FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T JU N E 15 , 200 6 [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 05- 1004 4

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 02-03458 -CV -CA P-1 ELIZABETH W HITTLE,
Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant,
ve rs us GMJ LTD., (fo rm erl y

Fu n F it Ent erp ris es , Inc ., d.b .a. Fit ne ss Plu s) d.b .a. Gol d’s Gym , FUN FIT ENTERPRISES, INC., d.b .a. Fit ne ss Plu s, GOLD’ S GYM FRANCHI SING, INC., GOLD’ S GYM INTERNATIONAL, INC., AD MIN SO LU TI ON S, IN C., II, J A M ES E. M R O C ZK O WS K I , I n d i v i du a l l y, G EO R G E B EC ER RA , I n d i v i du a l l y, D ef en dants -Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J un e 15, 200 6)Honora ble Hug h L awson, United States District Judge for the Middle D istrict of * Geor g ia, sitting by

desig nation. Title VI Iprohibits an employ er f rom discriminatingag ainst an employ ee – w ith respec t 1 to compensation and the terms, conditions and privileg es of he r employ ment – on the basis of sex, i ncludingpregnancy , childbirth and re lated medica l rea sons. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e2(a) (1), 2000e (k). 2 Before TJO FL AT and KRA VI TC H, Circuit Judges, and LA W SO N , D istrict * Ju dg e. PE R CU RIA M: This is a sex discrim ination case. E lizabeth Whittle claim s that a lim ited partne rs hip , f

our c or por at ion s, a nd tw o in div idu al s in fr ing ed he r ri ght s 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 00e (k ), by discharging her fr om

her em ploym ent as a fitness instructor because she w as pregnant. She see ks com pensatory and punit ive dam ages against each of them 1 under Title V II and un der G eorgia tort law , f or intention al infliction of em otion al dis tr es s. T he dis tr ic t c ourt, a dopt ing in fu ll the r ec om m en da tio n of

the m ag istrate j udge to w hom

the c as e ha d be enr ef

er re d, gr an te d th e de fe ndants ’ m oti ons fo r
s u mmary j u d g me n t . We a f f i rm. T itl e V II de fi ne s “ em

plo y er ” as “ a pe rs on e nga ge d ina n in dustry a ff ec tin g
co m m er ce w ho h as f

if te enor m or e em plo y ee s f or e ac h w orkin g day

in ea chof tw en ty or m or e ca le ndar w ee ks i n th e curr en t or pr ec ed ing c al en dar y ear . . . ” 42 U. S. C. § 200 0e(b). In her R eport and Recom m endation (“ R & R” ) to the districtThe plaintiff c oncede d to the court be low that she is only pursuingstate law intentional 2 inf lic tio n o f e mot ion a l di str e ss c la ims a g a ins t th e ind ivi du a l de fe nd ants . A document in the r ecor d appar ently cre ated by

Adminsoluti ons shows how plaintiff’s 3 wag es we re c alculate d. Testimony in the rec ord indicate s that she re ceive d her pa y chec ks at GMJ ’s pre mises. 3 co urt, se e Re co rd , V ol. 4, a t T ab 112 , the m ag istrate j udge , in dis posi ng o f Whittle ’ s T itl e V II c la im s, a ssu m ed that the li m ite d partne rs hip a nd the f our
co rp or at e de fe ndants w er e the pla int if f’ s e m plo y er s. T he re w as nothin g inthe

2
re co rd , how ev er , to w ar

rant the a ssu m

pti on tha t thr ee of

the c or por at e de fe ndants , F u n F i tEn t e r

p r i s e s , I n c . , Go l d ’s Gym F r a n c h i s i n g , I n c . , a n dGo l d ’s Gym In te rn at ion al , I nc . , qua lif ie d a s Whittle ’ s e m

plo y er und er T itl e V II
. T hus, the se defendants wer e entitled to summ ary j udgm ent on that grou nd alone. Wha t the e vid en ce in the r ec or d sh ow s is that Whittle w as e m plo y ed by the fourth corporate defe ndant, Adm insol ution s, I nc., a professional em ploy er
or ga ni zat io n. Un de r a co nt ract ua l arran ge m en t wi th Adm in so lu ti on s, GMJ , Ltd ., the li m ite d partne rs hip , pur ch as ed the se rv ic es of

the pla int if

f an d e igh t othe rs . 3 Since the re cord does not s how that Adm insol ution s had “ fifteen or m ore
em plo y ee s f or e ac h w orkin g day

in ea chof

tw en ty or m or e ca le ndar w ee ks i n th e current or pre ceding calendar y ear, ” A dm insol ution s could no t have been Whittle’s T itle VI I em

ploy er and was entitled to summ ary j udgm ent for that
re as on.The fir st entry for the pla intiff in Fun F it’s Pay roll Data Entr

