FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT Marc h 18, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [ P U B L I S H ] IN TH E U

NI TE D S TA TE S CO URT OF AP PE AL S FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ N o. 07- 1165 7

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ D. C. Docket N o. 05-02657 -CV -BBM- 1 GERARD RIOUX, Plaintiff- Co unt er -D ef

en dant- Appe llant, ve rs us CITY OF ATLANTA , GEORGIA, LYNETT E YOUNG , in he r in di vi du al cap aci ty, D ef en dants - Co unt er -C la im an ts- Appe lle es , DENNIS L. RUBIN, in h is o ff ic ia l c ap ac ity

a s City of A tlanta Fire C hief, Co nsol idate d D ef en dant- Co unt er -C la im an t- Appellee.Honora ble Cecilia M. Altonag a, United States District Judge f or the Southern District of * Florida , sitti ngby

desig nation. 2 ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ (M ar ch 18, 200 8) Befo re EDMONDSON, Ch ie f Ju dg e, W ILSON, Cir cu itJu dg e, an d ALTONAGA, * District Judge. A L T O N A G A , D istri ct

Jud ge : The issues in this appeal, a c ivil right s action raising claim s of rac e dis cr im inatio n, are w he the r the tr ia l c ourt e rr ed in gr an tin g sum

m ar y j udgm en t i n favor of Appe lle es , D ef

en dants be low , L yne tte Y oung ( “ CO O Y oung ”) and D ennis L . Ru

bin( “ Ru bin ”) , by m isa ppl y ing the sum

m ar y j udgm en t st an dard

to the facts pre sented and on the basis of Appellees’ qualified im m unity . While we agree w i th Ap p e l l a n t , P l a i n t i f

f b e l o w , G e r a r dR i o u x ( “R i o u x ” ) , th a th e p r e s e n t e dap r i ma fa ci e ca se of

dis cr im inatio n and s how ed suf fi ci en t e vid en ce of

pr et ex t, w e fi nd th athe ha s n ot sh own Defen da nt s v io la te d c le arl y est ab li sh edfed eral law, an d we a f f i rm. I. BACKGROUND3

In De cem ber 2003, Rubin was hired as F ire Chief of the A tlanta Fire D ep ar tm en t ( “ A FD ”) . R

ubi n, aCa

uc as ian m al e, is the hig he st- ranki ng m em be r of the A FD . R

ubi n’ s pr ed ec es sor

ha d a ppoi nte d R iou x, aCa

uc as ian m al e, to the posi tio n of

D ep uty F ir e Ch ie f of

the F ie ld O pe ratio ns D ivi sio n of the A FD on a te m por ar y ba sis in 2002 . I n January 200 4, Ru binm ad e Ri oux’ s pr om oti on t o Dep ut y Fir e Ch ie f pe rm an en t. O ne of Ru bin ’ s c onc er

ns s hare d w ithhis sup er

vis or y pe rs onne l, inc lud ing Ri oux, inv olv ed

the slo wr es pons e tim e of the A FD F ir e In ve sti ga tio n U nit (“ FIU ”) in getting to th e scenes of f ires. O n May

2, 2004, although he w as off du ty, Ri ou x a rri ve d a t t he sce ne of a fir e an d c on cl ud edth atm em be rs of t he FIU, in cl ud in g Li eu te na nt Mi ch ael Aus ti n (“ Aus ti n” ), ha d t ak en to o l on g t o a rri ve . Rioux approached Austin, a Cauca sian m ale, grabbed and pull ed him by the lapel o f h i s c o a t , an d

p r o c e e d e dt o c h a s t i s e h i m fo r arr i v i n g l a t e t o th e f

i r e . A f e wd a ys aft er t he in ci de nt , Aus ti n fi le d afor m al co m pl ai nt ag ai ns t Ri ou x. The A FD Of

fice of Profe ssion al Standards (“ OP S”) initiated an investig ation int o the incident. The OP S com m ander w as a m em

ber of an or ganiz at ionof

A fr ic anA m er ic anf

ir ef igh te rs kno w n a s th e Br oth er s C om bin ed . T he O PS is a se ct ionw ith in the A FD O ff ic e of the F ir e Ch ie f an d is ove rs ee n by A FD F ir e Ch ie f an d Appe lle e, Ru bin . S hortly

a ft er O PS be gan it s in ve sti ga tio n,4

Appellee C OO Young, Rubin’ s direct supervisor and the City of A tlanta Chief Oper ating Offic er, called Rubin and toldRubin “ she had received or per haps even the m ay or

ha d r ec ei ve d ate le phon e ca ll fr om I vor y L ee Y oung [ Co unc ilm anof the Ci ty of A tlanta ] f

ro m the Br oth er s C om

bin ed . . . that the . . . inv es tig at ionof Ge rard R ioux . . . wa s being ob structed by [Rubin] .” A lthou gh the int erfe rence and favoritism

allegations against Rubin were found m eritless, R ubin also turned the investig ation ov er to the City of A tlanta Law D epartm ent (“ Law D epartm ent”). On July 19, 2004, OP S com

pleted its inv estigation and concluded th at Rioux had v iolated at least four A FD W ork Rules. O PS f urther concluded that Rioux had b een untruthful and u ncooperative during the investig ation. T he Law D ep ar tm en t c om

ple te d it s own in ve sti ga tio n onS ep te m be r 10, 200 4 and r ea ch ed co nc lus ion s si m ilar to t

hose r ea ch ed

by O PS w itha

f ewe xc ep tio ns, m ost

not ab ly that the L awD ep ar

tm en t di sa gr ee d R iou x ha d li ed dur ing the inv es tig at ion . Both reports wer e given to Rubin , a s well a s COO Young, an A frican Am erican wom an. Rubin recom m ended to COO Young that Rioux be dem oted tw o r an ks t o B atta lio n C hie f, the low es t “ dis cr et ion ar y of fi ce r” pos iti on i n th e A FD . C O O Y oung c onc ur re d w ithRu

bin ’ s r ec om

m en da tio n. O n S ep te m

be r 28, 2004 , R ioux wa s inform ed of Appellees’ decision and g iven a copy of the L aw De partm ent’ s report. Although Riou x believes his action s at the May 2, 2004 fireRubin was evasive in answer ing que stions reg ardingthis iss ue at his deposition. 1 5 did not vio la te any

A FD W ork R

ule s, he doe s no t di sput e the ba sic f ac ts o f his int er ac tio n w ithAust in tha t ni ght . Ar oundthe tim e of Rioux’ s dem otion , R ubin sough t to fill the vacated posit ion of Deputy

Chief. A ssistant Chief Michae l W illiam s (“ W illiam s”), an A fr ic anA m er ic anm al e, te sti fi ed that so m et im e in S ep te m be r 2004 , Ru

bin ap pr oa ch ed

him , and a ft er

statin g R ubi n w oul d “ m or e than li ke ly ” re duc e Ri oux in rank, a ske d W ill iam s if

W ill iam s w oul d be int er es te d ina cc ep tin g th e posi tio n. 1 W ill iam s r ej ec te d th e posi tio n. A cc or din g to W ill iam s, Ru bina lso ide nti fi ed

to W illiam s two others on Rubin ’ s “ short list ,” and these, too, w ere Af rican Am ericans. T he positi on was ultim ately offer ed to Nishiam a W illis (“ W illis”), an A sian w om an . Ri oux as se rt s hi s de m oti on f ro m D ep uty Ch ie f to B atta lio n C hie f w as not th e res ul t o f hi s ac ti on s at th e Ma y 2, 2 00 4 fi re b ut rat he r Rubi n’s an d C OO Y oung ’ s de sir e to r ep la ce Ri oux w ithan A fr ic anA m er ic an . R iou x be lie ve s th e or ganiz at ionof

A fr ic anA m er ic anf

ir ef igh te rs , Br oth er s C om

bin ed , in co nj unc tio n w ithCO O Y oung , c onvi nc ed Aust in t o f

ile the c om

pla int a ga ins t R iou x and ult im at el y

inf lue nc ed Appe lle es ’ de ci sio n to de m ote Ri oux. H e al so m ai nta insTh e Eq ua l Pr ote c tio n Cl a

us e pr ov ide s, in r e le va

nt p art , th at: 2 No State shall make or

enfor ce a ny law which sha ll abridg e the privilege s or immunit ies of citizens of the United States; nor sha ll any State deprive any

person of life, liber

ty , or prope rty , without due proce ss of law; nor de ny to any person wi thi n it s juri sd ic tio n th e e qu a l pr ote c tio n o f t he laws . U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. 6 that R ubi n in te nde d and tri ed

to fi ll his pos iti on w ithan A fr ic anA m er ic an , onl y se tt li ng on W il li s wh en no Afric an Am eri can can di da te wou ldtak e th e job . Finally , R ioux asserts the disciplinary action taken against him wa s m ore severe than that im

posed two y ears late r on AF D B attalion Chief, S am uel Dunham (“ Dunham ”), an A frican Am erican m ale, for what Rioux cont ends is sim ilar m iscondu ct. Dunham

wa s alleged to have grabbed the arm of another A FD m em be r, an A fr ic anA m er ic anw om an , w he n sh e tr ie d to ope n ar ef ri ge rator w hil e leading a tour of high school st udents th rough an AFD fac ility . Af ter grabbing her arm , D unham

verbally berated the com

plainant in front of the students andother fi re fi ght er s. A ft er

an O PS inv es tig at ionof

the inc ide nt, D unham

r ec ei ve d asix da y su sp en si on an d awrit te n re pr im an d. Ri oux fi le d th e unde rl y ing a ct ionin thi s c as e ag ai nst the Ci ty of A tlanta and CO O Y oung ( “ Fi rs t C om pla int ”) in he r ind ivi dua l and o ff ic ia l c ap ac iti es , a lle gin g dis cr im inatio n invio la tio n of the E qua l P ro te ct ionCl au se . T he F ir st C om pla int 2 al le ge d af

ir st c ount und er 42 U . S. C. § 19 81 a ga ins t the Ci ty and Y oung , and thisSection 1983 “constitutes the exclusive reme dy ag ainst state ac tors for violations of the 3 rig hts contained in § 1981.” B utts v. Count y of Volusia, 222 F .3d 891, 893 (11th Cir. 2000) (citingJ ett v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 491 U.S. 701, 731-32 (1989)) . 7 co unt w as m er ge d in to R iou x’ s se ct ion198 3 c la im state d inc ount

tw o. T he F ir st 3 Co m pla int ide nti fi ed

N athanie l G ri sso m

( “ G ri sso m ”) a s asim ilarl y sit ua te d hi ghranking Afric an Am erican firef ighter (form er A FD Fire Marshal) who was treated differe ntly

from Rioux after c om ing un der investigatio n. Rioux also alleged that Y oung “ too k ov er

