FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T DEC 09, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 04 7

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 3 :0 8- cv -0 06 20 -HLA-HTS DANIEL DIXON , MARY SHARON DIXON, Pl ai nt iff s- App el lant s, ve rs us THE HAL LMARK COMP ANIES, INC., HALLMARK MANAGEMENT, INC., CHRIS TINA SAUNDERS, NORINE LEW IS 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 fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Dece m be r 9, 2 01 0) Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, ANDERSON, Circ ui t J ud ge , andCOAR,* Dis tri ct Ju dg e.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ *Honora ble David H. Coa

r, United States District Judge f or the Nor

thern District of I llinois , sitti ngby designation.COAR, Dis tri ctJu dg e:

Mary Sharo n a ndDani el Dix on ap pe al th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er g ran ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t t o the ir f

orm er em pl oyer, Hall m arkMan ag em en t, In c., on th ei r cl ai m s o f rel ig io us di sc riminat io n, re ta li at io n, an d fa il ur e to acco m m od at e rel ig io us be li efs invi ol at io n o f Tit le VII of th e Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act o f 19 64 , 42 U.S.C. § 2 00 0e , et seq . , an d re ta li at io n andho us in g d is cri min at io n i n v io la ti on of t he Fai r Hou si ng Act, Ti tl e VIII o f th e Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act o f 19 68 , as a m en de d b y th e Fai r Hou si ng Am en dm en ts Act o f 19 88 (“ FHA”), 4 2 U.S.C. § § 3 60 4( b) , 36 06 , 36 17 . For t he reas on s ex pl ai ne d b el ow, we v acat e an d re m an d t he di st ric t co urt’s awar d o f su m m ary jud gm en t o n the Dix on s’ Titl e VII i nt en ti on al di sc riminat io n andfai lu reto -acc omm od at e cl ai m s an d a ffi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t on th e Dix on s’ FHA andTit le VII ret al iati on cla im s. I. App el la nt s M ary Sh aro n Di xo n a ndDani el Dix on , a hu sb an d- an d- wife tea m , were re sp ect iv el y

th e o n- si te pro pe rty m an ag er an d m ai nt en an ce t ech ni ci anat Tho rnwoo d Terrace Apartm en ts , a ren ta l co m pl ex own edby App el le e Hal lm ark Man ag em en t, In c. Prev io us ly, th e Dix on s h adwork edforHall m arkat t wo o th er ap art m en t co m

pl ex es —Ro se m on t an d Dev on sh ire . As pa rt o f th ei r co m pe ns at io n

2atTho rn woo d, the Dix on s wer e p erm it te d t o l iv e ren t-f ree i n a n apa rtment a djac en t to th e co m

pl ex ’s m an ag em en t o ffi ce. The cla sh be twee n the Dix on s’ rel ig io us be li efs an d Hal lm ark ’s em pl oym en t po li ci es be ga n a s early as the ir e m pl oym en t atRo se m on t. Ms . Dix onwas i nf orm ed th at , un de r Hal lm ark ’s po li cy , sh e co ul d n otdi sp la y rel ig io us it em s i n t he m an ag em en t o ffi ce. Sh e o bjec te d t o t hi s p ol ic y in it ia ll y at R os em on t, an d l at er at Tho rnwoo d. As a re ci pi en t o f fed eral fun ds inth e fo rm of r en ta l as si st an ce u nd er the Uni te d S tate s Dep art m en t o f Agr ic ul tu re’s ru ral de ve lo pm en t p ro gr am , Tho rn woo d is subjec t t o p eri od ic in sp ect io ns by the USDA. On th e d at e o f on e su ch in sp ect io n, the Dix on s’ supe rv is or , Chr is ti naSau nd ers , vi si te d t he ren ta l o ffi ce. Dur in g h er v is it , sh e n ot ic edth atth e Dix on s h adhu ng on th e wal l a 2 6” by 50” pi ctur e o f fl owe rs with t he word s, “ Rem em be r th e Lil ie s... Matth ew 6: 28 .” W it h Hall m ark ’s rel ig io us -d is pl ay po li cy inm in d, Saun de rs ask edMs . Dix on whet he r

