FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MAY 23, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 14 01 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :0 9- cv -0 08 45 -AKK THOMAS PORTER, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us AMERIC AN CAST IRON PIPE COM PANY, ROYCE HANDLEY , 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 North ernDis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma y 23 , 20 11 ) Befo re HULL, MARTIN an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Tho m as Po rte r ap pe al s the di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t i n fav orof Am eri canCas t Ir on Pip e Co m pa ny (ACIPCO) an d R oyce Han dl ey onPo rte r’s em

pl oym en t d is cri m in at io n a ndret al ia ti on cla im s u nd er Tit le VII of th e Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act o f 19 64 (Tit le VII), 4 2 U.S.C. § 20 00 e-2 , 3, the Age Dis cri m in at io n i n Em

pl oym en t Act(ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 62 1- 63 4, an d 4 2 U.S.C. § 1 98 1. Po rte r arg ue s the di st ric t co urt erredingra nt in g s umm ary jud gm en t as to hi s ra ce an d a ge di sc riminat io n c la im s b ecau se hi s s up eri orqu al ifi cat io ns sh owe d ACIPC O’ s l eg it im at e rea so n fo r fai li ng to pro m ot e h im was apre te xtfor di sc riminat io n. Ad di ti on al ly, Po rte r arg ue s the di st ric t co urt erredby find in g h e ha d n otest ab li sh eda pr ima fa ci e cas e o f ret al ia ti on be cau se hi s p ro te ct edco nduc t was to o t em

po ral ly rem ot e fro m

ACIPCO’s al le ge d re ta li at io n. Afterrev ie w, we 1 2 affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt.

Porter’s a ppellate brief fa ils to address his disparateimpact claim and his individual 1 claims ag ainst Handley . Acc ording ly , Porter aba ndoned theseclaims on appe al and we do not addre ss them. See Greenbe rg v. BellSouth Telecom ms., Inc. , 498 F.3d 1258, 1259 n.1 ( 11th Cir. 2007). Additionally , although the notice of appea l states Porter appe als the district court’ s J uly 29, 2010, order

denying his motion to alter or a mend the judgment, Porter does not a ddress this order in his brief. Ac cording ly , Porter aba ndoned any

issues relating

to the J uly

29, 2010, order . See id. We reviewa district cour t’s grant of summar

y judgme nt de novo . W

eek s v. Harden M

fg. 2 Corp. , 291 F.3d 1307, 1311 ( 11th Cir. 2002). We view the re cord a nd make a ll reasona

ble infere nces in the light most favorable to the non-movingparty . Id . Summary judgme nt is appropriate if the e vidence shows “that ther e is no g enuine issue a s to any materia l fac t and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of la

w.” F ed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). 2I.

Po rte r fi rs t ar gu es th e d is tri ctco urt erredby gran ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t t o ACIPC O onhi s ra ce an d a ge di sc riminat io n c la im s. He cl ai m s h is supe rio r qu al ifi cat io ns sh ows ACIPCO’s l eg it im at e rea so n fo r fai li ng to pro m ot e h im was a pr et ex t fo r di sc riminat io n. Tit le VII pr oh ib it s an em pl oyer fro m

di sc riminat in g ag ai ns t a p ers onba se d o n t he pe rs on ’s race. 4 2 U.S.C. § 20 00 e-2 (a)( 1) . Und er 4 2 U.S.C. § 1 98 1, anem

pl oyee ha s a r ig htto be free of d is cri m in at io n b y anem pl oyer ba se d o n ra ce i n t he pe rfo rm an ce o f a co nt ract . Sim il arl y , “ [t]he ADEA m ak es it ‘unl awfu l fo r anem

pl oyer to fai l o r refu se to hi re o r to di sc harg e an y in di vi du al or ot he rwis e d is cri m in at e ag ai ns t an y in di vi du al with re sp ectto hi s co m pe ns at io n, te rm s, co nd it io ns , or p riv il eg es of e m pl oym en t, b ecau se of s uc h i nd iv idua l’s ag e.’” Ch ap man v. AI Tra ns p. , 22 9 F .3d10 12 , 10 24 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ) ( en ba nc ) (quo ti ng 29 U.S.C. § 6 23 (a)( 1) ). The el em en ts to est ab li sh anem pl oym en t di sc riminat io n c la im

un de r § 1 98 1 a ndth e ADEA are th e sa m e as th os e requi red un de r Tit le VII. How ard v . BP O il Co . , 32 F.3d52 0, 5 24 n.2 (11 th Cir . 19 94 ) (Sec ti on 19 81 cla im s) ; Ch ap man , 22 9 F .3dat 1 02 4 (ADEA cl ai m s) . Bec au se , forpu rp os es of s umm ary jud gm en t, the di st ric t co urt co nc lu de d Po rte r es tabl is he d a pr ima fa ci e cas e und er b oth Ti tl e VII an d the ADEA andth at ACIPC O art ic ul at eda le gi ti m at e, no n- di sc riminat ory reas on forde nyin g P orte r th e 3pr om ot io n, Po rte r ha d t o s ho w th e p ro ffer edreas on was m ere p ret ex t fo r rac e o r