[ Ri oux’ s] inv es tig at ionin or de r to r em ove Ri oux fr om his posit ion as Deputy

Chief in hopes that an Afr ican-A m erican would replace him .” T he Ci ty of A tla nta w as dis m iss ed

f ro m the a ct ionw ithpr ej udi ce due to the ab se nc e o f an y

all eg at io n t ha t COO Yo un g was th e fi na l p ol ic ym ak er fo r th e Ci ty. Rioux separately

filed a law suit (“ Second Com plaint”) alleging sim ilar claim s under sections 1 981 and1983 against Rubin indiv iduallyand in his o fficial capacity . The sec ond cou nt, under section 1983 , a lleged a denial of Rioux’ s equal protection right s based on Riou x’ s contentio n that sim ilarly highl y -ranked A frican Am erican m em

bers of the A FD , including Sam uel Dunham , w ere treated m ore favorably than Rioux b ased on race, despite havin g com m itted nearly

identical discipli nary

infractions to thos e Rioux com m itted. T he Second Com plaint alleged that R ubi n’ s de ci sio n to de m ote Ri oux “ w as m oti va te d by Ri oux’ s r ac e, not

onl y as an act of appeasem ent to the Brothers Com bined and o thers who continuedAs no te d b y Ap pe lle e s in

the ir br ie f, Rio ux a

pp e ars to h ave a

ba nd on e d h is a

rgume nts 4 reg ardingany

officia l capa city

claim ag ainst Rubin (a claim ag ainst the City of Atlanta) . See Ke ntu c ky v. Gr aha m, 4 73 U. S. 1 59 , 1 65 -6 6 ( 19 85 ) ( of fi c ia l c a pa c ity su it i s, in a c tua lity , s uit ag ainst the local g overnme nt entity the individual repre sents). Rioux neither c halleng es the City ’s dismissal in hi s briefs, nor did he clar ify

a contr ary

view at or al ar gument. Thus, appea l of any issues conce rningthe trial cour t’s g rant of summar

y judgme nt in favor of

the City is deemed abandone d. See Gr eenbr iar, Ltd. v. Cit y of Alaba ster, 881 F .2d 1570, 1573 n.6 (11th Cir. 1989) (issues not argued on appe al ar e dee med waive d). 8 ac cu s i n g h i m

o f r ac i s m

t o wa rdAf

ri ca n Am er i ca n s , b u tal s o as p ar to f R ub i n ’s co nti nui ng p oli cy , c ust om , and p ra ct ic e of a ch ie vin g and m ai nta ini ng wha t he pe rcei ve s as raci al ba la nc e am on g t he up pe r ran ks of AFD.” T he dis tr ic t c ourt c onso lid at ed the a ct ion s a ga ins t C O O Y oung and R ubi n and thereafte r granted sum m ary j udgm ent in Def

endants’ f avor. Rioux challenges that portion of the trial court’ s order finding he didnot proffer suffic ient evidence to s uppo rt

his c la im of dis cr im inator

y de m oti on and the tr ia l c ourt’ s c onc lus ion that C O O Y oung and R

ubi n w er e en tit le d to qua lif ie d im m uni ty f or c la im s a ga ins t the m in the ir pe rs ona l c ap ac iti es . 4

II. DISCUSS ION Ri oux ra ise s th re e ar gum en ts o n a ppe al : ( 1) the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in ap ply ing the sum

m ar y j udgm en t st an dard

to Ri oux’ s pr et ex t arg um en ts; ( 2) the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

in co nc lud ing D unham

w as not asui ta ble c om parator to Ri oux; an d (3 ) th e d is tri ctco ur t erredin gra nt in g s umm ary jud gm en t t o R ub in an d C OO Y oung in the ir

ind ivi dua l c ap ac iti es on the ba sis of qua lif ie d im m uni ty . Whil e9

Appe lle es dis ag re e in a ll re spe ct s, the y a lso arg ue the dis tr ic t c ourt i m pr ope rl y de te rm ine d R iou x ha d e sta bli she d apr im a fa ci e ca se of dis cr im inatio n. A. Standard of R eview T he Co urt’ s r ev ie wof

the gr an t of

sum m ar y j udgm en t i s de novo , w ith ev ide nc e co nsi de re d inthe li ght m ost f av or ab le to Ri oux. S ee , e . g. , W ils on v . B/ E A er ospa ce , I nc . , 376 F . 3d 1 079, 108 5 ( 11th C ir . 200 4) . S um m ar y j udgm en t i s re nde re d “ if

the ple ad ing s, de posi tio ns, answ er s to int er ro ga tor ie s, and a dm iss ion s on file, together w ith the affidavits, if any , show that ther e is no genuin e issue as to any m aterial f

act and that the m ovin g party is entitled to a judgm ent as a m atter of law .” Fed. R. Civ. P . 56(c) . In m aking th is assessm ent, the Court “ m ust view al l the e vid en ce and a ll fa ct ua l i nf er en ce s r ea sona

bly dr awn f ro m the e vid en ce in th e l i g h tm o s tfa v o rab l e t o th e n o n m o v i n g p ar t y,” S t ew ar tv . Hap p y He rman ’s Ch es hir e Br idg e, I nc . , 117 F . 3d 1 278, 128 5 ( 11th C ir . 199 7) , and “ m ust r es olv e al l re as ona ble doubts about

the f ac ts i n f av or of the non -m ovant, ” U nit ed of O m ah a Life Ins . Co. v . Sun Life I ns . Co. o f Am ., 89 4 F .2d15 55 , 15 58 (11 th Cir . 19 90 ). B. Proving Discrim ination Thr ough Circum stantial Evidence As an initial m atter, Appellees argue the district court’ s conclusio n that Ri ou x e st ab li sh eda pr im a fac ie cas e o f di sc riminat ory de m ot io n was in erro r. T hus, w e tur

n to thi s is sue f

ir st.Al tho ugh M c Do nn e ll D ou g la s w a s a Ti tle VI Ic a se , T itl e VI Iand se c tio n 1 98 3 c la ims 5 h av e th e s am e e l e m e n t s w h e r e th e c l a i m s ar e b a s e d o nth e s am e s e to f

f a c t s . Ab e l v . D u

b b e r l y, 21 0 F .3 d 1 33 4, 13 38 n. 3 ( 11 th C ir . 2 00 0) . N e ve rt he le ss, “ [t]he re lie f gra

nte d und e r T itl e VI Iis ag ainst the employe r , not individual employ ees whose ac tions would constitut e a violation of the Act.” Smith v. L omax, 45 F.3d 402, 403 n.4 (11th Cir. 1995) (empha sis in original) ( quoting Busby v. City of Orla ndo, 931 F.2d 764, 772 ( 11th Cir. 1991)). 10 A plaintiff m ay

prove a claim

of intention al discrim ination through direct ev ide nc e, c ir cum stanti al e vid en ce , or thr oughstatis tic al pr oof

