### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT A ugu st 3, 20 05 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N os. 04- 1388 7 and 0 5- 1018 4 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 02-01835 -CV -A R-M LOLA HITH ON, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us TYSON FOODS, INC., Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeals fr om

the United State s District Court f o r th e N o rth e rnD i s tr i c to f

A l ab a ma

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (A ug us t 3, 200 5) Be fo re BL A CK , W IL SO N and P RY O R, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

Appellant, L ola Hithon, appeals the district court’ s grant of summ ary j udgm en t f

or T y son Fo ods, I nc . in he r em plo ym en t di sc ri m inatio n su it. H ith on sue d he r em

plo y er , T y son Fo ods, I nc . , ( “ T y son” ), f or r ac e dis cr im inatio n in violatio n of 42 U. S. C. § 198 1 for its failure to prom ote her to two diffe rent hum an re sour ce s m an ag er ia l po sit ion s. H ith on a lso c la im s th at she w as r et al iate d a ga ins t fo r he r inv olv em en t i n alaw sui t br ough t a ga ins t T y son in whic h H ith on’ s hu sband w as aparty . F ind ing no e rr or , w e af fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s r

uli ng. A . Ba ck gr ound H ith on, an A fr ic anA m er ic an , be gan he r em plo ym en t at T y son on July 1, 1985 a s an ho ur ly

sawope rator . S inc e 1987 , she ha s he ld v ar iou s po sit ion s w ith T y son. T he se pos iti ons inc lud e the f oll ow ing : a cc ount ing c le rk , f ro nt- lin e superviso r, retention superviso r, plant facilitator, em ploym ent superviso r, shift pe rs onne l m an ag er , plant c oor din at or , shi ppi ng s upe ri nte nde nt, shi ft m an ag er , and plant personn el m anager. O ver the y ears, Hithon’ s perform ance has been ex em plary and w ith out

dis ci pli nary

a ct ion . Ty son organi zes its Ala

bam a operations into three “ com plexes”: Albertville, O xf or d, and S ne ad . E ac h of

the se c om

ple xe s is r

un b y ac om ple x m an ag er

w ho ha s f ina l auth or ity

and i s th e fi na l de ci sio n- m ak er ove r the c om

ple x and i ts3

subo rd inate f

ac ili tie s. A ll of

H ith on’ s e m

plo ym en t w ithT y son ha s be ena t the Gad sd en pro ces si ng pl an t wh ic h i s t he subo rd in at e fac il it y in th e Sn eadco m

pl ex . D ur ing the r el ev an t t im e pe ri od, Ri cky W al te rs w as the c om

ple x m an ag er

of Albertville, and John Pittard w as the Oxfor d com plex m anager. In Februar

y 2000 , H ithon applied for the positi on of com plex hum an re sour ce s m an ag er

f or the A lbe rtvil le c om

ple x. T his pos iti on b ec am e av ai la ble w he n Je rr y P hil lip s, aCa

uc as ian e m

plo y ee , r es ign ed . A lth oughT y son ha d a pol ic y of pr om oti ng f

ro m w ith in the c om

pany , P hil lip s w as aw ar de d th e posi tio n when he announced that he desired to return to work at T y son. Phillips was placed ba ck int o hi s pr ev iou s po sit ionon F eb ru ar y 21, 200 0. In July 2000 , H ithon applied for the positi on of com plex hum an resource m anager f

or the Oxfor d com

plex. Pittar d post ed the opening and interviewed H ith on and thr ee oth er

c an did at es , tw o of

w hom w er e al so A fr ic anA m er ic an . T he in te rv ie w pro ces s fo r th is po si ti on in cl ud eda ran ki ng of e ach can di da te by Pitt ard . T he sixare as in w hic h th e candi da te s w er e ranke d w as a s f oll ow s: e duc at ion , hum an resources m anager exper ience, total hum an resources e xperience, refe rences, com