“ Mat th ew 6: 28 ” was a Bi bl e ci ta ti on . Ms. Di xo n c on firm edth atitwas. Saun de rs , in res po ns e, di rect edMs . Dix on to rem ov e th e art work fr om th e wal l. Sau nd ers la te r te st ifi edth atsh e b el ie ve d t ha t d is pl ay in g t he artwork v io la te d the FHA, and sh e fea redth atsh e co ul d l os e h er job if Hal lm arkwas fo un d t o b e in vi ol at io n o f th e Act . 3Rathe r th animm ed iate ly rem ov in g t he artwork, M s. Di xo n s ta te d tha t s he

wan te d t o t al k fi rs t wi th he r hu sb an d, wh o was ab se ntfro m th e o ffi ce atth e ti m e. Acco rd in g t o S au nd ers , Ms . Dix on “ m ad e itcle ar tha t p ic tu re was no t g oi ng to co m e d own ” an d l eftth e o ffi ce. Dixo n v . The Hal lma rk Co s. , No. 3 :0 8- cv -6 20 -J 25 HTS, at * 5 (M .D. Fla. Dec. 9 , 20 09 ). Once Ms . Dix on lef t, Saun de rs cal le d h er own supe rv is or , Nori ne Co le -Lewis . Col e-Lewi s i ns tru ct edhe r to rem ov e th e pi ctur e fro m

th e wal l h ers el f an d t o m ak e su re tha t the Dix on s u nd ers to odth e fai r ho us in g l aws . Saund ers co m pl ie d. Whe n M s. Di xo n re tu rn edto th e ren ta l o ffi ce wi th he r hu sb an d, a d is pu te en su ed , andSau nd ers ul ti m at el y fir edbo th Mr. an d M s. Di xo n. Acco rd in g t o Sau nd ers , Ms . Dix on was ang ry an d a sk edwhy th e p ic tu re was rem ov ed , andMr. Dix onatt em

pt edto re-h an g i t. Mr . Dix onde ni es th is . Saund ers tes ti fie d t ha t s he to ldMr. Dix on he wou ldbe fir edif h e p utth e p ic tu re b ackonth e wal l. Hal lm ark m ai nt ai ns th atth e Dix on s wer e fi redforin subo rd in at io n b ecau se th ey arg ue d wi th Sau nd ers an d i ns is te d o n re -h an gi ng th ei r artwork. Atso m e p oi ntdu rin g t he di sp ut e, Ms . Dix on retrie ve d api ctur e o f Je su s fr om he r ap art m en t an d h el d the pi ctur e cl os e to Sau nd ers , ask in g i f itoff en de d h er. Alt ho ug h t he ti m el in e is no t en ti rel y cle ar, i t ap pe ars th atth is in ci de ntoc cu rredaft er Ms . Dix onwas fi red . The Dix on s cl ai m

th at , alt ho ug h M r. Dix on to okno act io ns reg ard in g t he pi ctur e an d 4sa idno th in g a t al l, Saun de rs term in at edhi m , st at in g, “ You ’re fire d, t oo . You ’re

to o re li gi ou s.” Saun de rs de ni es th atsh e m ad e th is co m m en t. Reg ard le ss , Sau nd ers in st ru ct edth e Dix on s t o v acat e th e b ui ld in g wi th in 72 ho ur s. The Dix on s fi le d alaws ui t ag ai ns t Hal lm ark , all eg in g t ha t Hal lm arkvi ol at ed Tit le VII by int en ti on al ly dis cri m in at in g a ga in stth em , fai li ng to acco m m od at e th ei r si nc erel y he ldrel ig io us be li efs , andret al ia ti ng ag ai ns t the m . The Di xo ns als o as se rte d c la im s o f ret al ia ti on an d h ou si ng di sc riminat io n i n v io la ti on of the FHA. Hall m arkm ov edforsu m m ary jud gm en t o n a ll of t he Dix on s’ cla im s, an d t he co urt g ran te d Hal lm ark ’s m ot io n. Th e co urt h el d tha t, as su m in g S au nd ers infact sa id , “ You ’re fire d, t oo . You ’re to o re li gi ou s,” t ha t co m m en t d idno t co ns ti tu te di rectev id en ce o f di sc riminat io n wi th res pe ctto eit he r Ms . or M r. Dix on . The co urt n ot edth atth e co m

m en t al le ge d was no t “ You ’re fire d, t oo be ca us e y ou ’re to o rel ig io us ” an d e xp la in edth atth e co nt ex t d idno t s up po rt s uc h a n i nt erp ret at io n. Afte r reject in g t he Dix on s’ Titl e VII i nt en ti on al di sc riminat io n a ndret al ia ti on cl ai m s, the co urt al so gra nt edsu m m ary jud gm en t o n t he ir f ai lure-t o- acco m