. S ee E ar le y

v. Ch am pio n I nt’ l C or

p. , 907 F . 2d 1 077, 108 1 ( 11th C ir . 199 0) ; B urke -F ow le r v. O range Co unty , F la . , 447 F . 3d 1 319, 132 2- 23 ( 11th C ir . 200 6) ( tw o th eo ri es of int en tio na l di sc ri m inatio n un de r T itl e V II are dis parate tr eatm en t di sc ri m inatio n and pattern or practice discrim ination ; disparate treatm ent claim s m ay be proven with direct or c ircum stantial evidence). Rioux offered only circum stantial evidence in supp ort of his claim of discrim ination , and m aintained in hi s summ ary j udgm en t pa

pe rs that he br ough t this c onso lid at ed c as e “ sol el y

und er the Mc D onne ll D ougl as c ir cum stanti al e vid en ce ana ly sis . ” Co nse que ntl y , w e use the bur de n- shi ft ing f

ram ew ork e sta

bli she d inMc D onne ll D ougl as Co rp . v. G re en , 411 U . S . 7 9 2 , 8 0 2 - 0 5 ( 1 9 7 3 ) , t o e v a l u a t e th e s u f f i c i e n c y o f h i s c l a i m. 5 Under the Mc Donnell Douglas fram ew ork, a plaintiff m ust sh ow an inf er en ce of dis cr im inator

y int en t, and the re fo re c ar

ri es an in iti al bur de n of e s t ab l i s h i n g ap r i maf

a c i e c a s e o f

d i s c r i mi n a t i o n . I d . a t8 0 2 . P r e s e n t i n g ap r i ma fa ci e ca se is not

one ro us a s it

r equir es onl y

that the pla int if

f es ta bli sh f ac ts11

ad equa te to pe rm it aninf er en ce of dis cr im inatio n. H oli fi el d v. Re no, 115 F . 3d 15 55 , 15 62 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ) (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) . T he suc ce ssf

ul a sse rt ionof

apr im a fa ci e ca se the n “ cr eate s ar eb utt ab le pr es um pt io n t ha t t he em

pl oyer un la wfu ll y

di sc riminat edag ai ns t” th e p la in ti ff. E . E . O . C. v. Joe ’ s S ton e Cr ab s, I nc . , 296 F . 3d 1 265, 127 2 ( 11th C ir . 200 2) ( ci tin g U . S. P ost al S er

v. Bd . of G ove rn or s v. A ike ns, 460 U . S. 711 , 714 ( 1983 )) . I f thi s oc curs , and a

pr im a fa ci e ca se of

dis cr im inatio n is pr es en te d, the bur de n of pr oduc ing e vid en ce that the e m plo y er ’ s a ct ionw as take n f or ale git im at e, non dis cr im inator

y r ea son the n sh if

ts t o th e em

plo y er . S ee Joe ’ s S ton e Cr ab s, 296 F.3 d a t 1 27 2. Inthe la st s te p of

the bur de n- shi ft ing ana ly sis , if the e m plo y er m ee ts “ its bur de n of pr oduc tio n, the pr es um

pti on o f dis cr im inatio n is r eb utt ed , and the inquir y ‘ pr oc ee ds t o ane wle ve l of spe ci fi ci ty , ’ in w hic h th e pla int if f m ust sho w that the proffere d reason really is a pretext for unlawful discrim ination .” Id. at 1272 -7 3 ( quot ing T ex as D ep ’ t of Cm ty . A ff ai rs v. Burd ine , 450 U . S. 248 , 255 (1 981) ). T he f

oc use d in qui ry

in the la st s te p r equir es the pla int if f to d em onstrate

“ suc h w eakne sse s, im

pla usi bil iti es , inc onsi ste nc ie s, inc ohe re nc ie s, or co ntr ad ic tio ns i n th e em

plo y er ’ s pr of

fe re d le git im at e re as ons fo r its a ct ionthat a re as ona ble f ac tf ind er c oul d f ind the m unw orthy

of c re de nc e. ” Co m

bs v .In McDonne ll Dougla s, g iven the fa cts of that ca se, the Court stated that a complainant 6 in a Title VI Icase may

meet his burden of

establishing a

prima fa cie c ase of

rac ial discrimination by showing(1) that he belong s to a rac ial minority ; (2) that he a pplied and wa s qualified for a job for whic h the employ er w as see king a pplicants; (3) that, de spite his qualifications, he wa s reje cted; and ( 4) that, af

ter his re jection, the position remained ope n and the e mploy er c ontinued seekingapplicants fr om persons of c omplainant’s qualifications. 411 U.S. at 802. 12 Pl an ta tio n P atte rn s, 106 F . 3d 1 519, 153 8 ( 11th C ir . 199 7) ( int er na l qu otatio n m ark s an d c it at io n o m it te d) .

1. Prim a F

ac ie Ca se Mor e than on e fo rm

ulatio n of the e le m en ts o f a pr im a fa ci e ca se e xis t. T he Co urt i n M cD onne ll D ougl as r ec ogni ze d th is whe n it art ic ulate d f

our e le m en ts f

or a prim a fa cie ca se but stated that “ [t] he fac ts necessarily will vary in Title V II 6 ca se s, and the spe ci fi catio n . . . of the pr im a fa ci e pr oof

r equir ed . . . is not necessarily

applicable in every

respect to diffe ring factual situations .” 411 U. S. at 802 n. 13. Appe lle es c or

re ct ly arg ue that on e w ay

of e sta bli shi ng a pr im a fa ci e ca s e o f e m

p l o ym en td i s cr i m i n at i o n b as edo n a d emo t i o n fo l l o wi n g an empl o yee’s m isc ondu ct

r equir es the pla int if

f to s howthat “ (1 ) he be lon gs t o apr ote ct ed c la ss; (2) he w as qualified for the j ob; and (3) the m iscondu ct for which the em ploy er dem oted him

wa s the sam e or sim ilar m iscondu ct to that which a sim ilarly situated e mp l o ye e e n g a g e di n , b u tw a s n o ts i mi l a r l y d i s c i p l i n e df o r . ” M o o r e v . A l ab a ma D ep ’ t of Co rr . , 137 F . App’ x 23 5, 238 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) ( ci tin g H oli fi el d, 115 F . 3d at 156 2) ; a cc or d L athe m

v. D ep ’ t of

Ch ildre n & Y outh S er

vs. , 172 F . 3d 7 86, 79213

(1 1thCi r. 199 9) . W

he re the r ac ia l di sc ri m inatio n is a lle ge d inthe appl ic at ionof w ork r ule s to dis ci pli ne an e m

plo y ee , and whe re the re is no c la im that the em plo y ee did

not vio la te the w ork r

ule s, a s he re , the n pl ai nti ff m ust sho w“ that he en ga ge d inm isc ondu ct

sim ilar to tha t of

ape rs on o uts ide the pr ote ct ed c la ss, and .

. . the dis ci pli nary

m ea sur es e nf

or ce d a ga ins t hi m

w er e m or e se ve re than th ose en fo rc ed a ga ins t the oth er

pe rs ons w ho e nga ge d insim ilar m isc ondu ct . ” I d. (citing Jon es v. G erw ens, 874 F.2d 1534, 1540 (11 th Cir. 1998 )). Un d erth i s fo rmul at i o n o f t h e p ri m a f ac i e c as e, Ap p el l ee s ch al l en g e R i o u x ’s ab il it y to m eetth e th ird ele m en t, p ert ai ni ng to a sh owi ng of a co m pa rat or , th atis , a sim ilarl y -s itu at ed

e m plo y ee w ho c om

m itt ed the sam e vio la tio n of

w ork r ule s, but w ho w as dis ci pli ne d le ss s ev er el y than R iou x. W e ag re e w ithAppe lle es ’ ch al le nge and the tr ia l c ourt’ s c onc lus ionthat R iou x ha s no t pr es en te d su cha sim ilarly -situated em

ploy ee, as explained below. Thus, if the third elem ent was re qui re d, Ri oux co uld

not m ee t hi s pr im a fa ci e show ing . A nothe r fo rm

ulatio n of apr im a fa ci e ca se , how ev er , ha s be enart ic ulate d in ca se s r ai sin g c la im s of

dis cr im inatio n w he re apla int if f is d em ote d, and i t i s th is oth er f orm ulatio n th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt a

ppl ie d and tha t Appe llant a sse rt s he satisfied. T he district court applied th e prim a fa cie test for discrim inatory de m oti on f

ro m S tur nio lo v . S he af

fe r, E at on, I nc . , w hic h di ff er s f ro m the te st14

ar tic ulate d by

Appe llants in that i t r equir es the pla int if f to d em onstrate that: (1 ) he is a m em ber of a protected class; (2) he w as qualified for the j ob; (3) he wa s de m ote d; and ( 4) f

oll ow ing the de m oti on h e w as r ep la ce d by som eo ne out sid e his protected class. 15 F.3d 1023, 1025 (11th Cir. 1994); see also H inson v. Clinch C o u n ty, G e o r g i aB d . o f

E du c . , 2 3 1 F . 3 d8 2 1 , 8 2 8 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 2 0 0 0 ) ( ap p l yi n g s a me standard in case involv ing teacher claim ing di scrim inatory dem otion ). In St ur nio lo and H ins on, the de m oti ons w er e unr el at ed to any c la im ed dis ci pli ne or dis ci pli ne m or e se ve re than th at r ec ei ve d by

oth er s si m ilarl y

sit ua te d. I n S tur

nio lo and Hinson, unlike in th e present ca se, ther e w as no claim that a sim ilarly

situated em ploy ee had com

m itted a sim ilar violation o f w ork rules, but had been treate d m or e fav or ab ly tha n t he pl ai nt iff s. While Rioux h as alw ay s m aintained in hi s two com plaints th at another em plo y ee w as sim ilarl y

sit ua te d to him

but w as dis ci pli ne d le ss s ev er el y than he (G rissom in the First Com

plaint, and Dunham

in the Second), it appears he has ra ise d th e co m

parator iss ue not a s an e le m en t of

his pr im a fa ci e show ing , but rathe r, a s e vid en ce of

pr et ex t, the thi rd

ste p of the Mc D onne ll D ougl as bur de nshi ft ing f ram ew ork. S ee e . g. , S ilv er a v. O range Co unty S ch ool Bo ar d, 244 F . 3d 1 2 5 3 , 1 2 5 9 (1 1 t h Ci r. 2 0 0 1 ) ( wh er e c o u rt ex amin ed , a s p ar to f t h e c o m p l ai n an t ’s show ing of

pr et ex t, w he the r the re w as any dis parate tr eatm en t of

asim ilarl y15

sit ua te d e m plo y ee of adif fe re nt r ac e) ; M cD onne ll D ougl as , 411 U . S. a t 80 4 (“ E spe ci al ly