m unityinvol vem ent, w illing ness to relocate, m otivatio n, presence , and relationship with the union. Pittard’ s first choice for the vacant positi on was Ja ci nta Cart er , an A fr ic anA m er ic ane m plo y ee ; ho w ev er , she de cl ine d th is p osi tio n4

and accepted a posit ion as the Hum an resources m anager f or the Pine Bluff

, A rk an sa s c om

ple x. L isa Burd ic k, aCa

uc as ian e m

plo y ee , w as P itt ar d’ s se co nd c hoi ce to fi ll thi s posi tio n. B ur dic k, ac oll eg e gr ad ua te , w as the hum anr es our ce s m an ag er of the Ashland facility

at the tim e she applied for the O xford posit ion and h ad held that posit ion sin ce D ecem

ber 1998. In contrast, Hithon had onl y been the hum an resources m anager of the G adsden facility since Marc h 199 9 and had no t obtained a co lle ge de gr ee . B ur dic k a cc ep te d th e O xf or d po sit ionin Jul y

200 0. On July 25, 2000, Hithon began the process of filing a form al grievance w ithT y son. A cc or din g to the gr ie vanc e, H ith on d isa gr ee d w ithP itt ar d’ s r an kin g of the candidates and his ul tim ate selec tion o f Burdick. H ithon also claim s that im m ediately following her interview for the position , P ittard questio ned another em ploy ee about the suit brou ght byHithon’ s husb and against Ty son allegin g race dis cr im inatio n. F urthe r, H ith on c om pla ine d th at

P itt ar d’ s c hoos ing Burd ic k f or the posit ion was a dec ision m otivated byrac e. H ith on b as es he r dis cr im inatio n c la im on the de nia l of

tw o pr om oti ons: ( 1) Ph ill ips ’ s r ei nst at em en t t o th e A lbe rtvil le hum anr es our ce s m an ag em en t po sit ion and (2) Car

ter’ s and ultim ately

Burdick’ s prom otion to the Oxford hum an resources m anagem ent posit ion. H ithon also claim s retaliation based on th e denial5

of apr om oti on t o th e O xf

or d po sit ion . On appeal, Hithon argues that the district court erred in granting summ ary j udgm ent in favor of T y son. W e re view the district court’ s grant of summ ary j udgm en t de novo , app lying th e sa m e st an da rd s u se d b y th e d is tri ctco ur t. Ki lli nge r v . Sam

ford U niv ., 113 F.3d 196, 198 (11t h Cir. 1997 ). Sum m ary j udgm ent is appropriate when “ there is no genuin e issue as to any m aterial f

act. ” Ce lotexCo rp. v . Ca tre tt , 477 U. S. 317, 322, 106 S. Ct. 2548 , 2552 (1986). In ex am ini ng the r ec or d, w e re vie wthe e vid en ce in the li ght m ost f av or ab le to the no n- m ov in g p art y . See W ilson v. B/E

Ae rosp ace, Inc. , 376 F . 3d 1 079, 108 5 ( 11th Cir. 2004 ). B. H ith on’ s 42 U . S. C. § 19 81 C la im s R eg ar din g th e A lbe rtvil le P osi tio n N otw ith standi ng the S upr em e Co urt’ s r ec ent Jo nes v . R . R . D onne lly & Son s Co . , 541 U . S. 369 ( 2004 ) de ci sio n, w e hol d th at H ith on’ s § 1 981 cl ai m s r eg ar din g the de nia l of

the A lbe rtvil le pos iti on are ti m e- barr ed by the A la bam a statut e of lim itatio ns. T he S upr em e Co urt i n Jo nes state d th at Co ngr es s’ s 19 90 e na ctm en t of 28 U . S. C. § 16 58, w hic h c re at ed ade fa ult f our -y ear statut e of

li m itatio ns f

or fe de ra l c au se s of

a ct ionc re at ed

a ft er that date , c hange d th e lim itatio ns p er iod f or so m e cl ai m s u nd er § 19 81 to fou r y ears . Id . at 378-79 . Additionally , the C ourt he ld tha t t o th e ex te nt tha t the Ci vil Ri ght s A ct of 199 1 c re at ed

