FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT J ANUARY 7, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ N O . 06- 1643 4

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ D. C. Docket N o. 05-00621 -CV -T CB-1 W ENDELL BROWN, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant, ve rs us METROPOLITAN ATLAN TA RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY, De fendant-Appellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ (J an ua ry7, 200 8) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, CA RN E S an d F A Y , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. FA Y, Circuit Judge:2

W endell Brown ( “ Brow n”) appeals fr om the decision of the dis trict court gr an tin g M etro pol itan A tlanta Ra pid T ransi t Auth or ity

( “ MA RT A ”) it s m oti on f or sum m ar y j udgm en t. B ro wn, w ho h ad be enw orkin g f

or MA RT Af

or a lm ost twenty y ears, alleges that MAR TAterm inated his em ploym ent due to racial dis cr im inatio n and r et al ia tio n ba se d one vid en ce that M A RT Aha d apr ac tic e of retaining and prom oting white e m ploy ees while attem

pting to get rid of Af

rican Am erican em

ploy ees. A fter c om

plainin g about th ese prac tices, B rown w as placed on th e li stforterm in at io n a ndwas n otreh ire d, d es pi te be in g t ol d b y MARTA m anagem ent em

ploy ees and departm ent heads that he was qualified and had an excellent chance of being rehired. A fter diligent reviewof the rec ord, as w ell as care fu l co ns id erat io n o f th e b rie fs an d o ral arg um en t, we co nc lu de th atBro wn produced direct evidence of ra cial discrim ination and a pri m a fa ci e case f or rac ial re ta liatio n, and r ev er se and r em an d th e m atte r fo r furthe r pr oc ee din gs. Fact ual Back ground Brow n, a black m ale, began to work w ith MART A in January 1984 . In August 200 1, Br own rec eived his annu al perfor m ance r eview f

rom his then supe rv is or , andwas ra te d a s “ ab ov e st an da rd s.” In Jan ua ry 20 02 , Bro wn tra ns ferr edto th e Qua li ty A ss ur an ce (“ QA”) d ep art m en t an d b ecame a QAIn 1992 Br own had wor ked with Dendle and conte nds that Dendle de veloped a dislike 1 for him at that time, which c ontinued afte r De ndle bec ame his super visor. (B rown Af

f. at ¶¶2,7,11) . Br own alleg es that De ndle’s hostility toward him wa s rac ially

motivated. (B rown Af f. at ¶ 11 ). As Ac tin gMana g e r, De nd le a ssi g ne d mo re pr oje c ts a nd re po rt s to B ro wn

tha n to any other QAemploy ee ( Be rry Dep. at 50; Brown A ff. at ¶9), he r efuse d to distribute Brown’ s repor ts in a timely

manner which re flec ted neg atively towards B rown (B err

y Dep. at 265-266; Br own Aff

. at ¶10) a

nd he wa s overly

critica l of the re ports submitt ed by Br own. Afte r B rown’s te rm inatio n, De nd le wa s r e sp on sib le fo r t he se re po rt s, but di d n ot k no w h owto c omp le te the m, did not submi t them in a timely manner , and sometimes did not submitthem at all. (B err y Dep. at 185-187, 189, 221, 275). Elay ne B err y , Manag er of

the QA de partment, kne w that the ca ndidates we re pr e- 2 selec ted bec ause the date of their off er le tter wa s befor e other

candidates wer e intervie wed. (B err y Dep. at 303). 3 Engineer. O ne m onth later, Brow n’ s form er c o-worker , E arl D endle (“ De ndle”) becam e his direct supervisor as Acting Manager and a L ead Q A E ngin eer. 1 D ur ing D en dle ’ s e igh t m onth te nur e as A ct ing Mana ge r, he hir ed f our pe opl e int o the Unit, all white. (Br own A ff. at ¶ 13; Ber ry De p. at 303). D endle pre-selec ted th em be cau se , in hi s wo rd s, h e wan te d t hi ng s b ackto “ th e g oo d o ldda y s,” refe rring to the staff that w as in place before Ms. Marion Clem ents tookover as dir ec tor . ( Be rr

y D ep . a t 29 6) . T his bia s is f urthe r ev ide nc ed

by Be rr y ’ s te sti m ony 2 that D en dle a ssi ste d a t l ea st tw o of the Q Ae ngi ne er s th at

he w an te d to hir e by goi ng o ve r the que sti ons w iththe m and p ro vid ing r ef

er en ce m at er ia ls f

or the m to readbe fo re t he in te rv ie w, in fo rm at io n wh ic h was no t av ai labl e to ot he r can di da te s. (Ber ry De p. at 299-303). I n August 20 02, Brown rece ived his first annu al perform ance r eview f