r el ev an t” to a show ing of pr et ex t “ w oul d be e vid en ce that whit e em ploy ees involvedin acts against petitio ner of com parable seriousness . . . we re ne ve rthe le ss r et ai ne d or

r eh ir ed . ”) ; S park s v. P ilo t F re igh t C ar ri er s, I nc . , 830 F . 2d 1554 , 156 3 n. 20 ( 11th C ir . 198 7) ( not ing that c om parator e vid en ce m ay

be use d to showpr et ex t) . W e, too , a ddr es s th e suf fi ci en cy of any c om parator e vid en ce in our exam ination of pretext, rather than as an elem ent of Rioux’s prim a fa cie ca se, re co gni zi ng tha t i t i s no t a lw ay s po ssi ble f or hig h- ranki ng e m

plo y ee s to f

ind s u i t ab l e c o mp a r a t o r s . S e e Ho l i f i e l d , 1 1 5 F . 3 d1 5 5 5 , 1 5 6 3 ( “[T ]h e r e ar e o n l y a lim ited num

ber of potential ‘ sim ilarly situated em

ploy ees’ when higher level superviso ry

positi ons for m edical doctors are involved.”). Indeed, this Court has pr ev iou sly

state d th at

“ [i] f a pla int iff

fai ls to sh owthee

xi ste nc e of a sim ila rly situat ed e m plo ye e, sum m aryjud

gm en t i s ap prop ria te wh er e no o the r e vi de nc e of dis cr im ina tio n is prese nt. ” Id . at 1 56 2 (e m ph as is in ori gi na l). H er e, w hil e w e ag re e that R iou x ha s no t pr es en te d ac om parator , it is undi sputed th at he has shown he is a m em ber of a protected class; he wa s qualified fo r the j ob; he w as de m ote d; and f oll ow ing the de m oti on, he w as r ep la ce d by som eo ne out sid e his pr ote ct ed c la ss, an A sian A m er ic anw om an . Mo re ove r, in the16

absence of a sim ilarly -situated em ploy ee, and as we further e xplain b elow, he has also com e forw ard w ith “ other evidence of discrim ination .” InRi oux’ s vi ew , the dis tr ic t c ourt i m pr ope rl y dis co unt ed

the f oll ow ing ev ide nc e fr om

w hic h an in fe re nc e of

dis cr im inatio n c oul d be f ound : ( 1) Ru

bin tr ie d to m ai nta in a

r ac ia l ba lanc e at

the A FD , m ai nta ini ng a

r ac e tr ac kin g spreadsheet of personnel decision s, including Riou x’ s, that he r egularly presented to h is p oli tic al sup er ior s; ( 2) Ru binha d di sc uss ion s w ithA tlanta Ci ty Co unc ilm an , Iv or y L ee Y oung , Jr . ( “ Co unc ilm anY oung ”) , in w hic h R ubi n r ev ie w ed

the spr ea dshe et

and e xpr es se d hi s de sir e to a ch ie ve apart ic ular ra ci al ba lanc e of 50/ 50 bla ck /w hit e am ong the A FD dis cr et ion ar y r an ks; ( 3) Ru

bin ’ s “ shor

t l ist ” of candi da te s to r ep la ce Ri oux co nta ine d th re e bla ck f ir ef igh te rs , and R

ubi n atte m pte d to r ec ru it a bla ck

of fi ce r – W ill iam s – t o r ep la ce Ri oux; ( 4) Ru binf el t pr es sur e fr om

the A FD bla ck

pow er str uc tur e to h ar shl y

dis ci pli ne Ri oux, a m ids t al le gatio ns f

ro m the Br oth er s C om

bin ed that R ubi n w oul d f

av or Ri oux fo llo w ing earl ie r an d hars h tr eatm en t R ubi n ha d gi ve n to G ri sso m , abla ck c hie f ac cu se d of t ak i n g b ri b es (t re at m en tth e B ro t h er s Co m b i n edh adb ee n cr i t i ca l o f) ; (5 ) R i o u x ’s aggressive response to th e A FD ’ s delay ed arr ival at the May 2, 2004 fire w as pr om pte d by Ru binhim se lf

, w ho h ad tol d R iou x th e Fi re I nve sti ga tio n U nit needed to respondm ore quickly to fires; (6) an inference could be drawn that17

A ust in w as goa de d in to f ili ng the gr ie vanc e ag ai nst Ri oux by m em be rs of the Br oth er s C om

bin ed ; ( 7) the dif

fe re nc es in m anne r an d de gr ee of inv es tig at ing the Ri oux inc ide nt a s c om

pare d to the inc ide nt i nvol vin g pr opos ed c om parator D u n h a m; an d( 8 ) e v i d e n c e s h o w i n g D u n h a m wa s a dis cr et ion ar y of fi ce r subj ec t t o the sam e rules and supervisor – Rubin – as Rioux, w ho comm itted a sim ilar of fe nse to Ri oux’ s bu t who w as tr eate d di ff er en tly w ithr es pe ct

to the inv es tig at ion of the incident and di sciplinary action taken thereaf

ter. T he f or eg oin g c at eg or ie s of

e vid en ce , c om

bin ed w ithRi oux sa tis fy ing the St ur nio lo and H ins on p ri m a fa ci e te st f or dis cr im inator

y de m oti on, le ad

us t o co nc lu de th atRio ux sat is fie d h is pri m a fac ie sh owi ng un de r McDo nn el l Do ug la s.

2. L egitimate R eason/Pretext Beca use the parties agree Appellees had a legitim ate, nond iscrim inatory re as on f or Ri oux’ s de m oti on f

oll ow ing the O PS and L awD ep ar tm en t inv es tig at ion s, the pr es um pti on o f dis cr im inatio n is e lim inate d, se e V es se ls v . A tlanta I nde p. S ch . S y s. , 408 F . 3d 7 63, 771 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) , and w e ac co rd ing ly turn to the “ focused” inquiry concerning Rioux’s showing of pretext. See Silvera, 244 F. 3d at 12 58. “ T he inquir y int o pr et ex t c en te rs upo n th e em plo y er ’ s be lie fs , an d no t the e m

plo y ee ’ s own pe rc ep tio ns o f his pe rf orm an ce . ” H oli fi el d, 115 F . 3d at 156 5 ( ci ta tio ns o m itt ed ). T he pla int if f m ust de m onstrate w eakne sse s orTh e tr ie r o f f a c t is pe rm itt e d to c on sid e r t he e vid e nc e e sta

bli sh inga pla int if f’ s p ri ma 7 fac ie ca se and infe renc es dra wn there from on the issue of whether the def endant’ s proffe red rea son is pretextual. Reeves v. Sander son Plum bing Prods., I nc., 530 U.S. 133, 143 (2000). 18 im pla usi bil iti es in the e m

plo y er ’ s pr of

fe re d le git im at e re as ons fo r its a ct ion suf fi ci en t f or ar ea sona

ble f ac tf ind er to dis be lie ve the r ea sons . S ee S ilv er a, 244 F. 3d at 12 58 ( quot ing Co m bs, 106 F . 3d at 15 38) . I t i s th e pla int if f’ s burd ennot m er el y to ra ise asus pic ionr eg ar din g an im pr ope r m oti ve , but

r athe r to dem onstrate there is a genuine issue of m aterial f act that the em

ploy er’ s proffer ed re as on f or his de m oti on w as pr et ex tua l. C ha pm anv. A I T ransp. , 229 F . 3d 1 012, 10 24 -2 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 0) . T he dis tr ic t c ourt c onc lud ed that no ne of

the oth er e vid en ce sub m itt ed

by Ri oux w as suf

fi ci en t t o c re at e a ge nui ne iss ue of m at er ia l f

ac t a s to w he the r the 7 pr of fere d re as on forhi s d em ot io n was pre te xt ua l. We no w add res s t he two general categories of evidence Rioux presented in his eff ort to sho w that App el le es ’ le gi ti m at e rea so n fo r hi s d em ot io n was a pr et ex t fo r di sc riminat io n. T he f ir st c at eg or

y c onsi sts of

the f ir st s ix e vid en tiary

m atte rs ide nti fi ed

by Ri oux fr om w hic h aj ur

y c oul d in fe r dis cr im inatio n. T he se co nd c at eg or y inv olv es his p r o p o s e dc o mp a r a t o r , D u n h a m.

