tthe e m pl oy e r ’ s pr of f e r e d e xpl a na t i on i s unw or thy of c r e de nc e . ” T a y l orv. R uny on, 175 F . 3d 861, 867 ( 11th C i r . 1999) ( quot a t i on m a r ks a nd c i t a t i on o m i tt ed ). T o est ab l i sh p ret ex t , th e p l ai n t i ff m u std em o n strat e “ su ch w eak n esses, im p lau sib il it ies, in co n sisten cies , i n co h er en cies , o r c o n trad icti o n s in th e e m p lo ye r’s pr of f e r e d l e gi t i m a t e r e a s ons f ori t s a c t i on tha ta r e a s ona bl e f a c t f i nde rc oul d f

i nd [ e a c h of thos e r e a s ons ] unw or thy of c r e de nc e . ” C oope rv. S outhe r n C o. , 390 F . 3d 6 9 5 , 7 2 5 (1 1 C i r. 2 0 0 4 ), cert . d en i ed , N o . 0 5 -8 8 (U . S . O ct . 1 7 , 2 0 0 5 ); see al so

th C hapm an v. A I T ra nspo rt , 22 9 F . 3d 10 12 , 10 24 -25 (11 th C i r. 20 00 ) ( en banc). In doi ng s o, the pl a i nt i f

f “ m us tm e e t[ the pr of

f e r e d l e gi t i m a t e ] r e a s on he a d on a nd
r e buti t , a nd the e m pl oy e e c a nnots uc c e e d s i m pl y by qua r r e l i ng w i th the w i s dom of thatre as on . ” C hapm an, 22 0 F . 3d at10 30 (c i t at i on om i tt ed). W i th regard t o Joh nson ’ s l ac k o f aM as t er ’ s degre e, John son p re se nt ed
ev id en ce th at in th e p as t M o ra les h ad p lace d p eo p le w h o d id n o t h av e M as ter’s de gr e e s i n N ur s e M a na ge rpos i t i ons . H ow e ve r , J ohns on di d notpr ovi de the11

c ont e xtua l i nf

or m a t i on ne e de d t o m a ke e vi de nc e of the s e hi r i ng de c i s i ons m e a ni ngf

ul f orpurpos e s of

he rpr e t e xtc l a i m . S e e L e e v. G T E F l a . , I nc . , 226 F . 3d 12 49 , 12 55 n. 2 (11 C i r. 20 00 ) ( re j ec t i ng as m ea ni ng l es s pl ai nt i ff’ s e vi dence that th d e c i s i o n m a k e rh a d p r o m o t e d o n l y f o u rwo m e n i n t o m a n a g e m e n ta n d o n l y two w o m en i n t o st aff p o si t i o n s b ecau se p l ai n t i ff p ro v i d ed n o “ sp eci fi c co n t ex tag ai n st
w hi ch t o m ea sure these bri ef fa ct s” ). F or exam pl e, M oral es t es t i fi ed that
s om e t i m e s the pe r s on w i th the B a c he l or ’ s de gr e e ha s di f f e r e nts ki l l l e ve l s a nd ba c kgr ound, w hi c h w oul d a f f e c thi s de c i s i on. J ohns on di d notpr e s e nte vi de nc e of the dut i e s orty pe of

N ur s e M a na ge rpos i t i ons tha tw e r e f i l l e d w i th s om e one w i tho uta M as t er ’ s degre e or w hen t hese po si t i on s w er e f i l l ed. W i tho utm ore i nform at i on , thi s e vi dence does notca l l i nt o q uest i on M oral es ’ cl ai m that John son’ s l ac k o f aM as t er ’ s degre e w as a f ac t or i n h i s dec i si on no tt o sel ec ther fo r th e tw o p art i cu l ar n ew , co m b i n ed N u rse M an ag er p o si t i o n s. W i th regard t o Joh nson ’ s l ow eri nt ervi ew sc ores , she c om pl ai ns thatthey
w er e s ubj ec t i ve and h i gh l y s uspecti n l i gh tof M oral es ’ dram at i ca l l y l ow ersc ore fo r Jo h n so n an d h i s p astd ero g at o ry co m m en tab o u tO ri en t al s n o tm ak i n g eye c o n ta c t. H o w e v e r , s u b