rom De ndle as a Q A E ngin eer. Brown’ s overall rating wa sAc c or din gto B ro wn , th is w a s th e ave ra g e of the “ a bo ve sta nd ard s” e va luatio n f

ro m hi s 3 previous super

visor six months earlier

and the “ below standa

rds” e valuation from De ndle. 4 “ m ee ts s tandard s. ” B ro w n e xpr es se d c onc er n to U de oz o O gbue ( “ O gbue ”) , w ho 3 w as D en dle ’ s bo ss and E xe cu tiv e D ir ec tor of Q Aand S af

ety . ( Br ow n A ff

. a t ¶ 11; W ilson De p. E x. 5 at 423; Ogbue De p. at 42). In O ctober 2002, Elay ne Berr y (“ Berry ”) b ecame Mana ge r of th e QA dep art m en t, t ak in g o ve r Den dl e’s po si ti on . Sh e r ec ei v edco m

p l ai n t s fr o m

Br o wn an do th erQA E n g i n ee rs th at De n d l e’s evaluations had been unfair and rac ially biased, and thus she conclud ed that it was be tte r fo r he r to d o a ll futur e y earl y e va luatio ns o f the Q AE ngi ne er s in ste ad of the supe rv is or s. (Be rry

Dep. at 54 -5 6, 5 9- 60 ). Berry the n re qu es te d t ha t M ARTA inv es tig at e the a lle ga tio ns a ga ins t D en dle f urthe r, but

w he n th is w as not

don e, she rem oved Brown fr om

De ndle’ s supervisi on, and transfer red him to work under another Le ad Quality

Engineer. (Be rry

De p. at 54-56). In Augus t 2003 , B erry rat edBro wn as “ m eet s s ta nd ard .” (Berry Dep. at Ex. 4 -Per fo rm an ce Ev al ua ti on ). In the fall of 2003, MA RT A developed the Reduction in Force Com m ittee (“ RFC” ) to im

plem ent a re duction in workforc e (“ RIF” ). T he first step for a de partm en t he ad

to take in de te rm ini ng whic h e m plo y ee s w oul d be la id o ff w as to de ve lo p ade pa rtmenta l p ro po se d R IF p la n. (Wrig htDep., Ex . 11 at M ARTA 1000 ). R al ph E uge ne W ils on, the he ad of the D ep ar

tm en t of P oli ce and S af

ety5

and Quality

Assurance (“ the Depar

tm ent”) of which QAwa s a subset, delegated au th or it y to Ogb ue an d B erry to d ev el op th is pl an . (W il so n Dep . at 1 7, 2 5, 3 1- 32 ). Berry ha d d ay -to -d ay

res po ns ib il it y

forth e RIF pro ces s. (

Id. at 47- 48, 60- 61; Ogbue De p. at 122). O gbue and Berry proposed th e tw o Lea d QAEngineer posit ions (Grade 20) as the positi ons to be elim inated from QA . (W ilson De p. at 36, 59, 69; Be rr

y D ep . a t 13 3- 134) . T he tw o G ra de 20 e m plo y ee s ho ldi ng the Le ad QAEngineer positions we re D endle and Ray Ka ssing er, both white. ( Berr y De p. at 134). Ber

ry subm itted these recom

m endations to the MART A R IF Com m ittee. (Be rry

De p. at 133-134; W ilson De p. at 35). The R IF C omm ittee has the duty : (1) to reviewRIF plans for com pliance w ithMA RT Apol ic y

/pr oc ed ur e an d any

a ppl ic ab le law s and r eg ulatio ns, and ( 2) to c onc ur w iththe pr opos ed

RI F plans f

ro m the D ep ar

tm en ts and r out e the m

to the G en er al Mana ge r fo r ap pr ova l, or , if the RI F Co m

m itt ee doe s no t r ec om

m en d ap pr ova l, to re tur

n it to the D ep ar

tm en t f or r ev isi on and r es ubm iss ion . ( Wri ght D ep . a t 15 3, E x. 11 at M A RT A100 0) . A cc or din g to Be rr y , D av id W

ri ght , (“ Wright”), chair of the R IF C omm ittee for MA RT A, told her in respons e to her propos ed RIF rec omm endations that it had been expressed in the RIF Com m ittee that i t w oul d “ not

be goo d” to lay of

f tw o w hit e em

plo y ee s f ro m aU nit he ad ed by an Af rican A m erican wom an. (Ber ry De p. at 146,148-149). Wright testified thatMARTA does not re call why the Commit tee disre g arde d this information and MARTA 4 has no docume ntation to evidence why MARTA dec ided to lump the Grade 19 and 20 eng ineer s toge ther. (Wrig ht Dep. at 192- 193). 6 he co ul d n otreca ll su ch . (Wrig htDep. at 19 9- 20 0) . Howev er, Berry was c ert ai n. Af ter re viewing the Depar