ne wc au se s of6

ac tio n no t pr ev iou sly

c ogni za ble und er § 19 81, suc h c la im s w er e subj ec t t o th e

“ cat ch -al l” st atut e o f li m it at io ns of § 16 58 . Id. at 381 -8 2. T his c hange d pr ior Su pr em e Co urt pr ec ed en t a s se t f orth i n G oodm an v . L uk

en s Stee l C

o. , 482 U. S. 656, 661 (198 7). In that case, the Court held that in order to determ ine the proper statut e of li m itatio ns, f

ed er al c ourts w er e to a

ppl y the m ost ana log ous state statut e of lim itations to § 198 1 claim s, which in th is case, would be two y ears under Alab am a la w. Co ngr es s am en de d § 1 981 in 1 990 to i nc lud e a ca use of a ct ionf or discrim ination in the term s and condi tions of em ploym ent as we ll as di sc riminat io n i n t he m ak in g a nden fo rcem en t o f co nt ract s. See 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 1. T he re fo re , it

is ne ce ssary

to de te rmine w he the r H ith on’ s c la im s w er e co gni za ble before the e ffec tive date of the four-y ear “ catch-a ll” statute of lim itations under § 1658 . If so, then her claim s would be tim e-barr ed under G oodm an . Hithon argues that her claim s are governed by § 1658 and thus n ot tim ebarr ed . S ec tio n 16 58 p ro vid es : “ E xc ep t a s othe rw ise pr ovi de d by law , ac ivi l ac tio n ari sin g un de r anA ct of Co ngr es s e na ct ed

a ft er the date of

the e na ctm en t of thi s se ct ionm ay

not be c om m en ce d late r than 4 y ears a ft er the c au se of

a ct ion accrue s.” 2 8 U.S.C. § 16 58 (a). Sec ti on 16 58 was e na ct edon Decem be r 1, 1 99 0. Ther efore, Hithon’ s claim s are subj ect to the four-y ear statute of lim itations if they7

arose under an A ct of Congress enacted af ter that date. W e find that Hithon’ s § 198 1 claim s wer e cognizable under Patterson v. M cL ea n C re dit U nio n , 491 U . S. 164 , 176 -7 7, 82 ( 1989 ), w hic h a ppl ie d to § 19 81 before the am endm ents contained in the Civil Rights Ac t of 1991. Under P atter son , af ai lur e to p ro m ote c la im

w as a ct ion ab le und er

§ 19 81 i f the pr om oti on

“ ri se s to the le ve l of

an op portun ity

f or a ne wand d ist inc t r el at ionbe tw ee n th e em ploy ee and the em

ploy er. ” Id . a t 18 5. H ith on c la im s th at she w as de nie d a pr om oti on f

or an hum anr es our ce s m an ag er pos iti on b ec au se of

he r ra ce . W e fi nd that these prom otion s rise “ to the level of an oppo rtunity for a new and dis tinct relation betwee n the em

ploy ee and the em

ploy er. ” Id . a t1 8 5 . Th er ef o re , Hi th o n ’s failure to prom ote claim s wer e cognizable before C ongress’s 1991 expansio n of § 1981 and thus rem ain subject to the A labam a tw o-y ear statute of lim itations as man d a t e db y G oodm an . C. T im el ine ss o f H ith on’ s T itl e V II Cl ai m s R eg ar din g th e A lbe rtvil le P osi tio n W e fi nd tha t H ith on f

ile d he r E qua l E m

plo ym en t O ppor

tun ity Co m m iss ion (“ E E O C” ) co m

pla int m or e than te n m onths a ft er P hil lip s r et

ur ne d to the Albertville H um an Resources position for which Hithon appl ied. C harges regarding alleged discrim inatory acts m ust be filed within 180 day s of the alleged act. 42 U. S. C. § 200 0e-5(e) (1). A lthou gh Hithon n otes this argum ent in herHithon stated sever al others issues in her brief but made no leg al ar gument and 1 pr ov ide d n o a