je c tiv e e v a lu a tio n s , in c lu d in g in te r v ie w s , a r e p e r m is s ib le b as es fo r m ak in g a s elec ti o n o r n o n -s elec ti o n , so lo n g as th e d ef en d an t’ s expl anat i on of i t s r ea sons ar e c l ea r a nd re as on abl y s peci fi c. C hapm an, 22 9 F . 3d atJohn so n doe s n ot a rguethat Mo rale s f

aile d tog ivec le ar a

nd re a so na bly sp e c if ic 10 rea sons for his interview sc ores. More over, Morales e xplained that he g ave Johnson low scores beca use she did not stay

focuse d on the questions when sheg ave her answers, instead g oing of f on tang ents, and therefore did not g ive the answ ers Morales was lookingfor. 12 1033- 34. H e r e , a pa ne l of thr e e c ons i s t e nt l y ga ve J ohns on the l ow e s ts c or e of the 10 thr e e appl i c a nt s , a nd J ohns on a gr e e d tha tthe othe rtw o pa ne l m e m be r s w e r e f r e e of b ia s . F u r th e r m o r e , M o r a le s c o n s is te n tly g r a d e d th e h a r d e s t o f th e th r e e p a n e lis ts . John son al so cont ends she pre se nt ed evi dence fr om w hi ch a j ury c ou l d i nfer tha tM or a l e s ha d a l r e a dy m a de up hi s m i nd t o e l i m i na t e J ohns on m onths be f or e the p an el in terv iew s. S p ec ifically, Jo h n so n p o in ts to th e f o ll o w in g : (1 ) J o h n so n ’s offi ce bei ng m ov ed; (2) herl oss of dut i es ; (3) herbei ng pass ed ov erfor ap p o i n tm en t s as A ct i n g N C M S an d C al l C en t er S u p erv i so r; an d (4 ) M o ral es’ deci si on t o el i m i nat e tw o rather than o ne N urse M anager posi t i on af t erM cC re e d eci d ed t o ret i re early. N o n e o f th i s ev i d en ce d em o n strat es “ su ch w eak n esses, im p la u s ib ilitie s , in c o n s is te n c ie s , in c o h e r e n c ie s , o rc o n tr a d ic tio n s ” th a t a r e a s o n a b le f a c t f i nde rc oul d c onc l ude tha tB V A M C ’ s pr of f e r e d r e a s ons w e r e unw or thy of b e lie f . S e e C o o p e r , 3 9 0 F .3 d a t 7 2 5 . John son al so po i nt s t o cer t ai n o rgani za t i on al char t s, bu tthese char t s w er e p resen t ed as d raft s fo r d i scu ssi o n , w i th p o ssi b l e m i st ak es an d o m i ssi o n s. N o t ab l y, the onl y or ga ni z a t i on c ha r ti n the r e c or d ha s one e m pl oy e e ’ s na m e c r os s e d outa nd
a nothe re m pl oy e e ’ s na m e ha ndw r i tt e n i n the m a r gi n. I ta l s o om i t s m e nt i on of13

M oral es , M oo re and F i el ds. F urtherm ore, there i s no evi dence thatM oral es p r e p a r e d o rh e lp e d p r e p a r e th e s e p a r tic u la rc h a r ts . I n a ddi t i on, i ti s undi s put e d tha tM or a l e s pl a y e d no r ol e i n the s e l e c t i on of th e A c tin g N C M S a n d th a t th e d e c is io n to r e lo c a te J o h n s o n ’s o f f ic e d u e to c o n s tru c tio n w a s m a d e b y a c o n s tru c tio n c o m m itte e o f w h ic h M o r a le s w a s o n ly
one m e m be r . A l though J ohns on be ga n t o l os e s om e of he rdut i e s i n M a r c h 1998, b y th is tim e th e r e s tru c tu r in g o f th e n u r s in g u n its h a d b e g u n . John son’ s c l ai m thatM oral es changed t he nu m ber of N urse M anager p o s itio n s to b e e lim in a te d f r o m o n e to tw o w h e n h e r e a liz e d M c C r e e w a s g o in g to re t i re i s notsupp ort ed by the re cord. F i rs t , the re cord do es no tes t abl i sh that M or a l e s i ni t i a l l y de c i de d t o e l i m i na t e onl y one pos i t i on a nd the n c ha nge d hi s m i nd. M oor e , notM or a l e s , a s ke d the N ur s e M a na ge r s t o br a i ns t or m s ol ut i ons i f one pos i t i on w a s e l i m i na t e d. F ur the r m or e , J ohns on t e s t i f i e d tha tM or a l e s w a s not p r e s e n t a t th is b r a in s to r m in g m e e tin g in w h ic h M c C r e e a n n o u n c e d h e rd e c is io n to
r e t i r e e a r l y , a nd J ohns on pr e s e nt e d no othe re vi de nc e tha tM or a l e s w a s a w a r e of Mc C r e e ’ s e a r l y r e t i r e m e n twh e n h e a n n o u n c e d a c o u p l e o f we e k s l a t e rth a ttwo N ur s e M a na ge rpos i t i ons w oul d be e l i m i na t e d. John son em ph as i ze s thatshe had m ore overal l nu rs i ng experi ence and m ore y e a r s of m a na ge m e nte xpe r i e nc e tha n e i the rof the othe rc a ndi da t e s . S he poi nt s outF ur therm ore , a