(i ) Ri oux’ s C la im

that R ac e Mot ivate d th e D em oti on D ec isi on19

Ci tin g th e E le ve nthCi rc uit ’ s de ci sio n inV es se ls, 408 F . 3d at 77 1, Ri oux argues that his sub m issio n of statem ents by Rubin expressin g a desire to conform AF D’ s personnel to the rac ial m ake-up of the City of A tlanta is sufficient evidence of pr et ex t t o surv ive sum

m ar y j udgm en t. Appe lle es dis tin gui sh V es se ls, a s th e district court did, on the grou nd that th e plaintiff in that case off ered at least three ad dit ion al pie ce s of

e vid en ce in ad dit ionto al le ge dly r ac ia lly -t ing ed

state m en ts b y the defendant, in contrast to Rioux, whom they assert cannot offer

any addition al ev ide nc e. I n f

urthe r supp ort of

thi s po sit ion , Appe lle es c ite ase ri es of de ci sio ns i n which ra cially -tinged statem ents alone wer e held to be insu fficient to cr eate a ge nui ne iss ue of

m at er ia l f

ac t a s to pr et ex t. S ee , e . g. , K inc ai d v. Bd . of T ru ste es , 188 F. App’ x 81 0, 816 -1 7 ( 11th C ir . 200 6) ; R ile y v. Bi rm ing ham

Bd . of E duc . , 154 F. App’x 114, 116 (11th Cir. 2005). Appellees also ar gue that the dist rict co urt c or re ct ly dis co unt ed

the te sti m ony

of Co unc ilm anY oung , and t es tim ony regarding the role of Br others Com bined in the Rioux inv estigation , a s the record co ntr ad ic ts any

a sse rt ionthat Appe lle es w er e inf lue nc ed by the a ge ndaof

e ith er of th es e p art ie s. Ri o u x s ub m i t t edu n co n t ro v er t eds t at emen t s b y Ru b i n s t at i n g th e l at t er ’s be lie f that the r ac ia l c om posi tio n of

the A FD sho uld

r ef le ct the r ac ia l c om

posi tio n of the Ci ty of A tlanta ge ne ra lly . I n c onc lud ing thi s e vid en ce w as ins uf fi ci en t, theI t is undisput ed that Rubin was aw are that the City of Atlanta is 60% A frica n Americ an. 8 20 dis tr ic t c ourt i nte rp re te d V es se ls a s st an din g f or the pr opos iti on tha t e vid en ce of ra ci al ly ti nge d st at em en ts m

ust be c oupl ed

w ithoth er

c ir cum stanti al e vid en ce of discrim ination to surviv e sum m ary j udgm ent. T he district court disti ngui shed Rubin’s statem ents regarding the racial m akeup of the AF D f rom the statem ents at issue in Vessels, concluding th at Rubin’ s statem ents did n ot express a prefe rence fo r a part ic ular ra ci al gr oup. T he dis tr ic t c ourt c onc lud ed that the sum

tot al of the 8 ev i d en ce d i dn o tca l l i n t o qu es t i o n Ap p el l ee s ’ pr o ff er edre as o n fo r R i o u x ’s de m oti on and am ount ed

to m er e spe cu la tio n. Whil e “ spe cu la tio n” m ay a cc ur at el y de sc ri be som e fa ct

ua l a sse rt ion s by

Ri oux, oth er

f ac tua l a sse rt ion s f

ind sup port i n th e rec or d. Co nsi de ri ng a ll the e vid en ce , ar ea sona ble f ac tf ind er c oul d de te rm ine the pr of fe re d le git im at e re as on f

or Ri oux’ s tw o- ste p de m oti on – an a lte rc at iondur ing w hic h R iou x w as se ek ing to im pr es s up on h is s ubor din at es Ru bin ’ s own di re ct ive re gard ing r es pond ing m or e qui ck ly to fi re s – w as not

the onl y e ve nt tha t a ct

ua lly m oti va te d Appe lle es . R iou x’ s burd en , a ga in, w as to de m onstrate w eakne sse s or im pla usi bil iti es in the pr of

fe re d le git im at e re as on s o a s to pe rm it a ratio na l j ur y to co nc lud e that the e xpl an at iongiv enw as not the r ea l r ea son, or

that the r ea son21

state d w as ins uf

fi ci en t t o w ar

rant the a dve rs e ac tio n. S ee Co m bs, 106 F . 3d at 1528 ; C ar

te r v. T hr ee S pr ing s R es ide nti al T re atm en t, 132 F . 3d 6 35, 643 ( 11th Ci r. 19 98 ). Rioux m aintains that between May 10 and Septem

ber 10, B rothers Co m bi ne d a ndCo un ci lm an You ng bro ug ht pre ss ur e to be ar o n Ap pe ll ees . Cam ero n Di xo n, Pr es id en t o f th e Bro th ers Co m bi ne d, h adm eet in gs wit h C OO Y oung to co m

pla in a bout the Ri oux inv es tig at ionand a bout Ru bin ’ s ne wpr oc es s fo r pr om oti ng c ap ta ins . D ixo n c om pla ine d to CO O Y oung about vin dic tiv e at ta ck s b y

Rubi n a ga in stbl ackm an ag ers . The Co un ci lm an , to o, co nt act edCOO You ng an d l efta m es sa ge reg ard in g t he m at te r of Ch ie f Ri ou x wi th he r. COO Y oung the n a ske d R

ubi n to br ing he r up t o date on p er sonn el m ove s, and t o a lso be prepare d to up date her on the incident inv olvin g Rioux andany actions taken as a res ul t. Whe n R ubi n of fe re d R iou x’ s po sit ionto W ill iam s, Ru bintol d W ill iam s he ha d be en“ ins tr

uc te d to take som e ac tio ns w ithCh ie f Ri oux. ” I n hi s de posi tio n, Ru binonl y a dm itt ed to fi rs t of

fe ri ng R iou x’ s po sit ionto W ill iam s a ft er be ing rep eat ed ly pres se d t o c on fir m th atfact . Ri oux m ai nta ins Ru

bina dhe re s to ade f

ac to and unw ri tte n a ff

irm at ive ac tio n po lic y , and an in fe re nc e can be dr awn th at Ri oux w as de m ote d a s part ofRioux ’s demotion was re corde d on Rubin’s spreadshe et as a n appointment of a 9 Cauca sian to Section Chief. Rioux ’s re place ment by Ms. Wi llis was rec orded a s the routine appointment of an A sian Americ an. 22 the overall strategy

of rac e balancing. Rubin presents a copy of his spreadsheet 9 tw o to thr ee ti m es ay ear to C ounc ilm anY oung ; i f Ru binw er e to s howup at a m eeting without do cum entation of the prom otion s on the basis of rac e, Co unc ilm anY oung “ w oul d have m ad e a m or e fo rm al inquir y and w oul d have re qui re d th at

som e doc um en ta tio n be pr ovi de d by the a dm ini str at ion . ” I n r es pons e to the que sti on, “ H owf

ar aw ay f ro m a50/ 50 b al an ce be tw ee n A fr ic anA m er ic an s an d C au ca sians d o y ou thin k pr om oti ons w oul d have to ge t be fo re y ou w oul d take it upon y our se lf to say som ethin g to Ch ie f Ru

bin . . . ?” C ounc ilm anY oung ad m it te d, “ If we s ta rte d g et ti ng in th e lo w per cen ti le s o f 30 pe rcen t o r be lo w th at .” T ak entog ethe r an d vi ew ed in the li ght

m ost f av or ab le to Ri oux, w e cannot say , ba se d up on the f

or eg oin g sum

m ar y of a ddi tio na l e vid en ce , that R iou x ha s no t satisfied his bu rden of presenting disp uted facts showing Appellees w ere m oti va te d by

adis cr im inator

y r ea son in s el ec tin g th e le ve l of dis ci pli ne Ri oux re ce ive d, in co ntr as t t o any dis ci pli ne he c oul d or

w oul d have r ec ei ve d inthe ab se nc e o f th e rac e-b as edpre ss ur e ex ert ed . (i i) D unham

a s aCo m parator23

Rioux’s sec ond argum ent supp orting hi s burden of sho wing pretext, that Dunham wa s a sim ilarly -situated em ploy ee who was treated m ore favorably than Rioux follo wing sim ilar m iscondu ct, however, fails. “ [T ] o determ ine whether em ploy ees ar e sim ilarly

situated, w e evaluate ‘ whether the em ploy ees ar e involv ed in o r ac cu se d of

the sam e or

sim ilar co nduc t and are dis ci pli ne d in dif fe re nt w ay s. ’ ” Burk e- Fo w le r, 447 F . 3d at 13 23 ( quot ing Manic ci a v. Br ow n, 171 F . 3d 13 64 , 13 68 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ) (ci ta ti on s an d q uo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) ). A co m parator is ane m plo y ee “ sim ilarl y

sit ua te d [ to the pla int if

f] ‘ in a ll re le vant re spe ct s. ’ ” W ils on, 376 F . 3d at 10 91 ( quot ing H oli fi el d, 115 F . 3d at 15 62) . T he

“ ‘ quanti ty

and qua lity

of the c om parator ’ s m isc ondu ct

[ m ust ] be ne ar ly

ide nti ca l t o pr ev en t c ourts f

ro m se co nd- gue ssi ng e m

plo y er s’ r ea sona

ble de ci sio ns and co nf usi ng a ppl es w ithor an ge s. ’ ” Burk e- Fo w le r, 447 F . 3d at 13 23 ( quot ing Manic ci a, 171 F . 3d at 13 68) ( ci ta tio n om itt ed )) . Mi sc ondu ct m er el y “ sim ilar” to th e m is co nd uc t o f th e d is ci pl in edpl ai nt iff is in su ffi ci en t. Id . at n .2. In hi s p le ad in gs , Rio ux ad va nc edtwo co m pa rat or s, Gri ss om

an d Du nh am . A t sum m ar y j udgm en t and b ef

or e thi s C ourt, Ri oux pr opos es onl y D unham a s a com parator. Rioux argues that the dist rict court im properly determ ined Dunham wa s not an approp riate c om parator beca

use it focused on su perficial diff erence s be tw ee n th e em

plo y ee s’ r es pe ct ive pos iti ons w ith in t he A FD . R iou x c ont en ds the24

co urt sh oul d have f

oc use d in ste ad

on the “ na tur e of

the of fe nse s c om

m itt ed and the nature of the punish m ents im posed.” Silvera , 244 F. 3d at 125 9. Appellees assert the district court properly determ ined that Dunham , a Battalion Chief, wa s not a suitabl e com

parator to Rioux, a D eputy Chief, because of: (1) the m aterial dif fe re nc es in the ir

r es pe ct ive r an k and j ob r es pons ibi lit ie s; ( 2) the dif fe re nc es in the c harg es le vie d a ga ins t the m ; and ( 3) the dif fe ri ng n at ur e of the inv es tig at ion s and the different identities of the indiv iduals m aking a final decision as to what di sc ip li ne each em

pl oyee sh ou ldrece iv e. T he f oll ow ing f

ac ts r eg ar din g R iou x’ s and D unham ’ s r es pe ct ive r an ks and j ob r es pons ibi lit ie s are und isp ute d. R iou x, w ho h el d th e se co nd h igh es t po sit ion in the A FD , and D unham , w ho h el d th e fo urth h igh es t, w er e both am ong j ust 40 dis cr et ion ar

y of fi ce rs in a de partm en t of

appr oxi m at el y

1, 200 m em

be rs . P ri or

to his de m oti on, D unham

w as aBatta lio n C hie f. T he re are appr oxi m at el y 30 Batta lio n C hie fs in the A FD . ABatta lio n C hie f ty pic al ly ove rs ee s ahandf

ul o f fir e st at io ns an d l es s t ha n 5 0 p eo pl e. Pr ior to his de m oti on, Ri oux w as one of onl y thr ee D ep uty