m od at e cl ai m , con cl ud in g t ha t i t was un cl ear wh ethe r th e Dix on s h el d asi nc ere r el ig io us be li ef re ga rd in g t he rem ov al of t he ir a rtwo rk . Fin al ly, th e co urt re jecte d t he Dix on s’ FHA clai m s, co nc lu di ng th at§ 3 60 4( b) di d n otco ve r th e Dix on s, an d e ve n if § 36 06 di d, the fai lu re o f th e Dix on s’ em pl oym en t d is cri m in at io n c la im requi red 5th e d is m is sa l o f th ei r ho us in g d is cri m in at io n c la im as we ll . The Di xo ns no w ap pe al . II. The Co urt re vi ews a di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t de no vo , vi ewin g a ll ev id en ce an d drawi ng all reas on ab le in fere nc es infav or of t he m ov in g pa rty. Rin e v. Imagi ta s, In c. , 59 0 F .3d12 15 , 12 22 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). Summ ary jud gm en t i s p ro pe r “ if t he pl ead in gs , th e d is co ve ry an d d is cl os ur e m at eri al s o n fi le , an d a ny affid av it s s ho w th atth ere i s n o g enui ne is su e as to an y m at eri al factan d th atth e m ov an t i s en ti tl edto jud gm en t as a m atte r of law.” Fe d. R. C iv . P. 56 (c). A gen ui ne is su e o f m at eri al factex is ts if “ th e ev id en ce i s s uc h t ha t a r eas on ab le jury cou ldreturn ave rd ic t fo r th e n on m ov in g p arty .” Ander so n v . Lib er tyLo bb

y, In c. , 47 7 U.S. 2 42 , 24 8 (1 98 6) . Furt he r, “ [i]f rea so nabl e m in ds co ul d d iff er o n t he in fere nc es ari si ng fro m

un di sp ut edfact s, the n aco urt s ho ul d d eny su m m ary jud gm en t.” All en v. Tys on Foo ds , Inc . , 12 1 F .3d64 2, 6 46 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ) (ci ta ti on an d quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . III. A pl ai nt iff

ina Tit le VII cas e can est ab li sh a cl ai m of i nt en ti on al di sc riminat io n b y

pre se nt in g e it he r di rector c irc um st an ti al ev id en ce. Se e Alv ar ez v. Roy al Atlan ti c Deve lo

pe rs , Inc . , 61 0 F .3d12 53 , 12 64 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). The

6Dix on s p res en t d ire ctev id en ce an d a rg ue th atth ey have rai se d age nu in e is su e o f m at eri al factas t o wh ethe r Hal lm arkin te nt io na ll y di sc riminat edag ai ns t the m on th e b as is of t he ir r el ig io us be li efs . W e ag ree. Co nt rary to the di st ric t co urt’s ho ld in g, the Dix on s’ di rectev id en ce i s s uf fic ie ntto carry

th ei r in te nt io na l di sc riminat io n c la im

pa stsu m m ary jud gm en t. Dire ctev id en ce o f di sc riminat io n i s “ ev id en ce tha t, i f be li ev ed , pro ve s the ex is te nc e o f a fac t wi th ou t i nf eren ce o r pr es um

pt io n.” W

il so n v . B/E Aero sp ac e, In c. , 37 6 F .3d10 79 , 10 86 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (ci ta ti on an d quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . Und er Ele ve nt h C irc ui t l aw, “ on ly the m os t b la ta ntrem ark s, wh os e in te ntco ul d m eanno th in g o th er tha n t o d is cri m in at e o n t he ba si s o f so m e im pe rm is si bl e fac to r co ns ti tu te di rectev id en ce o f di sc riminat io n.” Id . (ci ta ti on s an d quo ta ti on m ark s om itte d) . The di stric t co urt h el d tha t n o re as on ab le jury co ul d c on cl ud e fro m Sau nd ers ’s all eg edco m

m en t, “ You ’re fire d, t oo . You ’re to o re li gi ou s,” t ha t the Dix on s wer e fi redbe cau se of t he ir r el ig io n. Inreac hi ng th atco nc lu si on , th e co urt pl acedpa rti cu la r em

ph as is onit s o bs erv at io n t ha t the co m m en t al le ge d was no t

“ You ’re fire d t oo be ca us e y ou ’re to o re li gi ou s.” Dixo n v . The Hal lma rk Co s. , No. 3: 08 -cv -6 20 -J -2 5HTS, at*1 1- 12 . The co urt’s an al y si s o ve rlo ok s El ev en th Cir cu it pr eced en t ch arac te riz in g c om pa rab le rem ark s as di rectev id en ce o f di sc riminat io n.

7Mo stno tabl y , we hav e h el d t ha t a m an ag em en t m em or an du m sayin g, “ Fi re Earl y —h e is to o o ld ” co ns ti tu te s d ire ctev id en ce o f di sc riminat io n. Se e Ear le y v. Ch amp io n In t’l

