FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 6, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 12 58 5 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 9- cv -2 32 59 -J AL

WALTER DUL ANEY, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us MIAM I-DADE COUNTY, INTERNATIONAL A SSOCI ATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS, Loc al 14 03 , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt s- App el le es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J un e 6 , 20 12 ) Befo re MAR CUS, MARTIN an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es .PER CURI AM:

W al te r Dul an ey

ap pe al s t he di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t i n fav orof De fen dant s— Mi am i-Da de Co un ty, Fl or id a (“ th e Co un ty”), andLoca l 14 03 Met ro -Dad e Fi re Fi gh te rs , Int ern at io na l As so ci at io n o f Fi re Fi gh te rs (“ th e Uni on ”)— as to all of h is di sabi li ty dis cri m in at io n i n e m pl oym en t cl ai m s, ra is ed pu rs ua ntto th e Am eri can s wi th Dis ab il it ie s Act(“ ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1 21 12 ; an d th e Fl or id a Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act (“ FCRA” ), Fla . Sta t. § § 7 60 .01 -.11
. Afterth or ou gh 1
rev ie w of t he reco rdan d t he pa rti es ’ arg um en ts , we affi rm . Dul an ey all eg edbe fo re the di st ric t co urt tha t h e was fir edfor“ job ab an do nm en t” aft er a s eri es of m ed ic al in ci de nt s, i nc lu di ng anin ci de ntin vo lv in g a “ se ve re d ep res si ve ep is od e” fo r whi ch Dul an ey ev en tu al ly w as ord eredto un de rg o aps y ch ia tri c ev al ua ti on . Dul an ey ass ert edth atth e Co un ty’ s R is k Man ag em en t Dep art m en t was res po ns ib le forset ti ng up th e ev al ua ti on so th athe
co ul d b e cl eare d t o re tu rnto work , bu t i t n ev er s etup th e ap po in tm en t b ecau se th e Uni onin accu rat el y

to ldth e Co un ty tha t Du la ne y ’s pro bl em s ar os e fro m hi s i ll eg al drug us e. Sp eci fic al ly, Dul an ey all eg edth at : (1 ) th e Co un ty fail edto setup a Dulaney also alleg ed that the County violated 42 U.S.C. § 12132, which prohibits 1 public entities from excluding or denying be nefits to qualified individuals on acc ount of their disability . Howeve r, bec ause D ulaney fails to addre ss this i ssue on appe al, it is deemed abandone d. Acc ess Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co. , 385 F.3d 1324, 1330 ( 11th Cir. 2004) (explaining that “ a leg al claim or a rgument that has not bee n briefe d befor e the c ourt is deemed abandone d and its merits will not be addresse d”). 2requi redps y ch ol og ic al ev al ua ti on an d t erm in at edhi m be cau se itpe rcei ve d h im as be in g adru g u se r; a nd(2) th e Uni on di sc riminat edag ai ns t h im by “ de li be rat el y acqui es ci ng ” in th e Co un ty’ s d is cri m in at ory co nduc t, i n t ha t i t d is co ur ag edth e Co un ty from

set ti ng up a ps y ch ol og ic al ev al ua ti onan d m is in fo rm edth e Co un ty th atDul an ey

was adru g a dd ic t. The di stric t co urt g ran te d the Co un ty’ s an d t he Uni on ’s m ot io ns for
su m m ary jud gm en t. As t o t he Co un ty’ s m ot io n, t he co urt fo un d t ha t Du la ne y fai le d t o e st ab li sh a pr ima fa ci e cas e o f di sabi li ty dis cri m in at io n b as edup on pe rcei ve d d ru g u se . The co urt fo un d, in te r a li a , th atth ere was no ev id en ce o f an y co nn ect io n b etweenan y

adve rs e em

pl oym en t ac ti on tak enon be ha lf o f th e Co un ty an d a ny perc ei ve d d ru g u se . There was a ls o n o e vi de nc e th atth e Co un ty pr ev en te d Du la ne y