tm ent’ s propos ed RIF plan, the Com m ittee co nc lud ed

that the G ra de 20 L ea d Q AE ngi ne er pos iti ons w oul d be gr oupe d in to a com parative analy sis with the Gra de 19 QAEngineer positions . (Wright Dep. at 105-10 6). When she was advised of this plan, Berr y inform ed the RIF Com

m ittee that the G ra de 19 and 2 0 j ob f unc tio ns w er e not

sim ilar an d thus s houl d no t be grouped to gether. The RIF Com m ittee overrode her c oncerns. (Be rry De p. at 4 257, 157-15 8; W ilson De p. E x. 3 at MA RT A 530-531; Wright Dep. at 113-114 .) T he RI F Co m

m itt ee the n di re ct ed

the D ep ar

tm en t t o do ac om

parativ e an al y sis of the Gr ade 19 and 20 Engineers pursuant to the procedure outlined in the RIF Po lic y . ( Be rr

y D ep . a t 15 7- 158) . B ef

or e pe rf orm ing the c om

parativ e an al y sis , Berr y inform ed the RIF Com

m ittee that De ndle had no t objec tively evaluated Br ow n onhis 200 2 y earl y e va luatio n and s ugge ste d th at a ll of the 200 2 ev al ua tio ns c om

ple te d by D en dle sho uld

be dis re gard ed

f or RI F pur pose s. T he Co m m itt ee r ef use d. ( Be rr

y D ep . a t 15 7- 158, 79- 80) . F oll ow ing the ana ly sis , the De partm ent recom

m ended Ray

Ka ssing er ( white) and W illiam Montgo m ery (b la ck ) fo r lay of

f. ( Be rr y D ep . a t 15 8) . B ro w n w as sti ll not r ec om m en de d f or7

lay off. Dur in g t hi s t im e, Bro wn h adhe ardab ou t l un ch m eet in gs wher e MARTA em plo y ee s, inc lud ing A de le Cl em en ts, am an ag er w ith in B ro w n’ s de partm en t, dis cu sse d ge tti ng r id o f A fr ic anA m er ic ane m plo y ee s. ( Be rr

y D ep . a t 17 7; D en dle D ep . a t 98 -1 00) . I n D ec em be r 2003 , Br ow n di sc uss ed thi s w ithMi ch ae l S loan, (“ Sl oa n” ), MARTA’s Ch ie f Leg al Offic er an d As si st an t Gen eral Man ag er. (B ro w n A ff

. a t ¶ 15; se e als o D en dle D ep . a t 10 3 ( te sti fy ing that he c oul d no t re m em be r one w ay

or the oth er w he the r suc h r ac ia l di sc uss ion s oc curr ed dur ing the lunch m eetings)). Shortly , a fter this conversation, Sloan instructed the RIF Co m m itt ee that B ro w n c oul d be a dde d to the li st f or pos sib le lay of

f. ( Be rr y D ep . at 165, 256). W ithou t any further c onsu ltation with the Departm ent, the RI F Com m ittee engaged in an abridged RIF analy sis and conclu ded that two Af rican A m er ic ane m

plo y ee s w oul d be la id o ff , inc lud ing Br ow n. ( MA RT AL ette r to Bro wn at 1-2 ; Wils on Dep. Ex . 3 atMARTA 53 1; Bro wn Aff. a t ¶ 1 6) . Im m ed ia te ly after B ro wn’s t erm in at io n, b ot h Wil so n a ndBerry to ldBro wn that the y be lie ve d he w oul d be r eh ir ed by MA RT Aand tha t he w as the f ro nt runner for a

contract position with MA RT A through its general contractor, Re gio na l T ranspo rt at ionP ar tne rs ( “ RT P” ). ( Br ow n A ff . a t ¶ ¶1 6, 17; Br ow n D ep . at 33- 35) . O n January

9, 200 4, Be rr

y and O gbue sig ne d B ro w n’ s te rm inatio nFor purposes of the summary judgme nt, MARTA does not dispute that Br own’s 5 pe rf or manc e wa s satis fa c tor

y . ( MA RTA ’s ple a din gsh ow inga uth or iti e s f

or summa ry jud g me nt, pg . 9). Wils on , O gbu e , a nd B e rr y , th e MA RTAe mpl oye e s r e sp on sib le fo r f ill ingout th e fo rm , 6 testified that they

had neve r see n this thi rd ver sion before they wer e depose d. (B err

y Dep. at 173; Wi lson Dep. at 121; Ogbue De p. at 159-160). 8 re co rd spe ci fy ing that he w as te rm inate d du e to “ St af f re duc tio n/L ay