Co rp . , 90 7 F .2d10 77 , 10 81 (11 th Cir . 19 90 ); se e a ls o C as tl e v. Sa ng amo W

es to n In c. , 83 7 F .2d15 50 , 15 58 n. 1 3 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 8) (a s crap of p ap er sa y in g “ Fi re Ro ll in s— sh e is to o o ld ” is di rectev id en ce o f di sc riminat io n) . Whe n p res se d t o d is ti ng ui sh Ear le y an d Ca st le fro m

th e in st an t ca se at o ral arg um en t, Hal lm arkarg ue d b ro ad ly tha t the co nt ex t fo r Sau nd ers ’s all eg ed co m m en t s ep arat es th is cas e fro m Ear le y an d Ca st le . W e d is ag ree. If a nyth in g, the co nt ex t fu rth er s up po rts th e Dix on s’ po si ti on th atSau nd ers ’s all eg edrem arkis di rectev id en ce o f di sc riminat io n. Th e Dix on s cl ai m th atSau nd ers , th ei r im

m ed ia te supe rv is or , ut te redth is co m m en t wh il e te rm in at in g t he m . Mor e si gn ifi can tl y , th ey cl ai m th atth is in ci de ntto okpl ace o n t he he el s o f a d is pu te th atpi tt edth ei r rel ig io us be li efs ag ai ns t Hal lm ark ’s po li ci es . Hall m arksu gg es ts no th in g abo utth e co nt ex t tha t re m ov es th is cas e fro m th e rea chof Ear le

y an d Ca st le . Ult im at el y , th e p art ie s d is pu te whet he r Sau nd ers ev enm ad e th e co m m en t at is su e, an d t he di stric t co urt’s an al y si s s ho ul d h av e st op pe d the re. Drawi ng in fere nc es infav orof t he Dix on s, as is requi redat t hi s s ta ge , a reas on ab le jury co ul d fi ndth atSau nd ers ’s all eg edco m m en t co ns ti tu te s d ire ctev id en ce o f rel ig io us di sc riminat io n. Be cau se th e Dix on s h av e rai se d g enui ne is su es of m at eri al factas 8to whet he r Hal lm arkin te nt io na ll y di sc riminat edag ai ns t the m on th e b as is of t he ir rel ig io us be li efs , we con cl ud e th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredby gran ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t o n t hi s cl ai m . IV. The Dix on s n ex t ch al le ng e th e d is tri ctco urt’s re jecti on of t he ir c la im

th at Hall m arkvi ol at edTit le VII by fail in g t o a cco m m od at e th ei r si nc erel y

he ld rel ig io us be li efs . To pr ev ai l o n t hi s cl ai m , th e Dix on s m us t es tabl is h t ha t (1 ) th ey he lda bo nafid e rel ig io us be li ef tha t co nf li ct edwith an e m

pl oym en t re qu ire m en t; (2 ) th ey in fo rm edHall m arkof t ha t b el ie f; a nd(3) th ey were d is ch arg edforfai li ng to co m pl y with t he co nf

li ct in g e m

pl oym en t re qu ire m en t. Mor riss et te -Bro wn v. Mob il e In fi rma ryMed. Ctr . , 50 6 F .3d13 17 , 13 21 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ); Bea dl e v. Hil ls bo ro ugh C

ou nt y S he ri ff’s Dep’ t , 29 F.3d58 9, 5 92 n.5 (11 th Cir . 19 94 ). Once a p rima facie cas e is est ab li sh ed , th e b ur de n s hi fts to th e em pl oyer to “ de m on st rat e th athe is un ab le to reas on ab ly accomm od at e anem pl oyee’s . . . rel ig io us ob se rv an ce o r pr act ic e wit ho utun du e h ard sh ip on th e co nduc t o f th e em pl oyer’s bu si ne ss .” Mor riss et te -Bro wn , 50 6 F .3dat 1 32 1 (quo ti ng 42 U.S.C. § 20 00 e(j)) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o mitte d) . As th e d is tri ctco urt co rrec tl y no te d, the re i s di ffer in g t es ti m on y

as t o wh ethe r th e Dix on s h el d asi nc ere r el ig io us be li ef tha t co nf li ct edwith Hal lm ark ’s di rect iv e to rem ov e th ei r artwork. Des pi te th e co urt’s 9co nt rary con cl us io n, the pa rti es ’ co nf li ct in g t es ti m on y

rai se s a g enui ne is su e o f m at eri al factas t o t he fir stpro ng of t he fai lu re-t o- acco m m od at e an al y si s. Th e Dix on s h av e p res en te d e vi de nc e th atth ey are s in cere , comm it te d C hr is ti an s wh o op po se effo rts to rem ov e Godfro m publ ic pl aces . Determ in in g t he ir c red ib il it y on th is po in t i s a m at te r fo r th e jury, notth e co urt. The Dix on s h av e al so sat is fie d t he sec on d p ro ng of t he ir p rima facie cas e. Hall m arkkn ew th atth e Dix on s wer e d ed ic at edCh ris ti an s wh o h adpre vi ou sl y op po se d p ol ic ie s p ro hi bi ti ng th e p ub li c d is pl ay of r el ig io us it em s. Mo re im po rta nt ly, if t he jury be li ev es th atSau nd ers to ldMr. Dix on he was “ to o rel ig io us ” whe n s he fir edhi m , itco ul d re as on ab ly infe r th atsh e co nn ect edth e Dix on s’ fai lu re t o re m ov e th e art work wi th th ei r rel ig io us be li efs . Hall m arkarg ue s th atth e Dix on s n ev er ex pr es sl y to ldSau nd ers th atth ey