F ir e Ch ie fs , se co nd i n c om

m an d to Ch ie f Ru

bin . A s D ep uty

Ch ie f, Ri oux w as r es pons ibl e fo r five battalions, 35 fire stations, and 45 pieces of equipm ent. A ll AFD chief appoin tm ents are discre tionary ; the chiefs serve at Rubin’s pleasure. A fter C hief25

Ru bin , aD ep uty

Ch ie f ha s th e hig he st l ev el of sup er vis ionin the A FD . O nly D ep uty Ch ie fs f ill in fo r Ru

binw he n he is ab se nt. AD ep uty Ch ie f w oul d no t co nsi de r him

or he rs el f to h av e the sam e status a s aBatta lio n C hie f or an A ssi stant Ch ie f. D ep uty

Ch ie fs have gr eate r re spon sib ili tie s th anBatta lio n C hie fs , supe rv ise hun dr ed s of

m or e pe opl e, and are pa id m or e. R iou x’ s pr om oti on t o De putyChief w as m ore m eaningful than h is other prom otion s because it wa s ri sin g to the top of

his pr of es sio n. A s t o an y d i f

f e r e n c e s i n th e c h a r g e s l e v i e da g a i n s tR i o u x an dD u n h a m, Appellees subm it that while Rioux was found to have vio lated one of the AF D w ork r ule s onvio le nc e in the w orkpl ac e, D unham w as not . T he L awD ep ar tm en t Co m pli an ce U nit

c onc lud ed

that R iou x’ s a ct ion s onMay 2, 200 4 vi olate d f

our dif fe re nt A FD w ork r

ule s and tw o se ct ion s of

the Ci ty Co de . I n M ar ch200 6, D u n h a m wa s c h a r g e db y OP S wi t h v i o l a t i n g AF D wo rkr u l e s o f c o n du c t , c o u rt e s y, an d t ru th fu ln es s. Fi na lly , Appe lle es arg ue that di ff er en t de ci sio nm ak er s w er e re spon sib le f or the sanctions im

posed on Rioux and Dunham , and each incident was investigated dif fe re ntl y . S ee S ilv er a, 244 F . 3d at 12 61 n . 5 ( “ [D ] if fe re nc es in tr eatm en t by dif fe re nt s upe rv iso rs or

de ci sio n m ak er s c anse ldo m be the ba sis f

or avia ble c la im of discrim ination .” ) (c iting Jones v. Ge rw ens, 874 F.2d 1534, 1541 (11 th Cir.26

1 9 8 9 )) . Ap p el l ee s as s er tth at , wh er ea s Ru b i n d i re ct l y d et er m i n edRi o u x ’s puni shm en t ba se d onthe O PS and L awD ep ar tm en t r ep orts, D unham ’ s di sc ipl ine (a six-day suspens ion and letter of reprim and) wa s determ ined by a Se ction Chief of th e OPS, Ci nd y

Tho m ps on , andon ly sub m it te d t o R ub in forhi s ap pr ov al lat er. W e ar e pe rs ua de d th at

D unham w as not ava lid c om parator on the ba sis of the first two argum ents advanced by Appellees c oncerning th e m aterial diff erence s in the m en ’ s r es pe ct ive r an ks and j ob r es pons ibi lit ie s and the dif fe re nc es in the ch ar ge s le vie d a ga ins t the m . A dm itt ed ly , dif fe re nc es in j ob r an ks b etw ee n a pla int if f an d anothe r em

plo y ee are not , in an d of

the m se lve s, dis posi tiv e as to w he the r the tw o in div idu al s m ay be c om pare d f or pur pose s of e va luatin g a di sc riminat io n c la im . Se e L athe m , 172 F . 3d at 79 3 ( dif fe re nt j ob t itl es not dispo sitive). H ere, however, rank clearly m atters, as Rioux was one of only three of the highest-ranked m em bers of the A FD , r eporting di rectly to Rubin. In co nt ras t, Du nh am

he lda po si ti on no t o ne , bu t t wo l ev el s d is ta nt fro m Rio ux , a posit ion sh ared by

30 m en and wom en, and conseq uently , significantly rem oved fr om Ru bin . I t c annot

be sa id tha t c ondu ct

that m igh t be tol er at ed

or tr eate d w ith p ro g re s s i v e d i s ci p l i n e a tl o we r r an k s m u s tb e s i m i l ar l y ac ce p t edfr o m th e C h i ef’s im m ediate advisors, w ho are held to a higher level of professionalism and who are ex pe ct edto set th e st an da rdof c on du ctfor th e d ep art m en t.27

Ne ither Rubin no r CO O Y oung selected the char ges Rioux andDunham we re f oundto have violated, and the charges w ere not th e sam e. D unham wa s ne it he r ch arg edwit h n orfou ndto ha ve vi ol at edan AFD workpl ace v io le nc e ru le . A s R iou x c or

re ct ly poi nts out , the m ost

im portant f ac tor s inac om

parator ana ly sis in the discip linary

context are the nature of the offenses com m itted and the nature of th e p un is hm en ts im

po se d. Si l v er a, 2 4 4 F. 3 dat1 2 5 9 . “ [T ]h e c o m p ar at o r’s m isc ondu ct

m ust be ne ar ly ide nti ca l t o th e pla int if

f’ s inor de r to p re ve nt c ourts fr om se co nd- gue ssi ng e m

plo y er s’ r ea sona

ble de ci sio ns and c onf

usi ng a ppl es w ith or an ge s. ” I d. ( ci ta tio n and i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks o m itt ed ). T he standard f or sim ilar co nduc t i s af

ai rl y r igo ro us o ne , and h er e, w hil e the inc ide nts c er ta inl y appear to be sim ilar, the offenses Rioux and Dunham we re c harged with w ere differe nt. Moore, 137 F. App’x at 239 (“ W e have previously held that a differ ence in the charged offenses can preclude a com parison for Title V II purposes.”) . Appe lle es ’ arg um en t tha t di ff er en t de ci sio nm ak er s w er e re spon sib le f or d i s ci p l i n i n g Ri o u x an d

Du n h am (a n ar g u m en tn o tco n s i d er edi n th e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s order) is unpersuasive. S ee A nde rs on v . W BM G -4 2, 253 F . 3d 5 61, 565 -6 6 ( 11th Cir. 2001 ) (diff

erent supervisors not d ispos itive). I t is und isput ed, f or instance, that a ll dis cr et ion ar

y of fi ce rs in the A FD ult im at el y se rv e at the ple as ur e of

the Fi re Ch ie f, Ru

bin , and e ve n a s Appe lle es c ont en d th at Ru binw as not

dir ec tlyI t is undisput ed that Appe llees we re e ng ag ed in discre tionary functions at all re levant 10 tim e s. 28 inv olv ed in the inv es tig at ionof

D unham , the y

c onc ed e it w as ne ce ssary f or him to ap pr ov e th e u lt im at e sa nc ti on im po se d. D unham , w hose dis ci pli ne w as m et ed out tw o y ears f

oll ow ing Ri oux’ s, can no t s erv e as a va li d c om pa rat orto ass is t Ri ou x i n s ho win g p ret ex t. N ev er the le ss, a s st at ed , Ri oux’ s othe r ev ide nc e of an un w ri tte n a ff

irm at ive a ct ion plan and p re ssure s e xe rt ed by Br oth er s C om

bin ed and C ounc ilm anY oung , a lon g with Rubin’ s offer of the positi on to an African Am erican and evasive answers re gard ing that of

fe r, are suf

fi ci en t t o satis fy

Ri oux’ s burd enw ithr es pe ct to pr et ex t. C. T he Q ua lif

ie d I m m uni ty D ef en se W e nowtur

n to Appe lle es ’ de fe nse of qua lif ie d im m uni ty , int er

pose d inthe ind ivi dua l c ap ac ity

c la im s f or m one y dam ag es . “ [Q ] ua lif

ie d im m uni ty pr ote ct s gove rn m en t of

fi ci al s pe rf

orm ing dis cr et ion ar

y f unc tio ns f

ro m the bur de ns o f 10 ci vil tr ia ls and f

ro m li ab ili ty , ” Mc Mi lli anv. Johnson , 88 F . 3d 1 554, 156 2 ( 11th Cir. 1996 ) (c iting La ssiter v. A labam a A &M U niv., 28 F. 3d 11 46, 1149 (11t h Cir. 1994 ) (e n banc)), “ [i] n all but exception al cases. ” Id. It is only “ when an of fi ci al ’ s c ondu ct

vio la te s ‘ cl earl y

e sta bli she d st at

uto ry or c onst itutio na l r igh ts o f29

which a r easonable person would have kn own’ ” that “ the official is not protected by qua lif ie d im m uni ty . ” I d. ( quot ing H ar lowv. F itz ge ra ld, 457 U . S. 800 , 818 (1 98 2) ). Ourqu al ifi edimm

un it y in qu iry thu s p ro ceed s i n t he fol lo win g s eque nc e. W e m ust first determ ine whether the plaintiff has shown that the challenged co nduc t vi olate s astatut or y or c onst itu tio na l r igh t. S ee Mc Cl ishv. N uge nt, 483 F. 3d 1 231, 123 7 ( 11th C ir . 200 7) ( ci tin g S au ci er v. K at z, 533 U . S. 194 , 201 (2 001) ). A ga in, w e ar e obl ige d to r ev ie wthe f ac ts i n th e lig ht m ost

f av or ab le to th e p la in ti ff. Id . T he lawe sta

bli shi ng the vio la tio n m

ust be pr e- ex ist ing , that i s, it m ust be in ef fe ct a t the ti m e of

the a lle ge d vi olatio n. I d. Mo re ove r, the pla int if f m ust sho w that the lawe sta

bli shi ng the vio la tio n w as c le ar ly e sta bli she d. I d. I n othe r w or ds,