y J ournal is for the two- 4 wee k pay roll period June 4 to J une 18, 2001. Whit tle was a lso assigne d duties in the g y m’s day car e ce nter. 5 4 Thi s l eav es GMJ , Ltd ., as t he on ly pos si bl e Tit le VII em pl oyer in th is cas e. GMJ a dm its that it em

ploy ed the plaintiff – in that it su pervised her w ork and had the power to discharge her – but deni es that it was a Title V II “ em

ploy er. ” Whe the r the pla int if

f es ta bli she d G MJa s aT itl e V II e m plo y er suf fi ci en t t o withstand summ ary

j udgm ent is a close question , a question we need not answer be ca use she f ai le d to m ak e out

ac as e of se x di sc ri m inatio n. I. T he r ec or d vi ew ed

in the li ght

m ost f av or ab le to the pla int if

f dis cl ose s th e fo llo w ing
. Whittle w en t t o w ork f or F un F it E nte rp ri se s, I nc . , a t i ts B uf or d, G eo rg iagym , in May

200 1. S he w as e m

plo y ed a s af itn es s c oor din at or

a nd 4 exercise instructor. H er supervisor, the per son who hired her, w as Jam es 5 M r o c z k o w s k i , F u n F i t ’s p r e s i d e n t , w h o man a g e dth e g ym. Som etim e before the end of the y ear, Fun Fit sold the gy m to GMJ, Ltd. In
earl y January 200 2, G MJ , w ithMr oc zk ow ski a s it s m an ag er , be gan op er at ing the gym a s “ G old ’ s G ym , ” unde r a fr an ch ise a w ar de d it by G old ’ s G ym

F ranc his ing , Inc. A t the sam e tim e, Whittle and ot hers who had w orked for Fun Fit w ere hired by Adm in so lu ti on s t o wo rkat Go ld ’s Gym .The re cord doe s not contain a note f rom Whit tle’s phy sician or a ny other medic al 6 evidenc e indicatingwhen she should stop work. Soon after Mr oczkowski asked Whittl e for a note from he r doctor, a

note direc ted to Whit tle was plac ed in the g y m’s “sug g estion box .” The note was f

rom her “ power

pump” students (not identified). It asked he r to step down fr om teac hing the power

pump class bec ause she was “ too pregnant.” The re is no evide nce that the note was c reated by

the plaintiff’s e mploy er or at its direction. We there fore consider the note irrele vant. B ug sc h w a s o ne of

the e mpl oye e s p ro vid e d b y Ad min so lut ion s. 7 Bug sch wa s prese nt throug hout Whi ttle’s prese nce in B ece rra ’s offic e. 8 5 Whittle be cam e pr eg nant i n th e fa ll of 200 1. S he inf

orm ed Mr oc zk ow ski of that f ac t i n N ove m

be r. B y Marc h 20 02, he r pr eg nanc y ha d a dvanc ed

to the poi nt that M ro cz kow ski w onde re d w he the r it w oul d be sa fe f or he r to c ont inu e te ac hin g
ex er ci se c la sse s, so h e as ke d he r to h av e he r doc tor pr ovi de him

w ithanot e indicating her lim itations
. Shortly after m aking th is request, Mr oczkowski left 6 G old ’ s G ym . H e w as r ep la ce d by G eo rg e Be ce rr a, w ho arr ive d ne ar the e nd o f Mar ch
. O n Apr il 15, Be ce rr a as ke d Ju dy Bu gsc h, one of

his a ssi stants , to ha ve 7 Whittle c om e to h is o ff

ic e. B ugsc h di d a s r eque ste d. W ha t transpi re d th er ea ft er

is dispu ted. Bec erra

contends th at he sum

m oned Whittle to h is office to discuss her 8 attit ude tow ar d th e oth er

e xe rc ise ins tr

uc tor s and the gym ’ s c lie nte le ; he tho ught she w as dis re spe ct fu l. Whittle de nie s th is. A cc or din g to he r, Be ce rr a’ s f ir st w or ds
we re that she w as fire d. S he asked him for a reason, but he gave none. Bugsch
say s th at Whittle a ske d B ec er

ra poi nt b lank whe the r she w as be ing le t go be ca useTh e se de fe nd ants , F itn e ss P lus , Inc ., Go ld’ s G y m, I nc ., and Go ld’ s G y

m E nte rp ri se s, 9 Inc., we re dismissed without prejudice on the plaintiff’s motion. In h e r c omp la int , Wh itt le a lso so ught r e c ov e ry a g a ins t th e de fe nd ants un de r 4 2 U .S. C. 10 § § 19 85 and

