FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T NOVEMB ER 22, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBL I SH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 11 48 7

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 4 :0 7- cv -0 01 86 -RDP ANNIE HOW ELL, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff - App el le e, vers us COMP ASS GROUP, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt , MORR ISON MANAGEMENT SPECIALISTS, INC., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt- App el la nt .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 11 68 6

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 4 :0 7- cv -0 01 86 -RDP ANNIE HOW ELL, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff - App el la nt , vers usCOMP ASS GROUP,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt , MORR ISON MANAGEMENT SPECIALISTS, INC., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt- App el le e.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (No ve m be r 22 , 20 11 ) Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, CARNES, Ci rcu itJu dg e, an d S ANDS, Dis tri ct * Ju dg e. PER CURI AM: Ann ie Howel l fi le d alaws ui t ag ai ns t h er em pl oyer, Mo rri so n M an ag em en t Sp eci al is ts , Inc ., clai m in g t ha t M orris on di sc riminat edag ai ns t h er b as edon he r race , whi ch is Afric an -Am eri can , andhe r ag e, whi ch was fi fty-fou r atth atti m e. Howel l al so cla im edth atMo rri so n re ta li at edag ai ns t h er af te r sh e fi le d ach arg e with t he Equ al Em

pl oym en t Op po rtu ni ty Comm is si on . She all eg edvi ol at io ns of 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 s eq .; 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 81 ; the Age Di sc riminat io n i n Em pl oym en t Actof 1 96 7, 2 9 U.S.C. § 62 1 e t
Honora ble W. L ouis Sands, United States District J udg e for the Middle District of * Geor g ia, sitting by

designation. 2se q.; an d Al ab am a st at e la w.

The di stric t co urt g ran te d s umm ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of Mo rri so n o n Howel l’s ag e an d ra ce d is cri m in at io n c la im s. Her re ta li at io n c la im , ho wev er, wen t to tri al an d t he jury returne d ave rd ic t i n h er favo r. The ju ry award edHowel l $5 0,0 00 inco m

pe ns at ory dam ag es , andth e d is tri ctco urt en te redjud gm en t o n t he
ve rd ic t. Mo rri so n app eal s t ha t ju dg m en t, co nt en di ng itsh ou ldha ve be enaward ed jud gm en t as a m at te r of

law o r a n ew tr ia l. Itals o c ha ll en ge s an ev id en ti ary ru li ng . Howel l cr os s- ap pe al s t he di st ric t co urt’s d eci si on gra nt in g s umm ary jud gm en t ag ai ns t h er o n t he di sc riminat io n c la im s an d i ts jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w aga in sthe r on pu ni ti ve da m ag es . W e wil l ad dr es s t he pa rti es ’ co nt en ti on s i n th e o rd er o f th e p ro ceed in gs inth e d is tri ctco urt, b eg in ni ng with Ho well ’s arg um en ts ab ou t wh y

th e d is tri ctco urt s ho ul d h av e d en ie d s umm ary jud gm en t o n he r di sc riminat io n c la im s. 1 I. Howel l co nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredby gran ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t in fav orof M orris on on he r ag e an d ra ce d is cri m in at io n c la im s. Th e co urt In the statement of issues se ction of her brief to this Court, Howell asse rts that she is also 1 challeng ing the district court’s grant of summar y judgme nt on her c laims based on state la w, but she make s no argument about those cla ims, so they arewaived. See United States v. Gupta, 463 F.3d 1182, 1195 ( 11th Cir. 2006) (“We may decline to a ddress a

n argument wher e a pa

rty fails to provide a rguments on the merits of an issue in its initial or reply brief. Without such argument the issue is deeme d waived.” ). 3co nc lu de d t ha t Ho well co ul d n otest ab li sh a pr im a fac ie cas e o f di sc riminat io n

ba se d o n M orris on ’s dec is io n i n 2 00 6 t o p ro m ot e a y ou ng er, wh it e em pl oyee to an Ass is ta ntDire ct orpo si ti on be cau se Howel l n ev er ap pl ie d fo r th atpo si ti on . “ W e rev ie w de n ov o adi st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t, ap pl y in g t he same le ga l s tand ard s as th e d is tri ctco urt.” Al va rez v . Royal Atl . Deve lo pe rs , Inc ., 61 0 F.3 d 1 25 3, 1 26 3– 64 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). To es tabl is h h er d is cri m in at ory fai lu re t o p ro m ot e cl ai m s, Ho well ha d t o sh ow t ha t s he ap pl ie d fo r th e 2 00 6 As si st an t Di rect orjob op en in g. Sh e d idno t. As the di st ric t co urt re co gn iz ed , Howel l g av e so m e co nf li ct in g t es ti m on y

