NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 10a0268n.06 No. 09-5624 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

STE VE MI

NE R, Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt,

v. MONTGOMERY COUN TY, TENN ESSEE, Def endant- Appellee , MONT GOMERY COUNTYDEPARTMENT OF B UI L DI NGAN D C OD ES, De fe nd ant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P E AL F ROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT C O U R T F O R

T H E M ID D LE DI STRI CT OF TEN

NESSEE

BEF ORE: BOG G S, SU HR HEI NRIC H, a nd R OG ER S, C ir c uitJudg e s. RO GERS, Circ uit Jud ge. Pl a inti f f St e v e M in e r

a p p e a ls th e g r an t o f

s u mm ar y ju dg ment in favor of

his former e mploy er, de fenda nt Montgomer

y County , Tenne ssee, on his fe dera l- and state-law ag e discrimination claims. Miner was i n his mid-fifties and ha d worke d for the County ’s Depa rtm en t o f B uilding and Code s for a pproxi mately

fiftee n y ear s—including e ight year s as B uil din g Commis sio ne r— wh e n M ay or

Caro ly n B owers termin a te d h is at- wi ll e mpl oy me nt i n J anuar y 2007. After

Bow ers c hose a substantially y oung er individual to repla ce Mine r as Building Com mis sio ne r, Min e r f

ile d a c ha rg e wi th t he EE OC and

the n f ile d s ui t in fe de ra l di str ic t c ourt , stating claims under both the Ag e Discrimination in E mploy ment Act and the Tennes s ee HumanNo. 09-5624

Miner v. M

ontgomery County, Tenne ssee

- 2 - Rights Act. B ower s claims that she term i n ated Miner beca use he e nforc ed the building code inc on sis te ntl y

(a be lie f bas ed lar g e ly

on c omp la int s r e c e ive d f

ro m bu ild e rs and

de ve lop e rs ); de a lt with others ar

rog antly (a be lief base d in part on the c omplaints and in part on B ower s’ own per sonal observations); and ran the depar tment’s office ineffic ient l y . M i n er c ontends, by contra st, that Bow ers’ stated re asons wer e a me re pr etext for ag e discrimination. Th e County

c on c e de d, fo r purp os e s of its mot ion fo r summa ry jud g me nt, that Min e r c ou ld make out a

prima fa cie c ase of

discrimination. See Miner v. Montgomery County, Tenn. , No. 3:07- cv-1260, 2009 WL10 4 6 8 6 0 , at *4 (M.D. Tenn. Apr. 20, 2009) . Applying the burden- shifting framework se t forth in McD onnell Douglas Corp. v . Gree n , 411 U.S. 792 (1973), the district cour t conclude d that the County had prof fer ed thre e leg itimate, nondiscriminato ry re as o ns for Miner ’s termination. Miner , 2009 WL 1046860, at *4-5. Miner , however, h ad not presented suff icient evidenc e to support an inf er en ce that the County ’s proff ere d rea sons were a pre text for unlaw ful discrimination. Id. at *6. Fr om the district c ourt’s perspe ctive, even though B ower s and her Direc tor of Administration had testified inconsistently as to whethe r the c omplaints about Miner had be en investigated, this inconsistenc y did not “implicate B ower s’ cr edibility with respec t to whether she

rec eived c omplaints and basically believed the repor

ts she was he aring .” Id. at *5-6. S i m i l ar l y, althoug h Miner challeng ed the fac tual basis for Bowe rs’ conclusion that he had be en ar rog ant, “[t] he fac t remain[ed] that May or Bower s herse lf [had] clea rly perc eived Miner

to have be en ar

rog ant and d i s re s p ec tful.” Id. a t* 6

. T h e d i s t r i c tc o urtc o n c l u d e d th a te v e ni f

B o w e r s ’ d e c i s i o nt o t e r

m i na te Miner had be en “ill-advised or insufficiently rese arc hed,

. . . the complaints coupled w ith [ Bow ers’ ]No. 09-5624

Miner v. M

ontgomery County, Tenne ssee

- 3 - own observ at i o n s were sufficie nt to support the adver se ac tion” for pur poses of Miner ’s discrimination claims. Id. F ind ing that Min e r ha d n ot c re a te d a g e nu ine iss ue of

fa c t a s to pr e te xt, the district court g rante d the County ’s motion for summary judgme nt in full. Id. at *6-7. Min e r n owa

pp e a ls, a dv anc ingargume nts sim ila r t o th os e re lie d up on in the dis tr ic t c ourt

. Ha vin g c are fu lly

re vie we d th e fa c tua l r e c or d, th e c on tr oll ingc a se law, a nd the pa rt ie s’ a pp e llate briefs, a nd havingalso had the benef it of oral argument, we ag ree with the district court that Miner ha s n ot c re a te d a

g e nu ine iss ue of

fact as to whe the r t

he County ’s pr of

fe re d r e a so ns fo r h is termination wer e a pr etext for unlawful discr imination. See id. at *5-6. Be cause the district court tho ro ug hly

e xpla ine d it s d e c isi on , a

n d b e c a us e our i ssu anc e of

a mor e de ta ile d w ri tte n o pin ion wo uld be unnec essar ily

duplicative and w o u ld not enhance this court’s jurisprudenc e, we aff irm for the

rea sons stated in the district court’s Apr il 20, 2009, opinion.