fro m sch edul in g aps y ch ol og ic al ev al ua ti on or t ha t i t o th erwi se fai le d t o s ch edul e o ne forhi m when itwas re qu ire d t o d o s o. Th e co urt fu rth er fo un d tha t, ev enass um in g Du la ne y ha d d em on strat eda pr ima fa ci e cas e, th e Co un ty hadart ic ul at eda le gi ti m at e, no n- di sc riminat ory reas on forhi s te rm in at io n—th atis , Dul an ey refu se d t o re turnto workaft er h av in g b een cle ared to do so —an d Du la ne y

ha d n otrai se d a ny factu al is su es as t o wh ethe r th atreas on was pre te xtua l. The di stric t co urt al so fou ndth atsu m m ary jud gm en t was ap pr op ria te on th e 3cl ai m s ag ai ns t the Uni on . The co urt fo un d t ha t Du la ne y ’s del ib erat e acqui es cen ce

cl ai m fai le d, as th ere wer e n o g enui ne is su es of m at eri al factreg ard in g wh ethe r th e Co un ty dis cri m in at edag ai ns t Du la ne y ba se d o n ape rcei ve d d is ab il ity . Furt he r, th ere was no ev id en ce tha t the Uni on pl ay edan y rol e in Dul an ey ’s term in at io n, o r th atth e Uni on fai le d t o re pr es en t Du la ne y ad equa te ly. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t de no vo , drawin g al l re as on ab le in fere nc es in th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e n on -m ov in g p arty . Moo re ex r el . Moo re v. Rees e , 63 7 F .3d12 20 , 12 31 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ). Summ ary jud gm en t i s ap pr op ria te wher e “ th e m ov an t s ho ws tha t the re i s n o g enui ne di sp ut e as to an y m at eri al factan d t he m ov an t i s en ti tl edto jud gm en t as a m at te r of law.” Fed . R. Civ . P. 56 (a). “No g enui ne is su e o f m at eri al factex is ts if apa rty has fai le d to ‘ m ak e a s ho win g s uf

fic ie ntto est ab li sh th e ex is te nc e o f anele m en t . . . onwhi ch th atpa rty will be ar the bu rd enof p ro of at tria l.’ ” Am. F

ed ’n of La bo r & Co ng . of In du s. Or gs . v. Cit y o f Mi ami , 63 7 F .3d11 78 , 11 86 -8 7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 1) (m od ifi cat io n i n o rig in al ) (quo ti ng Cel ot ex Co rp . v. Catre tt , 47 7 U.S. 3 17 , 32 2, 10 6 S . Ct. 2 54 8, 2 55 2 (1 98 6) ).

Dula ney ’s Cla ims Aga in st the Co unty On ap pe al , Dul an ey

arg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt erredin gra nt in g s umm ary

4jud gm en t fo r th e Co un ty anddi sm is si ng hi s ca se , bec au se th e ev id en ce s ho wed

th at(1) he was ano n- drug us er wh o was pe rcei ve d a s a d ru g u se r, (2 ) he was t ol d th athe ne ed edto att en d dru g re habi li ta ti on in ord er t o k eep hi s jo b, an d (3 ) Co un ty pers on ne l wer e o rd eredto m ak e su rp ris e v is it s t o h is ho us e to cat ch hi m us in g dru gs . Dul an ey

arg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt erredin fin di ng th athe di d
no t es tabl is h a pr ima fa ci e cas e o f di sabi li ty dis cri m in at io n, as he pre se nt ed
ev id en ce tha t the Co un ty regar de d h im as d is ab le d. Du la ne y

als o a rg ue s t ha t the Co un ty is l iabl e u nd er a “ cat ’s paw” th eo ry be cau se Ch ie f Ch ris ti ne Ro ge rs , who
reco m m en de d Du lane y ’s term in at io n t o F ire Ch ie f Herm in io Lore nz o, kne w of t he drug -u se rumors. Fi na ll y , Dul an ey arg ue s t ha t h e d em on st rat edth atth e Co un ty’ s pr of fere d re as on forhi s t erm in at io n was pre te xtua l. The ADA pro hi bi ts em