of f, ” but his

“ O ve ra ll Job Pe rf

orm an ce ” w as satis fa ct or y , and tha t the y

w oul d r ec om

m en d hi m 5 for re hire by

the De partm ent and by

MAR TA . (Ber

ry De p. at 169; W ilson De p. at E x. 7) . O n January

13, 200 4, Br ow n m et

w ithS loan f

or ase co nd t im e w he re he di sc us se d a ga in , am on g o th er t hi ng s, h is co nc ern s ab ou t t he lu nc h m eet in gs . (B ro wn Af

f. at¶ 1 6 ). Th e d ay af

t erth i s m ee t i n g , Og b u e c h an g edBr o wn ’s te rm inatio n r ec or d f

ro m ind ic at ing Br ow n w as “ el igi ble f or r eh ir e” to ind ic at ing he wa s “ not eligi ble for re hire.” (Be rry De p. at 170-171). I n additio n, he changed Brow n’ s term ination rec ord from stating th at Brown’ s perform ance w as

“ satisfactory ” to stating it was “ unsatis factory .” ( Id ; Wils on Dep. at Exs . 7,8 ). Then som etim e prior to discovery in this case, Br own’ s term ination rec ord was changed again to reflect that he w as “ eligible for rehire, ” but contin ued to reflect that hi s j ob p er fo rm an ce w as uns at isf ac tor y . ( W ils on D ep . a t E x. 9) . I n a ddi tio n, 6 ev entho ugh MA RT Aha d r eque ste d R T P to h ir e Br ow n f or one of it s po sit ion s, Be rr y te sti fi ed that M r. O gbue w en t t o R T P dir ec tly and a ske d th at

the y not f ill9

th atreque st . (Berry Dep. at10 3- 10 5) . Afte r hi s t erm in at io n, Br own ap pl ie d fo r ei gh t p os it io ns wit h M ARTA, two before f iling his EE OC charge. A s to these first two positio ns, Brown rece ived not ic e fr om

MA RT Athat he w as qua lif ie d f or one ( D ir ec tor

of W ay sid e Mai nt en an ce), b utno t t he ot he r (Supe rin te nd en t-R ai l Li ne ). (Berry Dep. at 19 4) . W it h re ga rd s t o t he si x o th er p os it io ns Bro wn ap pl ie d fo r aft er fi li ng th e EEOC charge, Brow n rece ived not ice that he w as qualified for tw o posi tions , C ontract Pr of es sio na l–S af

ety & Q ua lity

A ssuranc e an d C ontra ct

E m plo y ee – S af

ety Certific ation Engineer. (Br own A ff. at ¶25). O n March 4, 2005 , B rown filed an em plo ym en t di sc ri m inatio n a ct iona ga ins t M A RT Ac la im ing r ac ia l di sc ri m inatio n an d r et al ia tio n un de r T itl e V II of the Ci vil Ri ght s A ct

of 196 4, a s am en de d, 42 U.S.C. §§ 20 00 e, et seq , 42 U .S .C. §198 1 and 42 U.S .C. §198 3, re spectively , a s w el l a s astate lawc la im

f or int en tio na l i nf

lic tio n of e m oti ona l di str es s a ga ins t MA RT A . T he dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d M A RT A ’ s m oti on f or sum m ar y j udgm en t because Br own failed to establish a pri m a fa ci e case f or either r acial di sc riminat io n o r ret al ia ti on . This ap pe al fol lo wed . D isc us sio n

“ W e re view the tria l court’ s grant or denial of a m otion for sum m ary j udgm en t de novo , vie w ing the r ec or d and draw ing a ll re as ona ble inf er en ce s inthe10

lightm ost favorable to the non -m ovin g party .” P atton v . T ria d G uar. I

ns. Co rp. , 277 F.3d 129 4, 1296 (11th Cir. 2002 ). A . T he D isc rim ina tio n Clai m If “ a pla int if

f pr oduc es dir ec t e vid en ce of adis cr im inator

y m oti ve , and the trier of facts ac cepts this testim ony the ultim ate issue of discrim ination is proven.” Ev ans v. M

cClain of Georgia, Inc. , 131 F . 3d 9 57, 962 ( 11th C ir . 199 7) ; Trotter v. B oard of Tr ust ees of