“ [t] he contours of the right m ust be sufficiently

clear that a re asonable official would und erstand that what he is doing vi olates that right.” Sa ucier, 533 U.S . at 202 (quot ing A nde rs on v . Cr ei ght on, 483 U . S. 635 , 640 ( 1987 )) . T he r el ev an t inqu iry is whether “ it would be clear to a rea sonable officer that his conduct was u n l aw fu l i n th e s i tu at i o n h e c o n fr o n t ed .” Id . ( ci t at i o n o m i t t ed ). Th u s , “ [i ]f objec tive observers cannot predict – at the tim e the officia l acts – w hether the act wa s lawf ul or not, and the answer

m ust await f

ull adjudication in a district court30

y ears in the f

uture , the of

fi ci al de se rv es im

m uni ty f ro m li ab ili ty f or c ivi l dam ag es . ” F oy

v. H ols ton , 94 F . 3d 1 528, 153 4 ( 11th C ir . 199 6) ( ci tin g E lde r v. Hol lo way , 51 0 U.S. 5 10 , 51 3- 15 (19 94 )). Rioux’s cla im s, if believed, w ouldestablish a viol ation of the Equal Protection Clause, which ensures the right to be free from intentio nal dis cr im inatio n ba se d onr ac e. W ill iam s v. Co nsol . Ci ty of Ja ck sonv ill e, 341 F . 3d 1261 , 126 8 ( 11th C ir . 200 3) ; se e al so Y el de ll v. Co ope r G re enH osp. , I nc . , 956 F. 2d 1 056, 106 4 ( 11th C ir . 199 2) ( hol din g th at int en tio na l di sc ri m inatio n inhir ing and firing practices violated Equal Pr otection Clause). I f the trier of fac t believed Ri oux’ s sh ow ing of

pr et ex t, and d isb el ie ve d Appe lle es ’ pr of fe re d le git im at e re as on, the n avio la tio n of the E qua l P ro te ct ionCl au se w oul d be sho w n. T he

“ other” evidence fr om

which a j ury

m ight in fer discrim inatory anim us on th e part of Rubin and COO Young, which we have sum m arize d above, constitutes th at showing byRioux, at the sum m ary j udgm ent stage, of the violation of a co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht . T he tr ia l c ourt be lowa ddr es se d th e ne xt s te p inthe qua lif ie d im m uni ty an al y sis by

not ing that the re w as no r ea l di sput e that the r igh t t o be f re e fr om emp l o ym en td i s cr i m i n at i o n wa s cl ea rl y es t ab l i s h edatth e t i m e o f R i o u x ’s dem otion . As a general principle, we can all agr ee w ith that statem ent. S ee31

John son v. Ci ty

of F ort L au de rd al e, 126 F . 3d 1 372, 137 8 ( 11th C ir . 199 7) ( “ [T ] he right to be free f

rom workplace discrim ination and harassm ent on the basis of rac e

. . . [ w as ] c le ar ly

e sta bli she d a t the r el ev an t t im es ”) ; B ogl e v. Mc Cl ur e, 332 F . 3d 1347 , 1355 (11th Cir. 2003) (“ [T ] here is no doub t that in May 2000 , . . . it w as cl earl y e sta bli she d th at

int en tio na l di sc ri m inatio n inthe w orkpl ac e on a cc ount of ra ce vio la te d f

ed er al law . ”) ( ci ta tio n om itt ed ). H ow ev er , the “ cl earl y e sta bli she d” pr ong of the qua lif

ie d im m uni ty ana ly sis a sks the que sti on “ in l igh t of the spe ci fi c context of the case, not as a broad general propositio n.” W illiam s, 341 F. 3d at 12 69 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io ns om it te d) . W e theref

ore turn to an exam ination of “ whether the defendant’ s conduct wa s noneth eless ‘ objec tively rea sonable’ in light of that [E qual Protection] right.” John son, 126 F . 3d at 13 78 ( ci tin g A nde rs on, 483 U . S. a t 63 8) . R iou x m ust dem onstrate at this step in the qualified im m unityanaly sis that a reasonable fire ch ie f an d ar ea sona

ble c hie f ope ratin g of

fi ce r of ac ity w oul d kn owthat de m oti ng a high-ranking, subo rdinate, discre tionary officer in the factual cir cum stances pr es en te d h ere v io la te d c le arl y est ab li sh edlaw. See Sta nl ey v. Ci ty of Dal to n, Ga., 219 F. 3d 1 280, 129 4 ( 11th C ir . 200 0) ( ci tin g H ar low , 457 U . S. 800 ). A nd i t i s th is th athe can no t s ho w.32

Cl earl y e sta bli she d lawpr ovi de s th at state of fi ci al s “ can be m oti va te d, in part, by a dislike or hosti lity

towar d a cer

tain protected class to which a citize n be lon gs and s til l a ct

law fu lly . . . . ” F oy , 94 F . 3d at 15 34 ( ci tin g V il. of A rl ing ton H ts. v. Me tr o. H ousi ng D ev . , 429 U . S. 252 , 269 -7 1 n. 21 ( 1977 )) ; se e al so M t. H ea lth y v. D oy le , 429 U . S. 274 , 286 -8 7 ( 1979 ). T hus, “ state of fi ci al s a ct law fu lly de spi te havin g di sc ri m inator y int en t, w he re the r ec or d sh ow s th ey w oul d have ac te d a s th ey , in fa ct , did

a ct e ve n if the y ha d la ck ed

dis cr im inator

y int en t. ” I d. (c iti ng M t. H ea lth y , 429 U . S. a t 28 6- 87) . T he e ve nts of May 2, 200 4 are larg el y undi sput ed , and the r es ult s of the O PS and L awD ep ar tm en t i nve sti ga tio ns co nf irm ed that R iou x vi olate d de partm en t r ule s. V ie w ing the f

ac ts i n th e lig ht m ost f av or ab le to Ri oux, Appe lle es ha d a de quate law fu l r ea sons to supp ort the ir de ci sio n to de m ote Ri oux, and m ay have ha d im

pr ope r ra ce -b as ed

m oti ve s to take the c ha lle nge d a ct iona s w el l. Wha t R iou x ha s pr es en te d, the n, is a “ m ixe dm oti ve s” c as e, w hic h is gov er ne d by the ana ly sis se t ou t i n F oy . S ee S tanle y , 219 F. 3d at 12 95 ( “ T he de ci sio n inF oy se ts o ut the pr ope r an al y sis to ap ply in potenti al m ixed-m otive cases.” ) Fo y e xpl ai ne d: A t l ea st whe n an a de quate law fu l m oti ve is pr es en t, that a discrim inatory

m otive m ight also exist does no t swee p qualified im m uni ty f ro m the f ie ld e ve n a t the sum

m ar y j udgm en t st ag e. U nle ss33

it, as a legal m atter, is plain un der the specific f acts and circum stances of the c as e that the de fe ndant’ s c ondu ct – de spi te his havin g a de quate law fu l r ea sons to supp ort the a ct – w as the r es ult

of his unl aw fu l m oti ve , the de fe ndant i s e nti tle d to im m uni ty . Whe re the f

ac ts a ssum ed

f or summ ary j udgm ent purpos es in a case invo lving qualified im m unityshow m ixed m oti ve s ( law fu l and

unl aw fu l m oti va tio ns) and p re -e xis tin g lawdoe s no t di ct at e that the m er its of

the c as e m

ust be de ci de d inpla int if

f’ s f av or , the de fe ndant i s e n t i t l e dt o i mm

un i t y. 94 F . 3d at 15 34- 35. Tr acking the reasoning used in Foy to reverse the denial of summ ary j udgm ent wher e qualified im m unitywa s interposed as a defense, here no j ury could find th at it would have been unlawful for a fire chief and the city ’ s chief op erat in g o ffi cer t o d o a s Ap pe ll ees di d i f th ey ha d l ack eddi sc riminat ory in te nt . Id . a t 15 35. N o j ur

y c oul d f ind that a r ea sona ble f ir e ch ie f an d c hie f ope ratin g of fi ce r w oul d ne ve r have de m ote d R iou x bu t f or adis cr im inator

y int en t. I d. T he re co rd he re , a s inF oy , und isp uta bly e sta bli she s th at