ab ou t whe th er s he kn ew th atth e 2 00 6 jo b o pe ni ng was p os te d o n t he in te rn et , bu t the re is no di sp ut e th atMo rri so n p os te d jo bs on th e in te rn et , th e p ers on who go t the 20 06 Ass is ta ntDire ct orpo si ti onap pl ie d fo r th atjob on th e in te rn et , andHowel l di d n otap pl y

on th e in te rn etforit
. Howel l d idap pl y on li ne fora 20 07 Ass is ta nt 2 Dire ct orjob op en in g a nddi d n otge t tha t p ro m ot io n, b utth atis th e subjec t o f a
se pa rat e la wsu itHowel l h as bro ug htag ai ns t M orris on . W e h av e ex pl ai ne d tha t fo r a Tit le VII em pl oym en t d is cri m in at io n c la im :

One of Howell’s own e x hibits from trial, a job description for the Assistant Direc tor 2 position, shows that the job was posted on theinternet in 2006. The bottom of the printed copy shows the web a ddress a

nd a date of 4/5/2006. There is an imag e of a box that appea

rs to be something w ebsite user s can c lick that say s “Apply Now.” 4Inord er t o e st ab li sha pr im a fac ie cas e, an d t hu s ra is e anin fere nc e o f

di sc riminat ory

in te nt , th e p la in ti ff m

us t d em on st rat e o nl y

th at : (i ) he orsh e b el on ge d t o apro te ct edcla ss ; (i i) h e o r sh e was qu al ifi edfor an d app li edfora po si ti on th atth e em pl oyer was s eek in g t o fi ll ; (i ii ) de sp it e qua li fic at io ns , he o r sh e was reject ed ; an d (i v) th e p os it io n was fil le d wi th anin di vi du al ou ts id e th e p ro te ct edcla ss . Ves se ls v. At la nt a In de p. Sc h. Sys., 40 8 F .3d76 3, 7 68 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (ci ta ti on an d fo otno te om it te d; em ph as is ad de d) . W e h av e qua li fie d t he ap pl ic at io n requi rem en t wi th anex cep ti on : “ [W] he re an em pl oyer do es no t fo rm al ly
an no un ce a p os it io n, b utrathe r us es in fo rm al an d s ub jecti ve pro cedur es to id en ti fy
a can di da te , a pl ai nt iff

ne edno t s ho w un de r th e se co ndpro ng th athe ap pl ie d fo r th e p os it io n— on ly tha t the em pl oyer ha d s om e rea so n t o c on si de r hi m forth e po st .” Id . Here, ho wev er, Mo rri so n u se d t he in te rn etto form al ly ann ou nc e th e 20 06 Ass is ta ntDire ct orpo si ti on . Howel l t es ti fie d re pe at ed ly in h er d ep os it io n 3 th atMo rri so n p os te d jo bs on th e in te rn et . She als o t es ti fie d t ha t s he kn ew ho w acce ss th e job po st in gs th ro ug h M orris on ’s webs it e. The p ers on who was a ward ed th e job , Tanya W il li am so n, ap pl ie d fo r iton li ne . Howel l ar gu es th atsh e was no t t ol d the job was p os te d o n t he in te rn etan d th atW il li am so n was to ldab ou t i t, b utpo st in gs on th e in te rn etare av ai labl e fo r Be fore Morrison sought to fill the 2006 Assistant Direc tor position, Howell mentioned 3 to her for mer a nd prese nt supervisors and to the Reg ional Direc tor that she wa s interested in that job, but when it beca

me ava ilable and wa s posted online, she did not apply . Not only that, but in her 2006 e valuation in answe r to the question, “Doe s your cur rent job satisfy

your aspirations? ,” she answe red: “ Yes.” 5an y on e to see , andHowel l ad m it s t ha t s he ha d a cces s t o t he in te rn etpo st in gs .

Howel l as se rts inhe r br ie f to th is Co urt tha t the “ se cretpo st in g” on th e in te rn et