pl oyers fr om

di sc riminat in g a ga in stpe rs on s wi th di sabi li ti es . Se e 42 U.S.C. § 1 21 01 . “ Und er the co nt ro ll in g l aw in th is Cir cu it , th e bu rd en -s hi fti ng an al y si s o f Tit le VII em pl oym en t d is cri m in at io n c la im s i s ap pl ic ab le to ADA clai m s.” Hol lyv. Cla ir so n In du s., L.L.C. , 49 2 F .3d12 47 , 2
Dulaney asser ted that the County

and the Union a lso violated the FCRA, which 2 makes it unlawful f

or an e mploy er to “ discharg e or to fa il or ref use to hire a

ny individual, or otherwise to discriminate ag ainst any individual with respect to compe nsation, terms, conditions, or privileg es of e mploy

ment, beca

use of suc h individual’s rac e, color , relig ion, sex , national orig in, ag e, handic ap, or ma rital status.” F la. Stat. § 760.10(1)(a). Claims of disability discrimination under the F CRA are a naly zed using the same fra

mework a s ADA c laims. Chanda v. Enge lhard/ICC , 234 F.3d 1219, 1221 ( 11th Cir. 2000). 512 55 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (quo ta ti on an d a lt erat io n o m it te d) . Und er thi s

bu rd en -s hi fti ng an al y si s, the pl ai nt iff m us t fi rs t es tabl is h a pr ima fa ci e cas e o f di sc riminat io n u nd er the ADA by sh owi ng (1) he is di sabl ed , (2) he is a qu al ifi ed in di vi du al , and(3) he was s ub jecte d t o u nl awfu l d is cri m in at io n b ecau se of h is di sabi li ty. Id. at 1 25 5- 56 . The ADA de fin es “ di sabi li ty” as (1 ) a p hysic al or m en ta l i m

pa irment t ha t s ub st an ti al ly lim it s o ne or m or e o f th e m ajorli fe ac ti vi ti es of th e in di vi du al , (2) a reco rdof s uc h i m pa irment, o r (3 ) be in g re ga rd edas h av in g anim pa irment. 4 2 U.S.C. § 12 10 2( 1) ; Ca rr uthe rs v. BSA Adv er ., Inc
. , 35 7 F .3d 12 13 , 12 15 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). Acco rd in g t o t he Equ al Em pl oym en t Op po rtu ni ty Comm is si onreg ul at io ns th atwere i n e ffec t atth e ti m e o f Dul an ey ’s term in at io n, t o b e “ reg ard edas” ha vi ng su ch anim

pa irment m ean s t ha t an in di vi du al : (1 ) ha s a p hysic al or m en ta l i m pa irment t ha t d oe s n otsubs ta nt ia ll y li m itm ajorli fe ac ti vi ti es bu t i s t reat edby a cov ereden ti ty as co ns ti tu ti ng su ch li m it at io n; (2) ha s a p hysic al or m en ta l i m pa irment th atsubs ta nt ia ll y

li m it s m ajorli fe ac ti vi ti es on ly as a res ul t o f th e at ti tu de s o f ot he rs to wardsu ch im pa irment; or ( 3) ha s n on e o f th e im pa irments de fin edin pa rag rap h (h )(1 ) or(2) of t hi s s ect io n b utis tre at edby a cov ereden ti ty as ha vi ng a subs ta nt ia ll y li m it in g im pa irment. 29 C.F.R. § 16 30 .2( l) (2 00 7) . Thu s, an em pl oyer “ ru ns afo ul of t he ADA whenit
m ak es anem

pl oym en t d eci si onba se d o n aph y si cal or m en ta l i m pa irment, re al or

6im ag in ed , th atis reg ard edas s ub st an ti al ly lim it in g am ajorli fe ac ti vi ty.”