ag e d is cri m in at io n. See Bro ok s v. C nt y. Co mm’rs of

Jef fe rs on Cn ty ., Ala. , 44 6 F.3 d 1 16 0, 1 16 2 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) ; Ch ap man , 22 9 F .3dat 1 02 4. To sh ow p ret ex t, Po rte r ha d t o d em on st rat e “ su chweakne ss es , im pl au si bi li ti es , in co ns is te nc ie s, in co he ren ci es , or c on tra di ct io ns in[ACIPC O’ s] pro ffer edleg it im at e rea so ns forit s act io n tha t a r eas on ab le factfin de r co ul d fi ndth em un worth y

of c red en ce.” Co mbs v. Pla nt at io n Pa tt erns , 10 6 F .3d15 19 , 15 38 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ). He co ul d n ot

“ reca st[ACIPC O’ s] pro ffer edno nd is cri m in at ory reas on s o r subs ti tu te hi s b us in es s jud gm en t fo r th atof [ ACIPC O] . Prov id edth atth e p ro ffer edreas on [was ] on e th at m ig htm ot iv at e a rea so nabl e em pl oyer, [Po rte r ha d t o] m eetth atreas on he adon an d re bu t i t . . . .” Ch ap man , 22 9 F .3dat 1 03 0. Thus , to av oi d s umm ary jud gm en t, Po rte r ha d t o p ro du ce s uf fic ie ntev id en ce t o re bu t ea chof AC IPCO’s pr of fere d l eg it im at e, no nd is cri m in at ory reas on s. Se e id. at 1 03 7. Furth erm or e, fed eral co urts do no t s it“ as a supe r-p ers on ne l d ep artm en t tha t reex am in es anen ti ty’ s b us in es s d eci si on s . . . .” Elr od v. Se ar s, Ro eb uc k &Co . , 93 9 F .2d14 66 , 14 70 (11 th Cir . 19 91 ). Dis parit ie s i n qua li fic at io ns “ m us t b e o f su chweig htan d s ig ni fic an ce tha t n o re as on ab le pe rs on , inth e ex erci se of im pa rti al jud gm en t, co ul d h av e ch os enth e can di da te sel ect edov er the pl ai nt iff for th e job inqu es ti on .” Coo pe r v. S ou th ern C

o. , 39 0 F .3d69 5, 7 32 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ), 4ov erru le d i n p arton ot he r gr ou nd s, Ash v. Tys on Foo ds , 54 6 U.S. 4 54 , 12 6 S .Ct.

11 95 (20 06 ). The di stric t co urt d idno t err in co nc lu di ng Po rte r fai le d t o e st ab li sh ACIPC O’ s re as on forpro m ot in g t he ot he r can di da te was p ret ex t fo r rac e o r ag e di sc riminat io n. Al th ou gh ACIPCO’s re as on for pro m ot in g t he ot he r can di da te —h is supe rio r in te rv ie w per fo rm an ce—was subjec ti ve , “ subjec ti ve reas on s ar e n otth e red -h ead edst ep ch il dr enof p ro ffer edno nd is cri m in at ory ex pl an at io ns forem

pl oym en t d eci si on s.” Ch ap man , 22 9 F .3dat 1 03 4. Furth erm or e, Po rte r fai le d t o i de nt ify a di sp ari ty in qua li fic at io ns su chth atno reas on ab le pe rs on , inth e ex erci se of i m pa rti al jud gm en t, wo ul d h av e p ro m ot edth e ot he r can di da te ov er h im . Se e Co op er , 39 0 F .3dat 7 32 . Alth ou gh Po rte r ha d m or e se ni or it y

an d e xp eri en ce, h e fai le d t o re bu t o r ev enad dr es s the ot he r can di da te ’s id en ti fie d s tre ng th s i n t he ot he r di m en si on s o n wh ic h ACI PCO rel ie d. Acco rd in gl y , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err in gra nt in g s umm ary jud gm en t fo r ACIPC O onPo rte r’s race an d a ge di sc riminat io n c la im s. II. Po rte r al so arg ue s the di st ric t co urt erredby find in g h is pro te ct edco nduc t was to o t em

po ral ly rem ot e fro m

ACIPCO’s al le ge d re ta li at io n. Tit le VII pr oh ib it s anem pl oyer’s ret al ia ti ng ag ai ns t an em pl oyee fo r op po si ng anun la wfu l 5em

pl oym en t p ract ic e. Se e Bur li ng to n N . an d S an ta Fe Ry. Co. v. Whit e , 54 8 U.S. 53 , 59 , 12 6 S . Ct. 2 40 5, 2 41 0 (2 00 6) . A race-b as edret al ia ti oncla im is als o co gn iz ab le un de r 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 1. CBOCS W es t, In c. v. Hump hr ies , 55 3 U.S. 44 2, 4 51 , 12 8 S .Ct. 1 95 1, 1 95 8 (2 00 8) . To es tabl is h aTit le VII or§ 1 98 1 ret al ia ti on cla im

ba se d o n c irc um st an ti al ev id en ce, the pl ai nt iff m us t s ho w: (1 ) he en ga ge d i n s ta tu to ril y

pro te ct edex pr es si on ; (2 ) he su ffer edanadve rs e em pl oym en t ac ti on ; an d (3 ) th ere i s a c au sa l co nn ect io n b etweenth e two ev en ts . Se e Cr aw fo rd v. Ca rr ol l , 52 9 F .3d96 1, 9 70 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ); se e a ls o Go ld smi th v. Bag byElev at or