“ de vi at edfro m

th e n orm al pro cedur e o f po st in g a ll job s atth e ti m e cl oc k,” bu t Howel l t es ti fie d i n h er d ep os it io n t ha t “ th ey ne ve r ha ve po st edjob s i n t he de pa rtment, o n t he bu ll et in bo ardwher e p eo pl e can—the ass oc ia te s can v ie w th em an d app ly for the m . . . . . Never.” Howel l co ul d h av e—b utdi d n ot—ac ces s t he 20 06 Ass is tantDire ct orjob op en in g wh enitwas p os te d t o t he in te rn et . She als o c ou ldha ve —b utdi d
no t— ap pl y

forth e job . The fac t tha t Ho well di d n otge t a jo b fo r whi chsh e d id
no t ap pl y is no t ev id en ce o f di sc riminat io n. Th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err by gr an ti ng su m

m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of Mo rri so n o n Ho well ’s Titl e VII rac e di sc riminat io n c la im
. As fo r he r ADEA age d is cri m in at io n c la im ba se d o n fa il ur e to pro m ot e, Howel l h adto sh ow t he fol lo win g: (1) sh e was a m em be r of a pr ot ect edag e gr oup; (2) sh e was subjec t t o a dv ers e em pl oym en t ac ti on ; (3 ) a s ub st an ti al ly y ou ng er p ers on fil le d t he po si ti on th atsh e was see ki ng ; an d (4 ) sh e was qu al ifi ed to do th e job forwhi ch sh e was reject ed . See Bo gl e v . Oran ge Cn ty. Bd . of C nt y . Co m m ’rs, 16 2 F .3d65 3, 6 56 –5 7 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 8) . For t he same reaso ns th atsh e co ul d n otest ab li sh a ge nu in e is su e o f m at eri al facton he r Tit le VII cl ai m , her 6ADEA clai m als o fa il s. Be cau se Howel l d idno t ap pl y forth e 2 00 6 As si st an t Man ag er p os it io n, s he can no t es tabl is h tha t h er em pl oyer di sc riminat edag ai ns t h er by no t h iri ng he r fo r it . The d is tri ctco urt d idno t err by gran ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of

Mo rri so n o n Ho well ’s ADEA cl ai m .

II. Abo utHowel l’s re ta li at io n c la im , whi ch wentto tri al an d re su lt edin jud gm en t i n h er fa vo r, Mo rri so n c on te nd s t ha t the di stric t co urt erredby den y in g it s m ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of law an d i ts m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l. To m ak e a p rima facie sh owi ng of r et al ia ti on un de r Tit le VII, th e p la in ti ff m us t s ho w: (1 ) th atsh e en ga ge d i n s ta tu to ril y pro te ct edco nduc t; (2) th atsh e su ffer eda m at eri al ly adve rs e act io n t ha t m ig hthave di ss ua de d areas on ab le work er fro m m ak in g a ch arg e o f di sc riminat io n; an d (3 ) th atth ere i s s om e cau sa l re la ti on sh ip be twee n th e two ev en ts . See Alv arez , 61 0 F .3dat 1 26 8; see als o B ur li ng to n N. & Sa nt a Fe Ry . Co. v . Whi te , 54 8 U.S. 5 3, 6 8, 1 26 S.Ct . 24 05 , 24 15 (20 06 ). Mo rri so n a rg ue s th atHowel l fa il edto sh ow a m at eri al ly adv ers e act io n. W e rev ie w de n ov o t he di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f a m ot io n fo r a ren ewed jud gm en t as a m at te r of

law. Eti en ne v. In te r-Cn ty. Sec. Co rp ., 17 3 F .3d13 72 , 13 74 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). “ If the fact s an d i nf eren ces ov erwh el m in gl y

fav oron e pa rty, suc h t ha t re as on ab le pe op le co ul d o nl y arri ve at o ne ve rd ic t, the n t he m ot io n 7sh ou ldha ve be engra nt ed .” Id .; s ee al so My ers v. To oJ ay ’s Mg m t. Co rp ., 64 0 F.3 d 1 27 8, 1 28 7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 1) (“ [A] mot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of law
m ay be grant edon ly if aft er ex am in in g a ll ev id en ce i n ali gh t m os t favo rab le to th e no n- m ov in g p arty

we de te rm in e th ere i s n o l eg al ly suf fic ie ntev id en ti ary ba si s fo r a rea so nabl e jury to fi ndfor th atpa rty.” (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) ). As fo r cred ib il it y

de te rm in at io ns , “ [i]t i s t he jury’ s t as k—no t o ur s—to weig h c on fli ct in g ev id en ce an d i nf

eren ces , andde te rm in e th e cre di bi li ty of wit ne ss es .” Bro ch u v . Ci ty of Ri vi era B each , 30 4 F .3d11 44 , 11 54 –5 5 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 2) (qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) ; s ee al so Cle ve la ndv. Ho m e Sh op pi ng Netwo rk , Inc ., 36 9 F .3d11 89 , 11 93 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (“ ‘Credi bi li ty det erm in at io ns , th e wei gh in g o f th e ev id en ce, an d t he dra win g o f le gi ti m at e in fere nc es fro m th e fac ts are jury