D’Ang el o v . ConAgr a Fo od s, In c ., 42 2 F .3d12 20 , 12 28 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). (quo ta ti onom it te d)
. 3 Onc e th e p la in ti ff es tabl is he s a pr ima fa ci ecas e o f di sc riminat io n u nd er the ADA, if th e em

pl oyer art ic ul at es a le gi ti m at e, no n- di sc riminat ory reas on forit s al le ge d d is cri m in at ory

act io n, t he pl ai nt iff

m us t s ho w th atth e rea so n was m erel y a pr et ex t fo r di sc riminat io n. Cl evel an d v . Home S ho pp in g N etwo rk , Inc
. , 36 9 F .3d 11 89 , 11 93 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). If th e p la in ti ff fai ls to pro ffersu ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o crea te a ge nu in e is su e o f m at eri al factas t o wh ethe r th e d efen da nt ’s pro ffer ed
reas onis pre te xtua l, the de fen dantis en ti tl edto su m m ary jud gm en t. Se e Ch ap man v. AI Tra ns

p. , 22 9 F .3d10 12 , 10 24 -2 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 0)
. A pl ai nt iff

m ay sh ow p ret ex t “ ei th er d ire ct ly by pe rs ua di ng th e co urt tha t a
In 2008, Congr ess ena cted the A DA Amendme nts Act of 2008, which be came 3 eff ective January

1, 2009. SeeADA Ame ndments Act of 2008, Pub. L . No. 110-325, § 8, 122 Stat. 3553, 3559 (2008). Amongthe Amendments, Congress c hang ed the de finition of “disability” such tha

t being“re g arde d as” ha

ving a disability no longe r re quires a show ing that the employer pe rce ived the individual to be substantially limit ed in a major

life ac tivity
. See42 U.S.C. § 12102(3)(A) (“An individual meets the requir ement of ‘ beingreg arde d as havingsuch an impairment’ if

the individual establishes that he or she has bee n subjected to a n action prohibited under this cha

pter be cause of an a ctual or pe rce ived phy sical or menta l impairment whether or not the impairment limits or is perceive d to limi t a major life a ctivity .”). A lthough the County ’s alleg edly

discriminatory

conduct oc curr ed bef

ore the 2008 Amendments Ac t, the complaint in this m atter w as not filed until October 2009, well af

ter the e ffe ctive dateof the amendments. We have not addre ssed in a published opinion whether the 2008 Amendments apply in a ca se whe re the y

took effe ct af

ter the a lleg ed discrimination occ urre d but before the complaint was filed. H oweve r, bec ause D ulaney fails otherw ise to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination, we nee d not addre ss this i ssue her e. 7di sc riminat ory reas onm or e li ke ly m ot iv at edth e em pl oyer or i nd ire ct ly by sh owi ng th atth e em

pl oyer’s pro ffer edex pl an at io n i s u nwo rth y of c red en ce.” Tex. Dep ’t o f Cmt y. Aff ai rs v. Burdi ne , 45 0 U.S. 2 48 , 25 6, 1 01 S. Ct. 1 08 9, 1 09 5 (1 98 1) . In d oi ng so , a pl ai nt iff canpo in t t o “ weakne ss es , im pl au si bi li ti es , in co ns is te nc ie s, i nc oh eren ci es , or c on tra di ct io ns in th e p ro ffer edex pl an at io n.” Bro ok s v. C nt y. Co mm’n o

f Je ff er so n C nt y., Ala , 44 6 F .3d11 60 , 11 63 (11 th Cir
. 20 06 ) (quo ta ti onom it te d) . Neverth el es s, a p la in ti ff m us t s ho w no t m erel y

th atth e de fen da nt ’s em

pl oym en t d eci si on s wer e m is ta ke n, b utth atth ey were i n fa ct
m ot iv at edby dis cri m in at ory an im us . Se e W

il so n v . B/E Aero sp ac e, In c ., 37 6 F .3d 10 79 , 10 92 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). Sta te d d iff eren tl y , an “ em

pl oyer m ay

fir e an em pl oyee fo r a g oo d re as on , a ba d re as on , a reas on ba se d o n e rro ne ou s fa ct s, o r fo r no reas onat a ll , as l on g a s i ts act io n i s n otfora di sc riminat ory reas on .” Nix v. W LCY Radio /Ra ha ll