ny dispa ri tie s b e tw e e n th ec andidate s’ e xpe ri e nc ee ith e r in g e neral or in 11 the spec ific areas of

ambulatory

care are not “so g laringthat no rea sonable impartial person could havechosen thecandidate selec ted for thepromotion in question over the plaintiff.”See Vessels, 408 F .3d at 772; see also W ilson v. B/E Aerospace , Inc., 376 F .3d 1079, 1090 (11 Cir. th 2004) (holdingthat the disparity in qualifications must be “so appa rent a s virtually

to jump off the pag e and sla

p you in the fac e”) . 14 thatshe i nt ervi ew ed, hi re d and tra i ned o ne of the succ es sf ul ca nd i dat es t en ye ar s b e f o r e . T h e s e a r g u m e n ts d o n o t a d d r e s s h e a d o n th e r e a s o n s f o rM o r a le s ’ d e c is io n . M oral es t es t i fi ed thatse ni ori ty w as no ta f ac t or i n h i s dec i si on and t hatthe three
ca nd i dat es w er e c om parabl e i n t hei r nursi ng and m anagem entexperi ence . R ather, i n m aki ng hi s dec i si on , M oral es focuse d o n t he part i cul arar ea s of A m bu l at ory C ar e i n w hi ch ea ch ca nd i dat e had experi ence , som ethi ng John son’ s e vi dence does nota ddr e s s . B y a r gui ng tha ts he ha s m or e nur s i ng a nd nur s e m a na ge m e nt e xpe r i e nc e tha n the othe rc a ndi da t e s , J ohns on i s m e r e l y qua r r e l i ng w i th the
w is d o m o f

M o r a le s ’ d e c is io n , w h ic h is in s u f f ic ie n t to e s ta b lis h p r e te x t. 11 B . D educt i on of O vert i m e P ay J ohns on c ont e nds tha ts he pr e s e nt e d s uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e tha tM or a l e s ’ r e a s on for r em ov i ng her overt i m e pay w as pret ext . John son’ s e vi dence of pret exti s bas ed on tw o the or i e s : ( 1) s he di d the w or k a nd the r e f or e s houl d ha ve be e n pa i d, a nd ( 2) th e B V A M C d ir e c to rh a d ap p r o v e d th e o v e r tim e in a g e n e r a l e
- m a il d ir e c tin g a ll
se rvi ce s t o p ay ov er t i m e t o em pl oyee s t o revi ew m edi ca l re cords t o con fi rm i nsurance. John son’ s e vi dence does notaddres s, m uch l es s r ef ut e, M oral es ’ pre-15

approv al po l i cy . S ee C hapm an, 22 9 F . 3d at10 30 . Iti s und i sput ed thatM oral es h ad th i s p re-ap p ro v al p o l i cy an d th atJo h n so n d i d n o tg eth i s p re-ap p ro v al . T h u s, the r e i s no s how i ng of

pr e t e xti n M or a l e s ’ w i thdr a w a l of ove r t i m e pa y f

r om John son’ s a cc ou ntbecause he r equi re d sup ervi sors t o o bt ai n h i s per sonal approv al before w orki ng ov er t i m e. I I I . CONCL US I ON T he di s tr i c tc our tpr ope r l y gr a nt e d s um m a r y j udgm e ntbe c a us e J ohns on f a i l e d t o pr e s e nts uf

f i c i e nte vi de nc e tha tB V A M C ’ s a r t i c ul a t e d r e a s ons f or d e d u c t i n g h e ro v e r t i m e p a y a n d f o rn o ts e l e c t i n g h e rf

o ro n e o f th e n e w, r e o r g a n iz e d m a n a g e r ia l p o s itio n w e r e p r e te x t. A FFI R M ED .