fun ct io ns , no t th os e o f a jud ge .’ ” (quo ti ng Reev es v. Sa nd ers onPlu m bi ng Pro ds ., 53 0 U.S. 1 33 , 15 0, 1 20 S.Ct . 20 97 , 21 10 (20 00 ))). We revi ew fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n t he di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f a m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l. Bro ch u, 3 04 F.3dat 1 15 5. Mo rri so n a ss ert s t ha t, as a m at te r of law, p ut ti ng Howel l o n a“ Perf orm an ce Im pr ov em en t Pl an ” was no t a m at eri al ly adv ers e act io n. Itarg ue s t ha t Ho well te st ifi edon ly abo utho w th e Per fo rm an ce Im pr ov em en t Pl anm ad e h er s ub jecti ve ly feel , whi ch is no t en ou gh to sh ow a m at eri al ly adv ers e act io n t ha t co ul d d is su ad e a reas on ab le em

pl oyee fro m

m ak in g ach arg e o f di sc riminat io n.

8Howel l u ne qu iv oc al ly test ifi edth atsh e was si ng le d o utforth e Per fo rm an ce

Im pr ov em en t Pl an , andsh e co ns id ereditto be a di sc ip li na ry act io n t ak enag ai ns t he r, an d i t m ad e h er wan t t o re ti re b ecau se sh e was so em ba rras se d abo utit : Q. Didy oukn ow o f an y

ot he r m an ag er tha t was pl acedon a pe rfo rm an ce p la n? A. No, m a’am . I was the on ly one
. Q. Didy ouco ns id er the pe rfo rm an ce p la n adi sc ip li na ry act io n? A. Yes, m a’am , I di d. Q. Why? A. Becau se I was the on ly one th at[th e Dir ect orof F oo d S erv ic es ] pu t o n t he re. I was th e o nl y on e th atha d [a ] se t t im e sc he du le . I was th e o nl y on e th athe tre at edth e way he tre at edm e. I was t he on ly one th atdi dn ’t hav e a co m

pu te r to workwith.
* * * A. . . . After I was p utonth e p erfo rm an ce i m pr ov em en t pl an , I want edto ret ire
. Q. Andwhy? A. Becau se itwas ju stto o e m ba rras s[ in g] to kn ow t ha t my 37 y ears , th atI ha d t o b e p uton—I was jus t em ba rras se d. An d I wan te d t o g etou t o f th ere. As fo r wha t co ns ti tu te s a m at eri al ly adv ers e act io n, the di st ric t co urt co rrec tl y in st ru ct edth e jury onth e Bu rli ng to n re as on ab le em pl oyee st an da rdas fo ll ows : 9Und er the law ap pl ic ab le to th is cas e, anadve rs e em pl oym en t ac ti on is any act io n wh ic h i s m at eri al ly adv ers e to anem pl oyee su ch th atit co ul d d is su ad e a rea so nabl e em pl oyee fro m

m ak in g ach arg e o f di sc riminat io n. Whethe r a p art ic ul ar ac ti on is m at eri al ly adv ers e is to be jud ge d fr om

th e p ers pe ct iv e o f a rea so nabl e em pl oyee in th e pl ai nt iff’s po si ti on co ns id eri ng all of t he cir cu m st an ces . The jury was als o i ns tru ct edth atwhet he r anact io n i s m at eri al ly adv ers e was a qu es ti on of f

actfor itto de ci de an d t ha t i t co ul d c on si de r se ve ral po ss ib le act io ns to de te rm in e if

any of t he m were m at eri al ly adv ers e: Youwil l h av e a fo rm

of v erd ic t wi th y outh atis a se rie s o f qu es ti on s, an d i t i n e ffec t fo ll ows th e p at te rnof wh atI ha ve jus t d is cu ss edwith y ou . The fi rs t que st io n i s t hi s: “ Do you f in d t ha t the pl ai nt iff

pro ve d by a prep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce tha t the de fen da ntco m m it te d any adve rs e em

pl oym en t ac ti on s ag ai ns t the pl ai nt iff ”; th atis , an a dv ers e em pl oym en t ac ti on as I di sc us se d i t an d, as I in di cat ed , th es e po ss ib il it ie s fo r y outo co ns id er: whet he r th e p erfo rm an ce im pr ov em en t p la n was anadve rs e act io n, wh ethe r th ere was an adve rs e act io n re su lt in g fr om so m e em pl oym en t en vi ro nm en t ch an ge , whe th er the re was a do wng rad e o f a p erfo rm an ce ev al ua ti on ba se d o n ret al ia ti on , or wh ethe r th ere was fai lu re t o g iv e a rai se of agre at er am ou nt . Tho se are the area s t ha t you c anco ns id er. Mo rri so n d idno t o bjec t t o t ho se in st ru ct io ns . Dur in g d el ib erat io ns th e jury ask ed , “ Can y outel l u s wh atth e ad ve rs e act io ns were? ” The co urt re ferr edth e jury to t he in st ru ct io ns . In i ts ve rd ic t the jury spe ci fie d t ha t i t h adfou ndth es e ad ve rs e act io ns : (1 ) th e Per fo rm an ce Im