U niv . O f A la. , 91 F. 3d 14 49, 1453 (11t h Cir. 1996 ) (“ When the re is dir ec t e vid en ce that di sc ri m inatio n w as am oti va tin g f ac tor in the challenged em

ploym ent decision, the appropriate analy sis is di ffer ent from that em pl oyed i n acas e whe re o nl y cir cu m st an ti al ev id en ce i s av ai labl e.”). “ [I] n cases of dis cr im inatio n pr ove d by dir ec t e vid en ce , it

is inc or re ct to re ly on the M cD onne ll D ouglas te st b ec au se , w hil e ci rc um stanti al e vid en ce is use d to c re at e an inference of discrim ination under M cD onne ll D ouglas , no s uc h in fe re nc e is required in the case of direct evidence. ” B ass v . B d. of Co unt y Co m m ’r

s , 256 F . 3d 1095 , 110 4 ( 11th C ir . 200 1) ( quot ing Ta ylor v . R uny on , 17 5 F .3d86 1, 8 67 n.2 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 9) . Brow n’ s Depar

tm ent RIF Com

m ittee rec omm ended two unit em ploy ees who shouldbe laid off. T hey we re both white. T hereaf ter, Wright, the chairm anTh is s tate me nt c on sti tut e s an a dmi ssi on by a pa rt y op po ne nt b e c a

us e un de r F e d. R. 7 Evid. 801(d)(2) (D), “ a stateme nt by [a] party ’s ag ent or ser

vant conc erninga matter

within the scope of the ag ency

or employ

ment, made dur ing the exis tence of the re lationship, . . . is deemed an admission by

a par ty opponent and is excluded fr om the definition of hea rsay .” See City of Tuscaloosa v. Harcros Chemicals, Inc . , 158 F.3d 548, 557 ( 11th Cir. 1998). Furthe rmore, “bec ause F ed. R. Evid. 801(d)( 2)(D) does not define the term [‘]age nt,[ ’] we must assume that Congr ess intended to re fer to ge nera l common law principles of ag ency when it used the te rm. At common law, senior of fice rs of a corpor ation normally

are ag ents and ser

vants of the corpor ation.” Id. at 558 n.9. 11 of the RIF Com

m ittee for MA RT A, told Berry , the c o-chair of the R IF C omm ittee fo r the D ep ar

tm en t of P oli ce and S af

ety and Q ua lity

A ssuranc e that duri ng a m ee tin g of

the RI F Co m

m itt ee it ha d be ene xpr es se d th at

it w oul d “ not

be goo d” to lay off tw o white em

ploy ees fr om

a U nit headed by

an A frican Am erican wom an. (Ber

ry De p. at 146, 148-149). O nly then did th e RI F Com

m ittee 7 de te rm ine that tw o A fr ic anA m er ic ane m plo y ee s, inc lud ing Br ow n w oul d be la id of f ins te ad of the tw o w hit es pr ev iou sly r ec om m en de d. ( Be rr

y D ep . a t 14 6, 148 - 1 4 9 ). Th i s i s s tro n g d i re ct ev i d en ce th at ra ci al b i as wa s i n v o l v edi nMA RT A’s decision to term inate Brow n’ s em ploym ent. T his is a discus sion h eld betwee n se ni orem pl oyees o f MARTA d ire ct ly inv ol ve d i n t he de ci si on m ak in g p ro ces s. Se e B ass , 256 F . 3d at 11 05; Dam on v. F leming Supermarkets of Fla., Inc. , 196 F. 3d 1 354, 135 8 ( 11th C ir . 199 9) ( “ [O ] nly the m ost blatant r em ar

ks, w hose int en t co uld be nothin g othe r than to dis cr im inate on the ba sis of [ ra ce ] . . . c onst itute di rectev id en ce o f di sc riminat io n.” ) (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) .12

Moreover, even without that direct evidence, clear ly , B rown has produced sufficient evidence, which if believed, would establish a pri m a fa ci e c as e fo r discrim ination pursuant to the M cD onne ll D ouglas factors. “ To state a pr ima fac ie case of racia l discrim ination [under M cD onne ll D ouglas ] , apla int if f m ust show (i) that he belongs to a racial m inority ; (ii) that he applied and was qualified fo r a j ob f or w hic h th e em

plo y er w as se ek ing appl ic an ts; ( iii ) that, de spi te his qua lif ic at ion s, he w as r ej ec te d, and ( iv) that, a ft er his r ej ec tio n, the pos iti on re m ai ne d op enand the e m plo y er c ont inu ed

to se ek appl ic an ts f

ro m pe rs ons of com plainant’s qualifications.” Te rryv . Co ok, 866 F . 2d 3 73, 379 ( 11th C ir . 198 9) (quot ing McD onnell Dougl as Corp. v. Gree n , 411 U . S. 792 , 802 , 93 S . Ct . 181 7, 18 24 (19 73 ). “T h e b u r d e nth e n. . . s h i f t [ s ] t o th e e mp l o ye r