Co mmc’n s , 73 8 F .2d11 81 , 11 87 (11 th Cir . 19 84 ). “ Pro vi de d th atth e p ro ffer edreas onis on e th atm ig htm ot iv at e a rea so nabl e em pl oyer, an em pl oyee m us t m eetth atreas on he adon an d re bu t i t, an d t he em pl oyee can no t su ccee d b y

si m pl y qu arre li ng with t he wis do m of t ha t re as on .” Ch ap man , 22 9 F.3 d a t 1 03 0. Und er a “ cat ’s paw” th eo ry of c au sa ti on , a no n- de ci si on m ak in g e m pl oyee’s di sc riminat ory

an im us m ay be im pu te d t o ane ut ral de ci si on m ak er wh enth e 8de ci si on m ak er h as no t i nd ep en de nt ly inv es ti ga te d t he all eg at io ns of m is co nduc t.

St imp so n v . Cit

y o f Tu sc al oo sa , 18 6 F .3d13 28 , 13 32 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). “ Insu ch a cas e, th e rec omm en de r is us in g t he de ci si on m ak er as a m ere c on du it , or ‘cat ’s pa w’ to gi ve effe ctto th e rec omm en de r’s di sc riminat ory an im us .” Id
. Und er a cat ’s paw t he ory , a pl ai nt iff m us t “pr ov e th atth e d is cri m in at ory an im us be hi ndth e reco m m en da ti on , andno t the un de rlyin g e m pl oyee mis co nduc t i de nt ifi edinth e reco m m en da ti on , was an actua l caus e o f th e o th er p arty ’s dec is io n t o t erm in at e th e em pl oyee.” Id . at 1 33 1. Here, the di st ric t co urt p ro pe rly gran te d the Co un ty’ s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t b ecau se Dul an ey fai le d t o e st ab li sh a pr ima fa ci e cas e o f di sabi li ty di sc riminat io n. Fi rs t, Du la ne y fai le d t o e st ab li shth athe was d is ab le d, u nd er pr on g o ne of t he pr ima fa ci e cas e, be cau se he was “ reg ard edas” be in g adru g u se r. Se e Hol ly , 49 2 F .3dat 1 25 5- 56 ; 4 2 U.S.C. § 12 10 2( 3) (A). Dul an ey off eredno ev id en ce tha t the fin al de ci si onm ak er, Ch ie f Lor en zo , was ev enaware o f th e drug -u se rumors. In st ead , he a rg ue s t ha t the Co un ty is l iabl e fo r di sabi li ty di sc riminat io n u nd er a “ cat ’s paw” th eo ry . Howev er, ev enun de r a “ cat ’s paw” th eo ry of c au sa ti on , Dul an ey

fai ls to est ab li sh th atCh ie f Ro ge rs , who
reco m m en de d Du lane y ’s term in at io n, re ga rd edDul an ey as adru g u se r, m

uc h l es s th athe r rec omm en da ti onwas b as edonan y di sc riminat ory

an im us . St imp so n , 18 6 9F.3 d a t 1 33 1. Ro ge rs tes ti fie d t ha t s he was a ware o f th e dru g- us e ru m or s, b utth at

sh e d idno t “ ta ke an y

st oc k” in th e ru m or s i n m ak in g h er d eci si on s. Th ere was no ev id en ce t o t he co nt rary. Fu rth erm or e, Dul an ey

fai ls to est ab li sh , un de r pr on g thr ee o f th e pr ima fa ci e cas e, th athe was s ub

jecte d t o u nl awfu l d is cri m in at io n b ecau se of a ny perc ei ve d di sabi li ty. Se e Hol ly , 49 2 F .3dat 1 25 5- 56
. Rog ers ’s kn owl ed ge of t he dru g- us e 4
ru m or s was tem

po ral ly rem ot e fro m

th e ev en tu al de ci si on to term in at e Dul an ey al m os t a year la te r. Evi de nc e th atsh e h adhe ardrumors i n l at e 2 00 6 b utdi d n ot de ci de to term in at e Dul an ey un ti l al m os t a f