di d n otwantto tak e d own th ei r artwork b ecau se th ey op po se d e ffo rts to rem ov e Godfro m publ ic pl aces . Howev er, we co nc lu de th atif Saun de rs was aware o f th e te ns io n b etweenhe r or de r an d t he Dix on s’ rel ig io us be li efs —an d t he re i s ample e vi de nc e th atsh e was —h er aware ne ss wou ldsat is fy

th e se co ndpro ng . Se e Bro wn v. Polk Co un ty , Iow a , 61 F.3 d 6 50 , 65 4 (8 th Cir . 19 95 ) (“ An em pl oyer ne edha ve ‘ on ly eno ug h i nf orm at io n ab ou t anem

pl oyee’s rel ig io us ne ed s t o p erm itth e em pl oyer to un de rs tandth e ex is te nc e o f a co nf

li ctbe twee n t he em

pl oyee’s rel ig io us pra ct ic es an d t he 1 0em

pl oyer’s job requi rem en ts .’ ”) (quo ti ng Hell er v. EBB A ut o C

o. , 8 F.3 d 1 43 3, 14 39 (9t h C ir. 1 99 3) ); Hell in ge r v. Eck erd C or p. , 67 F.Supp .2d13 59 , 13 63 (S.D. Fl a. 19 99 ) (rel y in g o n Bro wn an d a dd in g, “ It wo ul d b e h y pe r-t ech ni cal . . . to requi re n ot ic e o f th e Pl ai nt iff’s rel ig io us be li efs to co m e o nl y fro m th e Pl ai nt iff

.”). Altho ug h t he di stric t co urt n ev er re ach edth e th irdpro ng , th e Dix on s s at is fy th is pr on g a s wel l, g iv enth atSau nd ers fir edth em forfai li ng to rem ov e th ei r artwork a t he r co m m an d. As b ot h p art ie s ac kn owl ed ge , on ce the Dix on s es tabl is h apri m a fac ie cas e, th e b ur de n s hi fts to Hall m arkto de m on st rat e th atitcan no t re as on ab ly acco m m od at e th ei r rel ig io us be li efs witho utun du e h ard sh ip . Se e 42 U.S.C. § 20 00 e(j); Mor riss et te -Bro wn , 50 6 F .3dat 1 32 1. Be cau se Tit le VII do es no t ex pl ic it ly defi ne th e te rm s “ reas on ab ly accomm od at e” o r “un du e h ard sh ip ,” “ th e pr eci se reac h o f th e em

pl oyer’s ob li ga ti on to it s emplo y ee i s u nc le ar u nd er the st atut e an d m

us t b e d et erm in edon a cas e-b y -cas e b as is .” Bea dl e , 29 F.3dat 5 92 . The di st ric t co urt m ad e n o fa ctua l fi nd in gs onth es e is su es on ce i t co nc lu de d t ha t th e Dix on s fa il edto est ab li sh a pr im a fac ie cas e. Becaus e we can no t ad dr es s the reas on ab le acco m

m od at io n a ndun du e h ard sh ip is su es on th e b as is of t he li m it ed reco rdbe fo re u s, we v acat e an d re m an d the di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t o n t he Dix on s’ fai lu re-t o- acco m m od at e cl ai m . 1 1V.

The Dix on s n ex t ar gu e th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredby gran ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t o n t he ir Ti tl e VII ret al ia ti on cla im . To es tabl is h apri m a fac ie cas e o f Tit le VII ret al ia ti on , th e Dix on s m us t s ho w th at(1) th ey

en ga ge d i n s ta tu to ril y pr ot ect edact iv it y ; (2 ) th ey su ffer eda m at eri al ly adv ers e em pl oym en t ac ti on ; an d (3 ) th ere was a cau sa l l in k b etweenth e two . Butl er v. Ala . Dep’ t o

f Tr an sp . , 53 6 F.3 d 1 20 9, 1 21 2 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) ; Pen ni ng to n v . Cit y o f Hu nt sv il le , 26 1 F .3d12 62 , 12 66 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). The Di xo ns arg ue th atHall m arkret al ia te d a ga in stth em forth ei r op po si ti on to Hall m ark ’s requi rem en t tha t the artwork b e rem ov edfro m th e m an ag er’s o ffi ce. Sp eci fic al ly, th ey

arg ue th atdi sp la y in g t he artwork was pe rm is si bl e und er fe de ral ho us in g l aw an d t ha t the un de rlyin g m ot iv at io n b eh in d t he de m an d t o re m ov e it was anim

pr op er at te m

ptto cle an se th e workp la ce o f al l re li gi ou s re fere nc es , no m at te r ho w ben ig n t he se refe ren ces were. The op po si ti on claus e o f Tit le VII pr ov id es : It s ha ll be anun lawfu l em pl oym en t p ract ic e fo r anem pl oyer to di sc riminat e ag ai ns t an y

of h is em pl oyees . . . be cau se he ha s o pp os ed an y pra ct ic e m ad e anun la wfu l em pl oym en t p ract ic e b y

th is subc hapt er.