t o art i c u l a t e s o me legitim ate, nond iscrim inatory rea son for the em

ploy ee’ s rej ection.” M

cD onne ll D ouglas , 41 1 U.S. at80 2. The f irst prong of the test is clearly satisfied because Br own is an Af rican A m er ic an . T he se co nd p ro ng i s a lso satis fi ed in that up on h is t er

m inatio n bo th Be rr y and W ils on i nf

orm ed Br ow n th at

he ha d an e xc el le nt c hanc e of be ing re hir ed by MA RT A , and tha t he w as the f ro nt r unne r fo r a co ntr ac t po sit ionw ith MAR TAthrough its general contractor. (Br own A ff. at ¶¶ 16, 17; Brown D ep. at 33 -3 5) . In ad di ti on , th e rec or d e vi de nc e sh ows th atMARTA de te rm in edBro wnTi tle VI Ic on sid e rs it a n unla wf ul e mpl oy

me nt p ra c tic e fo r a

n e mpl oye r t o d isc ri min ate 8 ag ainst an employee “ beca use he ha s opposed any

prac tice made an unlawf ul employ

ment pr a c tic e by

thi s su bc ha pte r, or be c a us e he ha s ma de a

c ha rg e , te sti fi e d, a ssi ste d, or

pa rt ic ipate d in any manner in an investig ation, proce eding , or hea ringunder this subcha

pter.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3( a). 13 was qu al ifi edfora po si ti on forwhi ch he ha d app li edbe fo re fi li ng th e EEOC com plaint– Dire ctor of W ay side Maintenance–and two posit ions for which he had ap pli ed a ft er f ili ng the E E O C c om

pla int –C ontra ct P ro fe ssi ona l–S af

ety & Q ua lity A ssuranc e an d C ontra ct

E m plo y ee –S af

ety Ce rt if ic at ionE ngi ne er . ( Br ow n A ff . a t ¶2 5; see Esca nd on Aff.; Harris Aff.). L ike w ise , the thi rd

pr ong is s at isf

ie d. B ro w n a

ppl ie d f or atot al of e igh t posi tio ns a ft er

his te rm inatio n and w as ne ve r re hir ed , de spi te qua lif y ing f or a t l ea st thr ee pos iti ons. F ina lly , the f ourth p ro ng i s satis fi ed

be ca use a ft er r ej ec tin g Brow n, MA RT A c ontin ued to seek oth er a pplicants andultim ately

hired other pe opl e fo r the pos iti ons fo r w hic h B ro w n w as qua lif ie d. This rec ord includes s ufficient evidence to establish a prima facie ca se f or ra ci al dis cr im inatio n and the re fo re ge nui ne iss ue s of m at er ia l f

ac ts p re cl udi ng the en tr y of asum m ar y j udgm en t. B . T he R etali ati on C

lai m To establish a pri m a fa ci e showing of retaliation und er T itle VI I, a plaintiff 8 m ust de m onstrate : “ (1 ) that [ he ] e nga ge d inastatut or ily pr ote ct ed

e xpr es sio n; ( 2)The e vidence that the lunch mee tings include d discussions of g etting r id of black 9 employ ees a

nd reta ining a

nd promoting whites is Ber ry ’s deposition testimony about what Clements and Dendle told her. This is not hearsa y beca use it need not be offe red f or the truth of the matter a sserted. See F e d. R. E vid . 8 01 (c ); U.S. v. Sc hlei , 122 F.3d 944 ( 11th Cir. 1997) (Evidenc e re g ardingwitness’ testimony at her deposition was not hear say wher e testimony

was offe red to de monstrate def endant’ s state of mind.). Whether or not it is true, it was the r eason 14 that [he] suffere d an adverse em ploym ent action; and (3) that there is som e causal relation betwee n the two events.” Co ope r v . Sou the rn C o. , 390 F. 3d 69 5 (11th Cir. 20 04 ). T he f ir st p ro ng o f the te st i s satis fi ed in thi s c as e. I n Little v. United Technologies , th is Co ur t h el d t ha t i n o rd er t o b e a s ta tu to ril y pro te ct edex pr es si on ,