Appe lle es w er e m oti va te d at le ast in part by

law fu l j ust if

ic at ion s, sup por

te d by the ind ep en de nt i nve sti ga tio ns co nd uc te d b y

OPS an d t he Law Depa rtment, i nv es ti ga ti on s wh ic h t he se two decisionm akers w ere not a part of and which there is no evidence they m anipulated. Id. at 1535 n.9. Cf . Mc Millian, 88 F. 3d 15 54 (affir m ing trial court de nia l of sum m ar y j udgm en t whe re ge nui ne iss ue s of f ac t e xis te d a s to r ea sons34

officials placed plaintiff on death row, in part, due to issue of whether officer s lied co nc ern in g t he ir r eas on s) . The F oy analytical fram ew ork was a pplied in Stanley

to a m ixed m otives ca se , f oll ow ing the S upr em e Co urt pr onounc em en t i n C raw fo rd -E l v. Br itt on, 523 U . S. 574 ( 1998 ). I n C raw fo rd -E l, the Co urt r ej ec te d ar ule that w oul d have re qui re d ahe igh te ne d burd enof pr oof f ro m pla int if fs in unc onst itu tio na l- m oti ve ca se s. 523 U . S. a t 58 0- 86. T he Cr aw fo rd -E l de ci sio n di d no t a ddr es s ho wc ourts shou ld applythe objec tive reasonableness test after a plaintiff cre ates a j ury qu e s t i o n o n i mp r o p e r

mo t i v e , w h e r e i mp r o p e r

mo t i v e i s an e l e me n to f

th e c l a i m, as it is here. Stanley

concluded that Foy

wa s the correc t approach and rem ained the lawof

thi s c ir cu it. 219 F . 3d at 12 96 n . 26. A nd s o S tanle y r ei te rate d th at

a de fe ndant i s e nti tle d to qua lif ie d im m uni ty onl y w he re “ the r ec or d un dis put ab ly es tabl is he s t ha t t he de fen da nt in factwas m ot iv at ed , at l ea st i n pa rt , by law fu l co ns id erat io ns .” Id . at 1 29 6 (e m ph as is in ori gi na l). T he obj ec tiv e re as ona

ble ne ss i nqui ry

in St an le y

pr oc ee de d inthe f

oll ow ing m anner. Chadwic k, the chief of police, had c ause to resent Stanley , a police of fic er wh o h ady ears be fo re n am edCh ad wickas a su sp ectin an in ve st ig at io n. Y ears a ft er

S tanle y ’ s r em ar

ks, and f oll ow ing se ve ra l di sc ipl inary inc ide nts , Ch adw ic k te rm inate d S tanle y , and S tanle y br ough t a

se ct ion198 3 a ct ionf

or35

vio la tio n of

his f ir st am en dm en t r igh ts. T he r ev er sa l of the de nia l of

am oti on f

or sum m ar y j udgm en t onqua lif

ie d im m uni ty r es te d ontw o un dis put ed f ac ts. F ir st, the r ec or d un dis put ab ly

e sta bli she d th at

obj ec tiv el y

va lid r ea sons e xis te d f

or the ste p C ha dw ic k to ok, be ca use the inc ide nts und er ly ing the dis ci pli ne that l ed to the te rm inatio n di d inf

ac t t ak e pla ce . T hus, “ no j ur y c oul d f ind that i t w oul d have been unlawful to term inate Stanley as Chadw ick did absent retaliatory m otive.” Id . at 1 29 6. Second, sum

m ary j udgm ent was a

ppropriate because the rec ord undi sput ab ly

e sta bli she d th at

Ch adw ic k w as m oti va te d, a t l ea st i n part , by the lawf ul consid erations of the disciplin ary incidents. A four-y ear tim e gap existed be tw ee n S tanle y ’ s in iti al pr ote ct ed spe ec h nam ing Ch adw ic k a s asus pe ct , and i n those four y ears, Stanley

had engaged in actions that resulted in discip line. “ Even if ar ea sona

ble pol ic e ch ie f ac te d w ithr et al ia tor y m oti ve , the lawin 1997 did not clear ly establish th at a r easonable police chief – fac ed with the sam e undisp uted ev ide nc e of

S tanle y ’ s m isc ondu ct

and undi sput ab ly

a ct ing a t l ea st i n part

be ca use o f S t a n l e y’ s mi s c o n du c t–

s h o u l dn o th a v e t e rmi n a t e dS t a n l e y i n th e s a me m anner. ” Id. at 1297 (citing J ohns on, 126 F.3d at 1379). Si m ilarl y , Joh nsonr ev er se d th e de nia l of asum m ar y j udgm en t m oti on ra isi ng qua lif

ie d im m uni ty on the gr ound

that the de m oti on and d isc harg e of the36

pla int if f- fi re fi ght er

w as ba se d onind isp uta

ble and a de quate law fu l m oti ve s, spe ci fi ca lly , the f

ir ef igh te r’ s f ai lur e to o be y

adir ec t or de r an d r ep eate d li es a t hi s dis ci pli nary

he ar ing . 126 F . 3d at 13 79. I n Jo hnso n, “ [e ] ve n a ssum ing that the de fe ndants a ct ed

w ithsom e dis cr im inator y or r et al ia tor y m oti ve s inde m oti ng and discharging Johns on, the lawdid no t clear ly establish th at a r easonable official fa ce d w iththe sam e ev ide nc e of dis obe die nc e an d de ce pti on s houl d no t have discipli ned John son in the sam e m anner. ” Id. at 1379. Cf. Bogle, 332 F. 3d at 1356 (af firm ing deni al of re newed m otion for j udgm ent as a m atter of law fo llo w ing j ur

y ve rd ic t whe re e vid en ce sug ge ste d de fe ndants ’ e vid en ce of reorganization plan was a sham designed to cover-up rac e-based transfe rs and j ury square ly f ound appe llants int en tio na lly

dis cr im inate d ona cc ount of r ac e, r ej ec tin g pr of fere d n on di sc riminat ory

reas on s) . H er e, the r ec or d sh ow s Appe lle es w er e in f ac t m oti vate d, at le ast

in part , by obj ec tiv el y

va lid r ea sons in de m oti ng R iou x. N otw ith standi ng the e vid en ce of pr et ex t, w hic h is suf

fi ci en t t o su sta in R iou x’ s burd enof sho w ing that hi s de m oti on w as the r es ult

of dis cr im inatio n, the re is no e vid en ce that R ubi n or CO O Y oung in flu en cedtwo in de pe nd en t i nv es ti ga ti on s co nc ern in g t he May 2, 20 04 in ci de nt . T he re is no e vid en ce that the May 2, 200 4 in ci de nt d id n ot i n f ac t t ak e pla ce , or that the inc ide nt d id n ot i nvol ve som e vio la tio n of one or m or e w ork r

ule s by the37

second-high est ranking m em ber of the A FD . No evidence w as presented that Appe lle es ’ de ci sio ns t o de m ote Ri oux w er e not m oti va te d, a t l ea st i n part , by the law fu l c onsi de ratio n of

the O PS and L awD ep ar tm en t’ s c onc lud ed

inv es tig at ion s an d f ind ing s. W e cannot

say that, e ve n a ssum ing Appe lle es w er e ac tin g w ith im pr ope r ra ce -b as ed

anim us o r a de sir e to a ddr es s r ac e- ba lanc ing in the w orkpl ac e, r ea sona

ble of fi ci al s f ac ed w iththe sam e ev ide nc e of Ri oux’ s vi olatio ns of work r ules would have kno wn that dem oting Rioux vio lated clear ly established fed eral law. Beca use pre-existing law did not prov ide fair w arning to Appellees that dem oting Rioux un der these cir cum stances would violate clearly established f e d e r a l l a w , Ap p e l l e e s ar e e n t i t l e dt o qu a l i f i e di mm u n i t y. III. CONCLUSION If Ri oux ha d pr es en te d hi s c la im s un de r the pr ovi sio ns o f T itl e V II , he w oul d be e nti tle d to have his c la im s of dis cr im inatio n he ar d by

aj ur y . T he r es ult w e re ac h he re is co m

pe lle d by the r em edy

Ri oux ch ose , that i s, se ct ion198 3 cl ai m s a ga ins t i ndi vid

ua l de ci sio nm ak er s r athe r than hi s e m plo y er , f or w hic h th e lawr ec ogni ze s th e ri ght

to qua lif ie d im m uni ty . A ga in, be ca

use Ri oux ha s no t been able to present any

evidence that Appellees’ decisions were not m otivated, at38

le as t i n p art , by la wfu l ju st ifi cat io ns , App el le es are en ti tl edto qu al ifi edimm un it y . Acco rd in gl y , th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ctco ur t i s AFF IRM ED.39

E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, c onc ur ri ng i n th e re sul t. I w ouldnot reach the qualified im m unityissue because I think the record es tabl is he d n o v io la ti on of t he Co ns ti tu ti on . Plai nt iff can po in t t o n o c om

pa rat or . T he de ci sio ns s et

out in tod ay ’ s c ourt op ini on t o su ppor t a pr im a fa ci e ca se are not be in g fo ll owe d, b ut are b ei ng ex te nd edto th e d is ci pl in ary-dem ot io n s it ua ti on . I also dou bt that Plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence of pre text. I f I believed thi s r ec or d di d e sta

bli sh p re te xt, I w oul d w or ry that qu al if

ie d im m uni ty c oul d no t apply : no m ixed m otive, j ust an unl aw ful discrim inatory one.