ul l year lat er d oe s n otsupp ort an in fere nc e th ata pe rcei ve d d ru g a dd ic ti onha d a nyth in g t o d o wi th th e d eci si on to te rm in at e. Se e W

as cu ra v. Cit

y o f S. Mia mi , 25 7 F .3d12 38 , 12 44 -4 5 (1 1t h C ir. 20 01 ) (fi nd in g t ha t a g ap of t hr ee an d aha lf m on th s b etweenem pl oyee’s
no ti fic at io n t o h er em

pl oyer of h er s on ’s il ln es s an d h er s ub se qu en t t erm in at io n was in su ffi ci en t ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce t o c reat e a g enui ne is su e o f m at eri al fact of a cau sa l co nn ect io n) . Furt he r, th e ev id en ce s ho wedth atth e te rm in at io n p ro ces s actua ll y be ga n b ecau se of ach an ge in th e p ayro ll acco un ti ng syste m , whi ch for ced Ro ge rs to de te rm in e whe th er Du la ne y ha d aba nd on edhi s p os it io n wi th th e
The district cour

t did not reac h the issue of whe ther Dula ney was a “qualifie d 4 individual” under the second pr ongof the prima facie case of disability discrimination. Be cause Dulaney failed to e stablish the other two prong s, we ne ed not addr ess this issue. 10Co un ty. Ther e was no ev id en ce tha t Ro ge rs ’s dec is io n t o re co m m en d Du lane y ’s te rm in at io n re su lt edfro m an y di sc riminat ory

an im us . Bec au se Dul an ey

fai le d t o e st ab li sh a pr ima fa ci e cas e o f di sabi li ty di sc riminat io n, we af

firm th e g ran t o f su m

m ary jud gm en t fo r th e Co un ty. Fu rth erm or e, we ne edno t re ach th e is su e o f whe th er the Co un ty’ s arti cu la te d
reas onforfir in g Du la ne y —tha t h e fai le d t o re po rt f ordu ty for a year eve n t ho ug h he was c le aredto do so —was pre te xtfordi sc riminat io n.

Dula ney ’s Cla ims Aga in st the Uni on Dul an ey furth er ar gu es , in te r a li a , th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredin grant in g su m m ary jud gm en t fo r th e Uni on be cau se th e ev id en ce s ho wedth atth e Uni on de li be rat el y

acqui es cedin th e Co un ty’ s d is cri m in at ory co nduc t. Du la ne y

als o arg ue s t ha t the Uni on fai le d t o a dv is e h im to fil e a co m

pl ai ntof d is cri m in at io n, t o pr ov id e h im

with agri ev an ce fo rm , andto in fo rm hi m of h is rig htto ap pe al th e Co un ty’ s d is cri m in at ory

act io ns . The ADA pro hi bi ts a “ co ve reden ti ty” from di sc riminat in g a ga in stqu al ifi ed in di vi du al s wi thdi sabi li ti es . 42 U.S.C. § 1 21 12 (a). “ Co ve reden ti t[i es ]” inc lu de
em pl oyers an d l ab ororg an iz at io ns . 42 U.S.C. § 1 21 11 (2 ). Bec au se Dul an ey

fai le d t o e st ab li sh a ge nu in e is su e o f m at eri al factas t o

11whe th er the Co un ty dis cri m in at edag ai ns t h im ba se d o n ape rcei ve d d is ab il it y , any cl ai m Dul an ey m ay ha ve ag ai ns t the Uni on forde li be rat e acqui es cen ce i n tha t di sc riminat ory

be ha vi orals o fa il s. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm as t o t hi s i ss ue .
Con cl us io n Bas edon a rev ie w of t he reco rdan d t he pa rti es ’ br ie fs , we ho ldth atth e di st ric t co urt co rrec tl y

grant edsu m

m ary jud gm en t fo r th e Co un ty andth e Uni on . AFFIR MED. 5

Dulaney ’s re quest for or al ar gument is DENI ED. 5 12