“ the oppo sition m

ust be directed at an unlawf ul em ploym ent practice of an em plo y er , not

an a ct of dis cr im inatio n by

apr ivate ind ivi dua l. ” 103 F. 3d 9 56, 959 (1 1thCi r. 199 7) . T he dis tr ic t c ourt he ld tha t B ro w n ha s no t m ad e suc h asho w ing an d, t hu s, h is co m

pl ai ntab ou t t he Piz za Hu t m eet in gs was n otpro te ct edact iv it y . W e dis ag re e. I n D ec em

be r 2003 , Br ow n di sc uss ed w ithMi ch ae l S loan, MAR TA ’ s Chief L egal Of ficer and Assistant Gener al Manager, that he had heard about lu nch m eetings where MAR TAem ploy ees discussed gettin g rid of Af rican Am eri can em

pl oyees. (B ro wn Aff. a t ¶ 1 5) . This case, unlik e Little, opp ose s th e ro uti ne dis cr im inator

y pr ac tic e of

m an ag em en t e m

plo y ee s, part ic ularl y

D en dle and Cl em en ts’ , and n ot a ct ionor c om m en ts f ro m c o- w orke rs to co -w orke rs . T his evidence acc ount s for Br own’ s state of m ind because he w as concerned that 9Br own went to Sloan to complain. 15

di sc riminat ory

pra ct ic es were g oi ng on . (Berry Dep. at17 7) . T his Co urt i n Li ttle , state d th at e ve n if c ondu ct c om pla ine d a bout is not unlawful, a plaintiff can e stablish a prima facie case of r etaliation und er T itle VI I if he ha d “ anobj ec tiv el y

r ea sona ble be lie f that he opp ose d an un law fu l em plo ym en t pr ac tic e. ” 103 F. 3d at 96 0. “ Apla int if f m ust not onl y sho wthat he subj ec tiv el

y( that i s, in good

f ai th) be lie ve d th at

his e m plo y er w as e nga ge d in unl aw fu l e m

plo ym en t pr ac tic es , but

a lso that hi s be lie f w as obj ec tiv el yr ea sona ble in ligh t of the fac ts and record presented. ” I d . Ther e is am

ple evidence to show that Brown had a r easonable basis for a su bjec ti ve go odfai th be li ef t ha t h e to okpa rt i n s ta tu to ril y pro te ct edex pr es si on . See Clover v. Total Sys. Serv. , I nc. , 176 F . 3d 1 346, 135 1 ( 11th C ir . 199 9) (p ro te ct ed

e xpr es sio n e le m en t satis fi ed w he re c ourt ha d no r ea son to d oubt pla int if f did not have agoo d f

ai th, r ea sona

ble be lie f he w as e nga gin g instatut or ily pr ote ct ed e xpr es sio n) . I n f

ac t, Br ow n su

bm itt ed asup ple m en ta l a ff

idavit explainin g that he believed he was opposin g an act of unlaw ful racia l di sc riminat io n. See 28 U. S. C. § 636 (b)(1)( C), Fed. R. Civ. P . 72(b) ( district court m ay co n s i d erad d i t i o n al ev i d en ce up o nre ce i p to f M ag i s tra t e J u d g e’s re co m m en da tio n) . A ft er

r ev ie w ing the f

ac ts, Br ow n’ s go od f

ai th b el ie f w as a lso16

objec tively

rea sonable because a detached individual could easily have interpreted th is cu m ul at iv e ev id en ce as an in di cat io n o f an un la wfu l em pl oym en t p ract ic e. The sec ond p rong of the test is also satis fied because B rown suffe red adve rs e em

plo ym en t a ct iona ft er

his c om pla int . A cc or din g to the S upr em e Co urt, a “pla int if

f m ust sho wthat a

r ea sona ble e m plo y ee w oul d have f

ound the ch al l en g edac t i o nm at er i al l y ad v er s e[ .]” B urlin gton N. & Santa FeRy . C o. v. W hite , 126 S . Ct . 240 5, 241 5, 165 L . E d. 2d 3 45 ( 2006 ) (n oti ng tha t the standard is phr as ed in “ ge ne ra l t er

m s be ca use the sig nif

ic an ce of any giv ena ct of r et al ia tio n wil l o fte n d ep en d upo n t he pa rti cu la r ci rcu m st an ces . Co nte xt m atter s . ”) ( em pha sis ad de d) . T he Co urt ha s st at ed that “ in this c ont ex t m eans i t w el l m igh t have dis sua de d ar ea sona

ble w orke r fr om

m ak ing or

sup portin g ac harg e of discrim ination .” Id

. (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Sh o rt l y af t erBr o wn ’s discuss ion with Sloan, MA RT A’ s Chief L egal Of ficer and Assistant Gener al Mana ge r, S loan in str

uc te d th e MA RT ARI F Co m m itt ee that B ro w n c oul d be ad de d to the li st f

or pos sib le lay of

f. T he n, aday

a ft er Br ow n’ s se co nd m ee tin g with Sloan, Ogbue changed Brow n’ s term ination rec ord from indicating he w as

“ el igi ble f

or r eh ir e” to ind ic at ing he w as “ not e lig ibl e fo r re hir e. ” O gbue a lso changed Brown’ s term ination rec ord from stating th at Brown’ s perform ance w as