na ly sis a s to the se iss ue s. Thus , th e fo llo wi ngiss ue s a re de e me d a

ba nd on e d: “ wh e the r t

he tr ia l c ourt

e rr e d to re ve rs a l in

g ra nti ngthe de fe nd ant’ s mo tio n to str ike the a ff ida vit of Melody

L loyd; whether

the trial cour

t erre d to reve rsal in findingthat plaintiff had not identified any

prac tice through statistics or otherwise to support her disparate impact claim; and whether the trial cour

t erre d to reve rsal in not consideringthe ca se De se rt Pala c ev . Co sta , 539 U.S. 90, 123 S. C t. 2148 (2003) as c ontrolling in establishingplaintiff’s prima f acie case and rebuttingdefe ndant’s ar

ticulated re asons for te rmination.” See Se pulveda v . United States , 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 ( 11th Cir. 2005) 8 state m en t of

the iss ue s, she m ak es no l eg al arg um en t and p ro vid es no ana ly sis in he r br ie f re gard ing the ti m el ine ss o f he r T itl e V II c la im . W e the re fo re de em thi s is su e ab an do ne d o n app eal . See Sepulveda v. U nited Sta tes , 401 F . 3d 1 226, 122 8 n. 2 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) . T hus, w e hol d th at H ith on’ s § 1 981 an d T itl e V II r et al iatio n 1 claim s based on th e denial of the prom otion for the A lbertville pos ition are tim eba rred . Accor di ng ly, we affi rm th e d is tri ctco ur t’s h ol di ng on th es e is su es . D . H ith on’ s C la im s A ri sin g f ro m O xf or d P osi tio n We n o wtu rnt o th e me r i t s o f H i th o n ’s d i s c r i mi n a t i o nan dr e t a l i a t i o nc l a i ms b a s e do nth e d e n i a l o f

th e O x f o r dp r o mo t i o n . H i th o nf

a i l s t o e s t ab l i s h ap r i ma facie case f

or retaliation or discrim ination with re gard to the Oxford hum an res ou rces m an ag er p os it io n. In order to prevail on a discrim inatory failure to prom ote claim , a plaintiff m ust establis h the following: (1) she is a m em ber of a protected class; (2) she w as qualified and appli ed for the prom otion ; (3) she w as rej ected despite her9

qua lif ic at ion s; and ( 4) oth er

e qua lly or le ss qua lif

ie d e m plo y ee s who w er e not m em be rs of t he pro te ct edcla ss were p ro m ot ed . A le xa nde r v . F

ulton C ount y, G a. , 207 F. 3d 1 303, 133 9 ( 11th C ir . 200 0) . H ith on p ro ve s th e fi rs t thr ee e le m en ts ne ce ssary to es ta bli sh a pr im a fa ci e ca se of

dis cr im inatio n. H ow ev er , she did not showthat an e qua lly

or le ss qua lif

ie d e m plo y ee w ho w as not

in he r pr ote ct ed

c la ss w as pr om ote d to the pos iti on. F ir st, Burd ic k, the e m plo y ee w ho w as f

ina lly pla ce d inthe O xf

or d po sit ionw as m or e qua lif ie d th anH ith on. B ur dic k ha d a fo ur -y ear co lle ge de gr ee and h ad m or e expe ri en ce a s aplant m an ag er than di d H ith on. A ddi tio na lly , the r ec or d r ef le ct s th at Burd ic k su cc es sf

ull y im ple m en te d a n e wman a g e r i a l p r o g r a m ai medt o i mp r o v e e f f e c t i v e n e s s an de f

f i c i e n c y. A s f or he r re ta liatio n c la im s, in or de r to s uc ce ed H ith on m

ust sho wthat “ (1 ) [s ] he e nga ge d inpr ote ct ed a ct ivi ty ; ( 2) [ s] he suf