pr ov em en t Pl anwas i so la te d ju stth e p la in ti ff as di sc ip li na ry

act io n; (2) Ass oc ia te Perfo rm an ce Ap pr ai sa l l owe red fro m 3.8 to 1.9 aft er an EEOC cha rg e; (3) Pla in ti ff u np ro m ot ab le du e 10to di sc ip li na ry act io n b y co m pany (Jan . 07 ) em ai l. 4 W e p res um e th atjuri es fol lo w th ei r in st ru ct io ns . Uni te d S ta te s v . Town se nd , 63 0 F .3d10 03 , 10 13 –1 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 1) . Thu s, we p res um e th atth e jury app li edth e Bu rli ng to n re as on ab le em pl oyee st an da rdto th e ev id en ce an d de ci de d t ha t a r eas on ab le em pl oyee wou ldbe di ss ua de d fr om m ak in g ach arg e o f di sc riminat io n b as edonth e im pl em en ta ti onof t he Perfo rm an ce Im pr ov em en t Pl an un de r th e fac ts of t hi s ca se . The jury was fr ee t o fi ndth atth e Per fo rm an ce Im pr ov em en t Pl anam ou nt edto a di sc ip li na ry act io n e ve n t ho ug h M orris on ’s witne ss es tes ti fie d t ha t i t d idno t. Itis th e jury’ s jo b, n otou rs , to m ak e cre di bi li ty de te rm in at io ns . Bro ch u, 3 04 F.3dat 1 15 4– 55 . Bec au se th atfin di ng was e no ug h t o s up po rt t he jury’ s co nc lu si on th atan adve rs e act io n was tak enag ai ns t Ho well , we nee d n otad dr es s t he ot he r two fin di ng s ab ou t the “ Ass oc ia te Perfo rm an ce Ap pr ai sa l” an d t he “ (J an . 07 ) em ai l.” The di st ric t co urt i ns tru ct edth e jury tha t “ whe th er the pe rfo rm an ce i m pr ov em en t pl anwas a n a dv ers e act io n” was o ne fro m am on g s ev eral po ss ib le adve rs e act io ns th atitco ul d c on si de r. The co urt as ke d t he jury whe th er i t fo un d “ th atth e p la in ti ff

Although the third finding is ambiguous, it appe ars f rom the par

ties’ re prese ntations at 4 oral a rgument and this Court’s review of the re cord that the jury ’s findingwas ba sed on copie s of two e-ma il messag es date d J anuar y 2007 that wer e used a

t trial to refr esh a w itness’ rec ollection but were not admitted into evidence. 11pr ov edby a prep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce tha t the de fen da ntco m m it te d a ny adve rs e em

pl oym en t ac ti on s ag ai ns t the pl ai nt iff ,” an d i t l is te d s ev eral

“po ss ib il it ie s” forth e jury to “ co ns id er.” (e m ph as is ad de d.) As we ha ve alr eady m en ti on ed , Mo rri so n d idno t o bjec t t o t ho se in st ru ct io ns . Bec au se th e jury fou ndth atth e Per fo rm an ce Im pr ov em en t Pl anwas

“ is ol at ed ” an d was di rect edat Ho well alo ne as a“ di sc ip li na ry act io n,” we can no t sa y th atvi ewin g “ al l ev id en ce i n ali gh t m os t fa vo rab le to [Howe ll ] . . . the re i s n o le ga ll y su ffi ci en t ev id en ti ary ba si s fo r a rea so nabl e jury to fi nd ” fo r he r on he r ret al ia ti on cla im . My ers , 64 0 F .3dat 1 28 7 (quo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d) . The fac ts an d i nf eren ces do no t s o o ve rwh el m in gl y fav orMo rri so n t ha t the on ly verd ic t reas on ab le pe op le co ul d re achwas o ne for Mo rri so n b as edon th e m at eri al ly adve rs e act io n i ss ue . See Eti en ne , 17 3 F .3dat 1 37 4. Th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err by den y in g M orris on ’s m ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of law, an d fo r th e sa m e reas on s, i t d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n b y de nyin g M orris on ’s m ot io n i n t he al te rn at iv e fo r a n ew tr ia l. III. Mo rri so n a ls o c on te nd s t ha t the di stric t co urt erredby allo win g t es ti m on y ab ou t fa ct s re la te d t o a no th er l aws ui t Ho well bro ug htag ai ns t i t b as edon Mo rri so n’s d eci si onno t t o p ro m ot e h er t o the Ass is ta ntDire ct orpo si ti on th at 12be cam e av ai labl e in20 07 . This is su e in vo lv es tes ti m on y ab ou t a c on ve rs at io n Howel l al le ge dl y