“ satisfactory ” to stating it was “ unsatis factory .”17

Ta k i n g th i s i nco n t ex t , we b el i ev e t h at MA RT A’s ch an g es t o Br o wn ’s em ploym ent record c onsti tuted sig nificant adverse ac tion. Brown was ter m inated af te r al m ost tw en ty y ears of e m plo ym en t w ithMA RT A , and u pon his te rm inatio n tw o M A RT Am an ag em en t e m plo y ee s in fo rm ed

him that he ha d an e xc el le nt ch an ce of be ing r eh ir ed

by MA RT Aand e ve n id en tif ie d aspe ci fi c posi tio n f

or him . ( Br ow n A ff

. a t ¶ ¶1 6, 17; Br ow n D ep . a t 33 -3 5) . W e be lie ve aj ur y c oul d conclude that had Brown known that his com plaint of dis crim ination would lead to h is e m plo ym en t r ec or d be ing c hange d to “ not e lig ibl e fo r re hir e” and/ or

“pe rf orm an ce uns at isf

ac tor y ” he w oul d have be endis sua de d f ro m m ak ing suc h a co m pl ai nt , as wo ul d a ny oth er re as on ab le pe rs on . T o satis fy the thi rd pr ong fo r re ta liatio n, “ a pla int if f ne ed onl y sho wthat the protected activity

and the adverse ac tion were not whollyunrelated.” Brungart v. Be llSou th Telecom ms. , I

nc. , 231 F . 3d 7 91, 799 ( 11th C ir . 200 0) ( int er na l qu otatio n m ar ks o m itt ed ). “ A t a

m ini m um , apla int if

f m ust ge ne ra lly e sta bli sh tha t the em plo y er w as a ct ua lly aw ar e of the pr ote ct ed

e xpr es sio n a t the ti m e it too k th e adverse em

ploym ent action.” Clover , 176 F . 3d at 13 54; R ane y v. V ins on G uard Serv. , 12 0 F .3d11 92 , 11 97 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ). This aw areness m ay be established either by direct or c ircum stantial evidence.” Clover , 176 F . 3d at 13 54; B ass , 256 F. 3d at 11 19 (stating that to establish a causal connection, the decision m aker' s18

aw areness of the protecte d activity m ight b e established by

circum stantial ev ide nc e, suc h a s “ cl ose te m por al pr oxi m ity

be tw ee n th e pr ote ct ed

a ct ivi ty and the adve rs e ac tio n” ); H

igd on v . J ac ks on , 393 F. 3d 12 11, 1220 (11t h Cir. 2004 ) ( “ [I ]n the abse nc e of

oth er e vid en ce te ndi ng t o sh owc au sa tio n” aparty m igh t e sta

bli sh causation byshowing a very close tem

poral proxim ity

betwee n the protected act iv it y an d t he ad ve rs e act io n) . Brow n has satisfied the third p rong. Br own cited re cord evidence that shortlyafter

his first com

plaint to Sloan, S loan inst ructed the MA RT A R IF Co m m itt ee that B ro w n c oul d be a dde d to the li st f or lay of f. ( Be rr y D ep . a t 16 5 an d 25 6) . T he n un favor ab le c hange s to his e m plo ym en t r ec or d w er e m ad e one day a ft er Br ow n’ s se co nd c om

pla int to Sl oan. A ll of

thi s w as don e af

te r Be rr y and W ils on h ad

ind ic at ed to Br ow n th at

he w as the f

ro nt r unne r fo r a co ntr ac t po sit ion with MA RT A. (Br own A ff. at ¶¶ 16, 17; Brown D ep. at 33-35). In a dditi on, there is evidence that after Brow n’ s conversation with Sloan, MA RT A, through Ogbue, co nvi nc ed

it s ge ne ra l c ontra ct or

to re j ec t B ro w n f

or aj ob. ( Be rr

y D ep . a t 10 3- 105) . F ina lly , a ft er

his te rm inatio n, Br ow n a ppl ie d f or atot al of e igh t po sit ion s w ithMA RT A , and w as ne ve r re hir ed . W e co nc lud e that the re is a suf fi ci en t ba sis to f ind that M A RT A ’ s r ef

usa l t o r eh ir e Br ow n w as not “ w hol ly unr el at ed ” to h is co m pla int s of dis cr im inatio n. T hus, w e be lie ve that B ro w n ha s e sta bli she d a19

prima facie cas e fo r ret al ia ti on as we ll . C on cl us ion Beca use Brown has established a prima facie case f or both racial discrim ination and retaliation, w e REV ERS E the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r gr an tin g sum m ar y j udgm en t. T he sum

m ar y j udgm en t i s VA CA TED and the m atter REM AN DED forfur th er p ro ceed in gs co ns is te ntwit h t hi s o pi ni on .