fe re d an a dve rs e em

plo ym en t ac tio n; and ( 3) the re w as ac au sa l l ink be tw ee n h[ er ] pr ote ct ed

a ct ivi ty and the adverse em

ploym ent action.” Bass v. Bd. of County Comm’rs, O rang e County, F la ., 25 6 F .3d10 95 , 11 17 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). In analy zing Hithon’s r etaliation claim , Hithon claim s that the protected act iv it y in whi ch sh e en ga ge d was th atof h er h us ba nd ’s laws ui t ag ai ns t Ty so n. W e have not

dir ec tly a ddr es se d whe the r a Pl ai nti ff , w ho w orks w ithac los e re lativ e w ho e nga ge d instatut or ily -p ro te ct ed a ct ivi ty , is en tit le d to br ing a10

re ta liatio n c la im . W e not e that the T hir d, F if th and E igh th C ir cu its have pr ev iou sly

a ddr es se d th is i ssu e. T hose Ci rc uit s have he ld tha t a pla int if f m ay not br ing an a ct ionf

or ar et al iatio n c la im

w ith out pe rs ona lly

part ic ipatin g inthe pr ot ect edact iv it y . Se e F ogl em an v . M

ercyH osp . , I nc. , 283 F. 3d 56 1, 568-70 (3rd Ci r. 200 2) ; Holt v. JTM

Indus., Inc. , 89 F . 3d 1 224, 122 6- 27 ( 5thCi r. 199 6) ; Sm ith v. R ic eland F

oods , Inc. , 151 F . 3d 8 13, 819 ( 8thCi r. 199 8) . H ith on d id n ot pe rs ona lly

part ic ipate in he r husb an d’ s r et al iatio n c la im . Y et , w e ne ed not de ci de thi s is sue tod ay . A ssum ing arg ue ndo that H ith on h as m et he r bur de n of es ta bli shi ng a pr im a fa ci e ca se f

or dis cr im inatio n and r et al iatio n, f or both c la im s, we apply the M cD onne ll D ouglas bu rd en -s hi fti ng fram ewo rk . M cD onne ll Douglas Corp . v . Green , 411 U . S. 792 , 802 , 93 S . Ct . 181 7, 182 4 ( 1973 ). T he bur de n sh if

ts t o T y son to p ro duc e a le git im at e, non -d isc ri m inator y r ea son fo r the ad ve rs e em

pl oym en t ac ti on . Id . G ive n B ur dic k’ s su pe ri or c re de nti al s and qualifications, Ty son has satis fied this burden. Ever y m em ber of the r eview panel ran ke d Hi th on las t o utof t he can di da te s co ns id eredforth e p os it io n. Be ca use T y son pr oduc ed

ale git im at e, non -d isc ri m inator y r ea son fo r H ith on’ s a dve rs e em

plo ym en t de ci sio n, the bur de n th enshi ft s ba ck to H ith on t o pr ov e th atTy so n’s re as on s wer e p ret ex tu al . Id. at 804 . H ith on f

ai ls t o m ee t this bur de n a s w el l. H ith on h as not pr ovi de d th e quantum

of e vid en ce ne ce ssary

to11

es ta bli sh tha t T y son’ s le git im at e, r ac e- ne utr al r ea sons w er e pr et ex tua l. H ith on doe s arg ue that sh e w as m or e qua lif ie d th anBurd ic k. A lth oughadis pari ty in qualifications cou ld sup port an inference of discrim ination , r eviewing the rec ord as aw hol e, H ith on h as f

ai le d to e sta

bli sh a qua lif ic at iondis pari ty

of suc h w ei ght an d si gni fi canc e that no r ea sona ble pe rs on, in the e xe rc ise of im part ia l j udgm en t, co ul d h av e ch os en Bu rd ic k o ve r Hit ho n fo r th e Oxf or d jo b. For the fore goin g reasons, w e af firm the district court’ s grant of summ ary j udgm en t t o T y son. AFFIRMED.