ha d wi th Ro b C oo pe rm an , a recr ui te r fo r Mo rri so n, wh ensh e was ap pl y in g fo r th e Ass is ta ntDire ct orpo si ti on in20 07 . Thi s was Howel l’s t es ti m on y ab ou t tha t co nv ers at io n o n c ro ss -ex am in at io n: A. See, I m is un de rs to odMr. Co op erm anwhen he ask edm e, “ Hav e y ouha d awrit e-up i n t he las t s ix m on th s? ” I sa idy es . Andth enI ha d t o g o b ackan d s ay , “ Mr. Co op erm an , I’ m so rry . I m ean t I ha ve n’t h adon e—i t’s b een ov er a year. I hav en ’t hadon e.” He s ai d, “ W el l, I’m

so rry . Youjus t m es se d yours el f up .” Q. [Cou ns el for

Mo rri so n] Bu t you t ol d h im th aty ouha dn ’t bee n writ te n up i n s ix m on th s? A. I m ad e a m is ta ke , andI to ldhi m th at , to o. * * * Q. Thaty ouha d n otbe enwrit te n up wi th in th e si x m on th s o f Ja nu ary of ‘ 07 . A. Yes, m a’am
. Howel l’s re ta li at io n c la im ba se d o n n otrece iv in g the 20 07 pro m ot io n i s t he
subjec t o f a s ep arat e lawsu it . Morris on arg ue s tha t the ev id en ce ab ou t i t in flu en cedth e jury to fi ndth atHowel l was “unpr om ot ab le ” as a res ul t o f th e co m pa ny’ s d is ci pl in ary act io ns , whi ch was t he th irdsp eci fic adve rs e act io n the jury fou nd
. W e rev ie w evi de nt ia ry

rul in gs forab us e o f di sc ret io n a ndrev ers e fo r a n ew

13tri al on ly whe re the re i s s ub st an ti al pre jud ic e. Bro ch u, 3 04 F.3dat 1 15 5. Fo r th e reas on s we h av e al read y

di sc us se d, the jury’ s fi nd in g abo utth e Per fo rm an ce Im pr ov em en t Pl an , whi ch was i m pl em en te d i n 2 00 6, was en ou gh to supp ort i ts co nc lu si on th atth ere was anadve rs e act io n t ak enag ai ns t Ho well th atwou ldha ve di ss ua de d areas on ab le em pl oyee fro m

m ak in g ach arg e o f di sc riminat io n. Th us , an y ad di ti on al fin di ng th e jury m ad e ab ou t Ho well be in g “ unpr om ot ab le ” in 20 07 di d n otsubs ta nt ia ll y

pre jud ic e Mo rri so n.

IV. Fi na ll y , Howel l co nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredby gran ti ng jud gm en t as a m atte r of

law t o M orris on onhe r pu ni ti ve da m ag es cla im . App lying Dud le y v. Wal-M artSto res , Inc ., 16 6 F .3d13 17 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ), th e d is tri ctco urt de te rm in edth atth e Dir ect orof F oo d S erv ic es , Andy Carm ic ha el , was n othi gh
en ou ghup th e co rp or at e la dd er t o i m pu te li ab il it y

forhi s ac ti on s t o the co m pa ny. Howel l ar gu es th atou r Dud le y de ci si on is no lo ng er g oo d l aw aft er the Supr em e Co urt i ss ue d Ko ls ta d v . Am eri can Dent al Ass ’n, 52 7 U.S. 5 26 , 11 9 S . Ct. 2 11 8 (1 99 9)
. W e rev ie w de n ov o adi st ric t co urt’s ru li ng on a m ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of law o n t he is su e o f pu ni ti ve da m ag es . See Go ld sm it h v . Bag by Eleva to r Co ., 51 3 F .3d12 61 , 12 75 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ); s ee al so Sn ap p v . Unl im it edCo nc ep ts , 14In c., 20 8 F .3d92 8, 9 32 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ) (“ W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f

de fen da nt s’ m ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of law o n t he is su e o f pu ni ti ve da m ag es de no vo .”). InDud le y