1 242 U.S.C. §2 00 0e -3 (a). Ex am pl es of u nl awfu l em

pl oym en t p ract ic es in cl ud e di ffer en ti at in g c om

pe ns at io n a ndbe ne fit s o r cl as si fy in g e m pl oyees o n t he ba si s o f race , sex , or re li gi on . 42 U.S.C. §2 00 0e -2 (a). The “un la wfu l em

pl oym en t p ract ic e” tha t the Dix on s cl ai m to ha ve op po se d is Hall m ark ’s dec is io n t o k eep it s wo rk pl ace f ree o f rel ig io us sym

bo ls . The Di xo ns cl ai m to ha ve op po se d “ th ei r supe rv is or ’s im pr op er at te m

ptto cle an se th e workp la ce o f al l re li gi ou s re fere nc es ,” pl ai nt iff s’ bri ef at36 , and“ de fen da nt s’ requi rem en t tha t artwo rkco nt ai ni ng a Scri ptur e ref eren ce b e rem ov edfro m

th e m an ag er’s o ffi ce.” Id. at 3 5. Eve n i f anem

pl oym en t p ract ic e is no t as a m at te r of factun la wfu l, a p la in ti ff canest ab li sh a pr im a fac ie cas e o f Tit le VII ret al ia ti on “ if h e sh ows th athe ha d a go odfai th , reas on ab le be li ef tha t the em pl oyer was e ng ag edinun la wfu l em pl oym en t p ract ic es . . . . A pl ai nt iff m us t n oton ly sho w th athe su bj ect iv el y (th at is , ingo odfai th ) be li ev edth athi s emplo y er was en ga ge d i n u nl awfu l em pl oym en t pr act ic es , bu t al so th athi s b el ie f was ob je ct iv el y reas on ab le inli gh t o f th e fac ts an d reco rdpre se nt ed .” Lit tl e v. Uni te d T ech s., Ca rr ie r Tr an si co ld Div. , 10 3 F .3d95 6, 96 0 (1 1th C ir. 1 99 7) (em ph as is inori gi na l). The Dix on s cl ai m

th atth ey ha d areas on ab le be li ef tha t the requi rem en t tha t th ey rem ov e th e art work fr om th e m an ag er’s o ffi ce was un la wfu l. The y ass ertth at 1 3th ei r ob

jecti onto th is im

pr op er re qu es t l eddi rect ly to an adve rs e em pl oym en t act io n, n am el y , th ei r te rm in at io n. We canass um e th atth e Dix on s h av e ad du ced ev id en ce t o s ho w th atth ey su bj ect iv el ybe li ev edth atHall m ark ’s po li cy was an

“un la wfu l em

pl oym en t p ract ic e.” The y ad du cedev id en ce tha t M s. Di xo n d idno t co m pl y with t he reque stto rem ov e th e art work fr om th e o ffi ce b ecau se of h er b el ie f th atth e reque stwas u nl awfu l an d d is ho no redGod . The Di xo ns als o s tate th at Sau nd ers im

pr op erl y att em pt edto cle an se th e workp la ce o f rel ig io us sym bo ls . Howev er, i n a dd it io n t o s ho win g t ha t the y su bj ect iv el ybe li ev edth atth is was an

“un la wfu l em

pl oym en t p ract ic e,” the Dix on s ar e al so requi redto de m on st rat e th at th ere was su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o ra is e a m at eri al is su e o f fac t as to th e reas on ab le ne ss of t he ir b el ie f – i .e., th atth ei r be li ef was ob je ct iv el yreas on ab le . The Dix on s h av e cal le d att en ti on to no st atut ory or c as e la w th atcanreas on ab ly be be li ev edto pro hi bi t a p riv at e em pl oyer fro m

ke ep in g i ts ownworkpl ace f ree o f rel ig io us refe ren ces . Thu s, the y ha ve fai le d t o s at is fy

th e o bjec ti ve pro ng requi red by Li tt le . Id. at 9 60 . The Dix on s ar gu e th atth ei r ex te ns iv e te nu re wo rk in g i n t he ren ta l h ou si ng in du st ry , andth ei r hi st ory of d is pl ay in g t he artwork t hr ou gh ou t tha t t im e, co nv in cedth em