19 86 . T he c ourt

dis mis se d th e se c la ims un de r F e d. R. C iv. P. 1 2( b) (6 ). Whittle do e s n ot c ha lle ng e the ru lin gin t his a pp e a l. 6 she w as pr eg nant, a nd tha t B ec er ra sa id n o. T ak ing the se ve rs ion s of the m ee tin g in the ligh t m ost favorable to the plainti ff, we conclude that Becer ra brought her to h is o ff ic e fo r the pur

pose of f ir ing he r, a nd tha t he w an te d B ugsc h th er e to
w itn es s w ha t w as sa id. II. A ft er f ili ng a c la im w iththe E qua l E m

plo y m en t O ppor

tun ity Co m m iss ion and receiving a right to sue letter, Whittle broug ht this lawsuit, nam ing as defendants the appellees before us and three other c orporations that have been dism issed from

the case. T he claim s now before us were brought under Title V II

9 and Georgia tort law
. Following consid erable discovery , the def endants m oved 10 for sum m ary j udgm ent, and we have indicated, the court granted it. T his appeal fo llo w ed
. III . Whittle ’ s a

ppe al is str ai ght

f or w ar d. S he c ont en ds tha t m at er ia l i ssu es of fact e xist which precluded the court from dispo sing o f her T itle VI I and state tort lawc la im s onsum

m ar y j udgm en t. T he m ag istrate j udge , in fi ndi ng n o m er it in7

Whittle’s T itle VI I claim s, assum ed for sake of argum ent that the plainti ff had
m ade out a prim a fa cie ca se of sex discrim ination – that her em ploy er ( whichever defendant entity

that m ight h ave been) had discharged her bec ause she wa s pr eg nant –

a nd m ove d to the que sti on o f w he the r the e m plo y er ha d art ic ulate d a
no n- di sc riminat ory

reas on forit s ac ti on an d, i f so , whet he r th e p la in ti ff h adsh own
suc h r ea son to b e a pr et ex t f or dis cr im inatio n. W e ind

ulg e the sam e as sum

pti on – that Whittle e sta

bli she d apr im a fa ci e ca se – a lth oughthe e vid en ce on tha t po int is pr obl em at ic
. S inc e, a s th e m ag istrate j udge pr ope rl y f ound , the e m

plo y er ’ s r ea son fo r fi rin g Whi tt le was n on -d is cri m in at ory , we pro ceed to th e que st io n o f pr et ex t. Inhe r R & R, the m ag istrate j udge ide nti fi ed f ive pie ce s of

e vid en ce that,
ac co rd ing to the pla int if

f, de m onstrate d pr et ex t and the re fo re the e m plo y er ’ s in te nt to d isc harg e he r be ca

use she w as pr eg nant: (a) Discr im inatory

com m ents m ade by

Mroczkowski concer

ning other p r e g n a n tw o me n e mp l o ye da tth e g ym; (b) Mrocz kowski’ s rem oval of som e of plaintiff’ s job duties (day c a r e ) du e t o c o n c e rn ab o u th e r p r e g n a n c y; (c ) Mr oc zk ow ski ’ s r eque st tha t pl ai nti ff pr ovi de adoc tor ’ s no te pe rm itt ing he r to c ont inu e te ac hin g e xe rc ise c la sse s; (d ) Be ce rr a’ s purp orte d e xc lus ionof pla int if f fr om asta ff m ee tin g and revelation that plainti ff ‘ would not b e perf orm ing du ties she had expe ct ed to pe rf orm be ca use she w oul d have y oung c hil dr en ’ ; and (e ) ‘C o n fl i ct i n g ev i d en ce re g ar d i n g th e r ea s o n fo r p l ai n t i ff ’s t er m i n at i o n .’ See R eco rd , Vol 4, at Tab 1 12
.8

T he f ir st thr ee pie ce s of

e vid en ce a re ir

re le vant b ec au se Be ce rr a, not Mroczkowski, wa s the decision m aker. Moreover, if Mrocz kowski harbored an int en t t o di sc ri m inate a ga ins t Whittle be ca use she w as pr eg nant, the re is no
ev ide nc e that he c om

m uni cate d su chint en t t o B ec er ra . T he f ourth p ie ce is
m er itl es s f

or the r ea son the m ag istrate state d inthe R & R
. S ee id. A s f or the f if th pie ce , c onsi de re d inthe li ght m ost f av or ab le to Whittle , Be ce rr a fi re d he r fo r no reason at all. T hat is, w hen she requested a rea son, he gave her none; that wa s her t e s t i mo n y. Insum , w e fi nd n o m at er ia l i ssu e of f ac t a s to the pla int if

f’ s T itl eV II c la im of se x di sc ri m inatio n. Turning to the state law tort c laim , w e af firm the district court’ s summ ary dis m iss al of

that c la im

f or the r ea sons state d inthe R & R
. S ee id. AFFIRMED.