we he ldth ata W al -Ma rt s to re m an ag er an d aco -m an ag er were no t h ig h up e no ug h i n t he “ co rp or at e m an ag em en t h ie rarc hy” to jus ti fy im pu ti ng li ab il it y to th e co rp or at e em

pl oyer forpuni ti ve da m ag es ba se d o n t he m an ag er’s raci al di sc riminat io n a ga in stanem pl oyee. See 1 66 F.3dat 1 32 3. We reas on ed th atW al -Ma rt wa s a “ gi an t b us in es s” with “ m or e th an2,0 00 st or es .” Id
. Altho ug h t he ev id en ce s up po rte d t he jury’ s fi nd in g t ha t the st or e m an ag er an d t he
co -m an ag er h adab us edth e au th or it y W al -Mart h adde le ga te d t o the m by di sc riminat in g a ga in stth e p la in ti ff o n t he ba si s o f rac e, th ei r act s d idno t i m pu te li ab il it y to W al -Ma rt f

orpu ni ti ve da m ag es be cau se th ey were t oo lo w inth e co rp or at e h ie rarc hy. Id
. Abo utfou r m on th s af

te r th is Co urt i ss ue d t he Dud le y de ci si on , th e Supr em e Co urt h el d i n Ko ls ta d tha t fo r Tit le VII cas es , “ Pu ni ti ve da m ag es are l im it ed
. . . to cas es inwhi ch th e em

pl oyer ha s en ga ge d i n i nt en ti on al di sc riminat io n a ndha s do ne so ‘ with m al ic e o r wit h re ck le ss in di ffer en ce t o t he fed eral ly pro te ct edrig ht s of anag gr ie ve d i nd iv idua l.’” Kol st ad , 52 7 U.S. at52 9– 30 , 11 9 S .Ct a t 2 12 2 (ci ti ng 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 1a (b )(1 )). The Co urt re jecte d ast an da rdth atha d app li edin 15ou r Dud le y

de ci si on—the “ eg reg io us ” co nduc t s tand ard . See i d. at54 6, 1 19 S.Ct . at21 29 (“ [A]n em

pl oyer’s con du ctne edno t b e in de pe nd en tl y ‘ eg reg io us ’ to sa ti sf y § 1 98 1a ’s requi rem en ts fora pu ni ti ve da m ag es award , altho ug h e vi de nc e o f eg reg io us m is co nduc t m ay be us edto m eetth e p la in ti ff’s b ur de n o f pr oo f.”). Eve n a fte r Kol st ad , ho wev er, the hi gh -en ou gh -up- th e-l ad de r ru le for pu ni ti ve da m ag es setforth inDud le y is st il l b in di ng pre ced en t. Mo re tha n two y ears aft er Ko ls ta d was is su ed , th is Co urt re it erat edth e Dud le y pu ni ti ve dam ag es ru le
. See Mi ll er v . Kenwo rth of Do th an , Inc ., 27 7 F .3d12 69 , 12 79 –8 0 (1 1t h C ir. 5 20 02 ). In M il le r we fi rs t ap pl ie d Du dl ey to de te rm in e whe th er the em pl oyer ha d
co ns tru ct iv e kno wled ge of aho st il e work e nv iro nm en t tha t wo ul d ju st ify im pu ti ng li ab il it y for co m pe ns at ory da m ag es , andwe co nc lu de d t ha t i t d idha ve th at kn owl ed ge . See Mi ll er, 2 77 F.3dat 1 27 9– 80 . W e h el d t ha t the servi ce m an ag er of th e tr act or -tr ai le r de al ers hi p, wh o i n t he co m pa ny hie rarc hy was se pa rat edfro m th e o wne r an d p res id en t b y on ly one pe rs on , was h ig h e no ug h o n t he co rp or at e la dd er tha t h is no ti ce o f th e h os ti le worken vi ro nm en t s erv edas n ot ic e to th e co m pa ny. Id . at 1 27 9. Fo r th atreas on , li ab il it y was i m pu te d t o t he co m

pa ny for

We also note that Kolstad cited Dudle y with approva l for its use of the c ommon law rule 5 that ag ency

principles limit vicarious liability for punitive dama g es aw ards a g ainst employers. Kolstad, 527 U.S. at 541, 119 S. Ct. at 2127 (“This is a principle . . . that this Court historically has endor sed.”)
. 16co m

pe ns at ory da m ag es on th e p la in ti ff’s h os ti le worken vi ro nm en t cl ai m . See i d. Inth e Mi ll er d eci si on we als o app li edDud le y on th e is su e o f pu ni ti ve da m ag es , rei te rat in g t he Dud le y ho ld in g: W e h av e h el d t ha t “pu ni ti ve da m ag es wil l o rd in ari ly notbe ass es se d ag ai ns t em