th athang in g i t i n t he ren ta l o ffi ce was no t p ro hi bi te d b y th e Fai r Hou si ng Act. Ho wev er, d em on st rat in g t ha t re li gi ou s s y m bo ls inth e workp la ce ar e 1 4no t p ro hi bi te d b y law d oe s n ot hi ng to furth er the Dix on s’ ob li ga ti on to de m on st rat e th atth e law pro hi bi ts a pr iv at e em pl oyer fro m

de ci di ng to ke ep it s wo rk pl ace f ree of rel ig io us sym

bo ls , anditdo es no th in g t o i nd ic at e th atth e Dix on s’ subjec ti ve be li ef was ob

je ct iv el yreas on ab le . Nor d o t he Dix on s o fferan y ex pl an at io n o f ho w orwhy th ey

m ig htob jecti ve ly bel ie ve th atth ere i s s om e st atut e o r cas e la w th at pr oh ib it s a p riv at e em

pl oyer fro m

de ci di ng no t t o d is pl ay

rel ig io us sym

bo ls on it s pr em is es . Hav in g fa il edto ad du ce ev id en ce t o c reat e a g enui ne is su e o f m at eri al fact with re sp ectto th e o bjec ti ve pro ng of t he ir r et al ia ti on cla im , th e Dix on s h av e fai le d to de m on st rat e a v iabl e ret al ia ti on cla im . Accor di ng ly, th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t o n thi s cl ai m was p ro pe r. VI. The Dix on s n ex t ch al le ng e th e d is tri ctco urt’s awar d o f su m m ary jud gm en t on th ei r cl ai m s o f ret al ia ti on an d h ou si ng di sc riminat io n u nd er § § 3 60 4( b) , 36 06 , an d 3 61 7 o f th e Fai r Hou si ng Act. Be cau se ne it he r of th e Dix on s’ FHA clai m s fal ls withi n t he sco pe of t he FHA, we affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary on th es e cl ai m s. The Dix on s b rin g t he ir c la im forret al ia to ry

ho us in g d is cri m in at io n und er 4 2 U.S.C. §§ 36 04 (b ) an d 3 61 7. Se ct io n 3 61 7 p ro vi de s, i n re le va ntpa rt, tha t “ [i]t 1 5sh al l b e unl awfu l t o c oe rce, i nt im id at e, th reat en , or i nt erfe re wi th an y pe rs oninth e ex erci se or e njo ym en t o f, or on acco un t o f hi s h av in g e xe rci se d o r en joy ed. . . an y rig htgrant edor p ro te ct edby sect io n 3 60 3, 3 60 4, 3 60 5, o r 36 06 of t hi s t it le .” 42 U.S.C. § 3 61 7. Intu rn , § 3 60 4( b) pro vi de s tha t “ [i]t s ha ll be un lawfu l . . . [t]o di sc riminat e ag ai ns t an y

pe rs oninth e te rm s, co nd it io ns , or p riv il eg es of s al e o r ren ta l o f a dwell in g, o r inth e p ro vi si on of s erv ic es or f aci li ti es inco nn ect io n th erewi th , bec au se of r ace, c ol or , rel ig io n, s ex , fam il ia l s ta tu s, o r na ti on al ori gi n.” 42 U.S.C. § 3 60 4( b) . The di stric t co urt qui ck ly dis po se d o f th e Dix on s’ ret al ia to ry ho us in g di sc riminat io n c la im , ho ld in g tha t “ [d ]efend an ts co ul d n othave in te rfer edwith Pl ai nt iff s’ rig htto no t b e d is cri m in at edag ai ns t i n the term s, co nd it io ns or pr iv il eg es of t he re nt al

of adwel li ng when itev ic te d t he m fro m th ei r ap art m en t be cau se th e m an ag er’s ap art m en t was part o f th ei r co m pe ns at io n, n ota ren ta l.” Dixo n v . The Hal lma rk

Co s. , No. 3 :0 8- cv -6 20 -J -2 5HTS, at*1 9 (e m ph as is in or ig in al ). Thatco nc lu si on was i nc orrect . In fa ct , th e FHA’s de fin it io n o f “ to ren t” in cl ud es “ to gra ntfora co ns id erat io n t he rig htto oc cupy prem is es .” 42 U.S.C. § 3 60 2( e). Bec au se Hall m arkpro vi de d t he Dix on s wi thanap art m en t i n e xc ha ng e fo r th ei r m an ag em en t an d m ai nt en an ce s erv ic es , th e FHA co ve rs th e Dix on s’ ho us in g a rran ge m en t. 1 6Nev erthe le ss , th e Dix on s’ ret al iati oncla im fai ls on ot he r gr ou nd s. To es tabl is h acla im

forret al ia to ry

ho us in g d is cri min at io n, the Dix on s m us t as se rt t ha t Hall m ark“ co erce [d ], in ti m id at e[d ], th reat en [ed ], or i nt erfe re[d ] with” th ei r ex erci se of rig ht s g ran te d u nd er § 36 04 (b ). Se e 42 U.S.C. § 3 61 7. The pro bl em with t he Dix on s’ cla im