Co ., Inc . , 51 3 F .3d12 61 , 12 77 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (ap pl y in g t he sa m e th ree- pa rt t es t t o re ta li at io n c la im s u nd er § 19 81 an d Ti tl e VII). The di stric t co urt co nc lu de d P orte r es tabl is he d t he fir stele m en t o f th e pr ima fa ci e cas e b y

su in g ACI PCO, fi li ng EEOC com pl ai nt s, an d c om

pl ai ni ng ab ou t h is 19 98 pe rfo rm an ce ev al ua ti on . Port er m etth e se co ndele m en t o f th e pr ima fa ci e cas e b y sh owi ng ACIPCO fa il edto pro m ot e h im . To es tabl is h c au sa ti on , Porte r ha d t o s ho w th e al le ge d re ta li at orwas a ware of hi s “pr ot ect edact iv it y ” an d “ th e p ro te ct edact iv it y an d t he adve rs e act io n wer e no t wh ol ly unr el at ed .” Gup ta v. Fla . Bd. of Rege nt s , 21 2 F .3d57 1, 5 90 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ), ab ro ga te d o n o th er gr ou nd s b y Bur li ng to n N

. , 54 8 U.S. at68 , 12 6 S .Ct. at 24 15 . Abs en t ad di ti on al ev id en ce o f cau sa ti on , “m ere t em po ral pro xi mit y

be twee n 6[] kno wled ge of p ro te ct edact iv it y an d a n a dv ers e [] acti on [] m us t b e v ery cl os e.” Higdo n v . Jac ks on , 39 3 F .3d12 11 , 12 20 (11 thCir . 20 04 ). “ If the re i s a s ub st an ti al de la y be twee n t he pro te ct edex pr es si on an d t he adve rs e act io n i n t he ab se nc e o f ot he r ev id en ce t en di ng to sh ow caus at io n, the co m pl ai ntof r et al ia ti on fai ls as a m at te r of law.” Id . Fin al ly, as with adi sc riminat io n c la im , if the pl ai nt iff es tabl is he s a pr ima fa ci e cas e o f ret al iati on an d t he em pl oyer pro du ces a le gi ti m at e, no n- ret al iato ry reas on forit s ac ti on s, the pl ai nt iff m us t o fferev id en ce fro m whi cha jury m ay

co nc lu de th atth e p ro ffer edreas on is “ a p ret ex tu al rus e fo r ret al ia ti on .” Se e Far le

y v. Na ti on wi de Mut . Ins . Co. , 19 7 F .3d13 22 , 13 37 (11 th Ci r. 19 99 ). Inth is cas e, no juro r co ul d re as on ab ly infe r cau sa ti on gi ve n t he ten -y ear in te rlu de be twee n P orte r’s m os t re cen t co m pl ai ntan d ACI PCO’s fai lu re t o pr om ot e h im . Se e Higdo n , 39 3 F .3dat 1 22 0- 21 (th ree m on th s t oo rem ot e to in fer cau sa ti on ). Furth erm or e, as di sc us se d abo ve , Porte r fai le d t o s ho w hi s qu al ifi cat io ns were s o s up eri orto th e o th er ca nd id at e’s qu al ifi cat io n tha t n o reas on ab le pe rs on wou ldha ve ch os enth e o th er cand id at e o ve r Po rte r. Thu s, Po rte r fai le d t o s ho w th atACIPCO’s l eg it im at e rea so n fo r fai li ng to pro m ot e h im was pre te xtto ret al ia te ag ai ns t h im forhi s p rev io us laws ui ts an d EEOC co m pl ai nt s. Fi na ll y , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err in reject in g P orte r’s un supp orte d 7al le ga ti on th atACIPCO re ta li at edag ai ns t h im forfil in g t he pre se ntlaws ui t b y th reat en in g t o c ol le cta pe rs on al de btth atACIPCO h adwrit te n o ff i n 1 99 5. As th e d is tri ctco urt n ot ed , Porte r co ul d n otest ab li sh a pr ima fa ci e cas e o f ret al ia ti on m erel y by alle gi ng ina br ie f—wi th ou t an y ba si s i n the reco rd

—tha t ACI PCO ret al ia te d a ga in sthi m

by atte m pt in g t o c ol le cta fo rg iv ende bt . Accor di ng ly, th e di st ric t co urt d idno t err in gra nt in g s umm ary jud gm en t fo r ACIPC O onPo rte r’s ret al ia ti on cla im . AFFIRMED.

8