pl oyers wi th on ly con st ru ct iv e kno wled ge ” o f ha ras sm en t; rathe r, pu ni ti ve da m ag es m ay on ly be co ns id eredincas es wher e th e “ di sc riminat in g e m

pl oyee was h ig h[ ] up th e co rp or at e h ie rarc hy” or whe re “ hi gh er m an ag em en t co un te na nc edor app ro ve d [h is ] be ha vi or .” Mi ll er, 2 77 F.3dat 1 28 0 (quo ti ng Dud le y , 16 6 F .3dat 1 32 3) . W e h el d i n M il le r th atth ere was no t en ou gh“ ev id en ce o n the reco rdto supp ort the ne ces sa ry fin di ng of m al ic e o r rec kl es s i nd iff eren ce b y [th e co rp or at e em

pl oyer] fo r th e fed eral rig ht s of [th e p la in ti ff] to jus ti fy

th e awardof p un it iv e d am ag es .” Id
. Inli gh t o f Mi ll er wh ic h, as we ha ve m en ti on ed , was d eci de d a fte r Kol st ad , Dud le y ’s hi gh -en ou gh -up- th e-l ad de r or“ co rp or at e h ie rarc hy” requi rem en t fo r an awardof p un it iv e d am ag es ag ai ns t a c or po rat e em pl oyer is st il l g oo d l aw an d s ti ll bi nd s t hi s C ou rt. Se e Mi ll er, 2 77 F.3dat 1 28 0. Ko ls ta d o nl y di d a way with t he eg reg io us ne ss requi rem en t fo r pu ni ti ve da m ag es . See 5 27 U.S. at 5 46 , 11 9 S . Ct. at21 29 . Rec og ni zi ng th atMi ll er was de ci de d a fte r Kol st ad , th e d is tri ctco urt co rrec tl y ap pl ie d Du dl ey

to th e und is pu te d fa ct s o f th is cas e an d c on cl ud ed , as a

17m at te r of

law, tha t Ca rm ic ha el was n othi ghen ou gh up th e co rp or at e la dd er fo r pu ni ti ve da m ag es to be award edag ai ns t M orris on . Gin a Pai ge , who work edin hu m anres ou rces forCo m pa ss Group (M orris on ’s par en t co m pa ny), tes ti fie d t ha t th e Co m pa ss Group p ur ch as edMo rri so n i n 1 99 7 o r 19 98 . Com pa ss ha s ab ou t 14 4,0 00 em

pl oyees i n t he Uni te d S ta te s, u ni on an d n on -u ni on , and36 6,0 00 in te rn at io na ll y . Morris on ha s ab ou t 2 0,0 00 em pl oyees. Th ere i s a Di rect orof Din in g S erv ic es ineach Mo rri so n F aci li ty andth ere are 4 00 or m or e fac il it ie s i n th e Uni te d S ta te s. Ca rm ic ha el was o ne of abo ut40 0 d ire ct or s i n t he Mo rri so n hi erar ch y . Fu rth erm or e, Howel l ad m it te d t ha t M orris on ha d p ol ic ie s p ro hi bi ti ng di sc riminat io n a ndha ras sm en t. Sh e u nd ers to odth atsh e h adav enue s fo r co m pl ai nt s, al th ou gh sh e d idno t u se th em , andsh e d oe s n otco nt en d t ha t an y m an ag eri al em

pl oyee ot he r th anCarm ic ha el ret al ia te d a ga in sthe r. Cf. Mi ll er, 2 77 F.3 d a t 1 28 0 (“ [E]m

pl oyers m ay

ass erta go odfai th de fen se to vi cari ou s l iabi li ty fo r pu ni ti ve da m ag es wher e th e ‘em pl oym en t d eci si on s o f m an ag eri al ag en ts . . . are c on tra ry

to th e em pl oyer’s ‘ go od -fai th effo rts to co m pl y with Ti tl e VII.’” (quo ti ng Kol st ad , 52 7 U.S. at54 5, 1 19 S.Ct . at 2 12 9) ). Howel l fa il edto sh ow t ha t Carm ic ha el was h ig h e no ug h up t he co rp or at e la dd er t o i m pu te li ab il it y

to Mo rri so n o r th atMo rri so n a ct edwith t he m al ic e o r rec kl es s i nd iff eren ce fo r 18Howel l’s fe de ral rig ht s n eces sa ry to jus ti fy anawardof p un it iv e d am ag es . V. Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, the jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ctco urt i s, i n a ll
res pe ct s, AFFIRMED.

19