is th atth ey

ha ve no t as se rte d ri gh ts pro te ct edby § 36 04 (b ), whi ch pr ev en ts di sc riminat io n i n t he “ te rm s, co nd it io ns , or p riv il eg es of s al e o r ren ta l o f a dwe ll in g.” 42 U.S.C. § 3 60 4( b) . The Di xo ns ha ve no t ex pl ai ne d h ow § 36 04 (b ) pr ov id es a ri gh t t o h an g re li gi ou s artwo rkinHall m ark ’s ren ta l o ffi ce, wh ic h i s se pa rat e fro m

th ei r pe rs on al dwel li ng . Becau se we be li ev e th at§ 3 60 4( b) pro vi de s no su chrig ht , th e Dix on ’s cla im forret al ia to ry

ho us in g d is cri m in at io n und er § 3 60 4( b) m

us t fa il . Alt ern at iv el y , th e Dix on s as se rt acla im forho us in g d is cri min at io n u nd er 4 2 U.S.C. § 3 60 6. Se ct io n 3 60 6, wh ic h i s en ti tl ed“ Dis cri m in at io n i n the Pro vi si on of Bro ke rag e Servi ces ,” pr ov id es : [I]t sh al l b e unl awfu l t o d en y an y pe rs on acce ss to or m em be rs hi p o r pa rti ci pa ti on inan y

m ul ti pl e-l is ti ng servi ce, rea l es tate bro ke rs ’ or ga ni zat io n orot he r se rv ic e, or ga ni zat io n, o r faci li ty relat in g t o t he bu si ne ss of s el li ng or ren ti ng dwel li ng s, o r to di sc riminat e ag ai ns t h im inth e te rm s o r co nd it io ns of su chacce ss , m em

be rs hi p, o r pa rti ci pa ti on , onacco un t o f rac e, co lo r, rel ig io n, se x, h an di cap , fam il ia l s ta tu s, o r na ti on al ori gi n. 42 U.S.C. § 3 60 6.

1 7The Dix on s cl ai m th atHall m ark ’s term in at io n o f th ei r em pl oym en t v io la te d th e FHA by den y in g t he m pa rti ci pa ti on inth e b us in es s o f ren ti ng ap art m en ts on th e ba si s o f rel ig io n. To supp ort the ir a rg um en t tha t § 36 06 pro vi de s the m with a cau se of a ct io n, the Dix on s re ly on Fav or s v. MAQ Mgmt . Cor

p. , 75 3 F .Supp . 94 1 (N.D. Ga. 19 90 ), anunpubl is he d d is tri ctco urt o pi ni on . The co urt b el ow co nc lu de d th at Fav or

s is di st in gu is habl e, an d we a gr ee. In Fav or s , th e p la in ti ff al le ge d “ a ki ndof ‘ba ckdo or ’ di sc riminat io n wh erei n Def en da nt s wo ul d n otne ces saril y de ny ho us in g o ut rig htto bl ack s, b utwou ldin st eadhi re o nl y whi te lea si ng pe rs on ne l.” Id. at94 4. Th e Fav or

s de fen da nt s ap pa ren tl y

ad op te d t hi s p ract ic e wit h t he ho pe th atwhi te lea si ng co ns ul ta nt s wo ul d b e m or e rel uc ta ntto ex te ndlea se s t o Afr ic an Am eri can s tha n wo ul d b e Afri can -Am eri canlea si ng co ns ul ta nt s. Id. As th e di st ric t co urt p ro pe rly reas on ed , un li ke th e d efen da nt s i n Fav or s , Hall m arkis no t accu se d o f de nyin g h ou si ng to a pr ot ect edcla ss by dis cri m in at in g a ga in stth e Dix on s. Th atdi st in ct io n i s es pe ci al ly sig ni fic an t g iv enth e in te nd edsco pe of § 3 60 6. As de m on st rat edm os t cl earl y by its ti tl e, § 3 60 6 p rev en ts “ Dis cri min at io n in th e Pro vi si on of B ro ke rag e Servi ces .” Whi le th e m an ag em en t co m pa ny’ s fa il ur e to hi re the pl ai nt iff

in Fav or s di rect ly im

pl ic at edth e type o f di sc riminat io n t ha t § 3 60 6 a im s t o c om

ba t, the Dix on s’ termin at io n d oe s n ot . Accor di ng ly, we

1 8co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt p ro pe rly gran te d s umm ary jud gm en t fo r Hal lm ark

on th e Dix on s’ FHA clai m s. VII. Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, the di st ric t co urt’s o rd er g ran ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t fo r Hal lm arkis AFFIRMED, inpa rt, VACATED, inpa rt, andREMANDED for f urth er pr oc eed in gs co ns is te ntwith t hi s o pi ni on .

1 9