### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT S eptember 2, 20 05 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]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 o. 04- 1621 7 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ D. C. Docket N o. 99-02843 -CV -BBM- 1 SA RAH EL IZ ABE TH CH AV IS, as A dm ini str at or

of the E state of W ill ia m Ru sse ll Ch av is, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us CLAYTON COUNT Y SCHOOL DISTRIC T, JOE A. HAIRSTON, O Z IA S PE A RS O N , ind ivi dua lly and agents and em

ploy ees of Cl ay tonCo unty

S ch ool D istri ct , Defen da nt s- App el le es .

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

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ (S ep te m be r 2, 200 5)Part of Plaintiff’s job was to investiga te complaints of misconduct a g ainst teac hers a nd other 1 profe ssionals. 2 Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, A N D E RS O N a nd W IL SO N , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Sarah E liz ab eth C ha vis , a s a dm ini str at or of the e state of

D r. W ill ia m

Ch av is (“ Pl ai nti ff

”) , appe al s th e fi na l j udgm en t purs uant t o th e j ur y ’ s ve rd ic t i n f

av or of Clayton Coun ty

School District (“ CCSD ”), Dr . Joe H airston, and Dr . O zias Pe ar son, in thi s c as e al le gin g, a m ong oth er thi ngs, r ac e dis cr im inatio n invio la tio n
o f 4 2 U
. S
. C
. § 1 9 8 5 ( 2 )
. N o r e v e r s i b l e e rr o r h a s b e e n s h o w n ; w e a f

f i rm. Pl ai nti ff f ile d su it ag ai nst

his e m plo y er , CC SD , a nd h is s upe rv iso rs , H ai rs tona nd P ears on, w ho are bla ck
. P la int if f al le ge d th at

P ears on and H ai rs ton , on th e b as is of r ace, d is cri m in at edag ai ns t wh it e te ach ers wit hi n t he CCSD. Specifica lly , P laintiff testified in a cr im inal proceeding against a w hite teacher, D W , w ho a lle ge dly

e nte re d in to a

se x- fo r- gr ad es a rr an ge m en t w itha16- y ear old bla ck m al e stu de nt. I n apr ev iou s a ppe al w e co nc lud ed

that C ha vis ha d st at ed

a 1 claim under the second clause of section 198 5(2) based on Plaintiff’ s evidenced al l eg at i o n s “ t h at De fe n d an t s (b ec au s e o f t h ei r r ac i al an i m o s i t y t o wa rd s DW)
re ta liate d a ga ins t P la int if f- -tha t i s, sou ght

to inj ur e him
-- fo r tr

uth fu lly te sti fy ing to h erad v an t ag e a ta c ri m i n al p ro ce ed i n g , t h at i s , f o r a t t emp t i n g t o en fo rc e D W’s3

rig ht to th e eq ua l p ro te ct io n o f th e la ws.” Ch av is v. Cl ayto n C ou nt y Sch . Dis t., 30 0 F .3d12 88 , 12 93 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). Plaintiff appeals som e of the trial c ourt’ s evidentiary decisions. W e re view
ev ide nti ar

y r uli ngs of the dis tr ic t c ourt f

or a buse of dis cr et ion
. C ab el lo v
. Fernandez- Larios, 402 F.3d 1148, 1160 (11th Cir. 2005). Pl ai nti ff f ir st arg ue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt i m

pr ope rl y r ef use d to a llo whim to p re se nt the te sti m ony

of f ive CC SD e m

plo y ee s w ho w oul d have te sti fi ed about prior discrim inatory

acts against white tea chers. Plaintiff c laim s that this evidence
w as c ru ci al to showD ef

en dants ’ int en t t o di sc ri m inate a ga ins t w hit e em plo y ee s, i n cl u d i n g DW. A t a pr e- tr ia l c onf

er en ce , the dis tr ic t c ourt w ish ed to ke ep the te sti m ony

“ cl ose ly ta ilo re d” to ra ci al ly

dis cr im inator

y r em ar ks tha t D ef

en dants m ad e to Pl ai nti ff ; the c ourt i ndi cate d th at

it did not w an t P la int if

f to c al l w itn es se s w ho
m er el y w oul d “ co m e in and t el l the ir gr ipe s a bout P ears on and H ai rs ton . ” T he district court characte rized this testim ony as arising under Fed.R .E vid. 404(b).

“ E vid en ce of

oth er c ri m es , w ro ngs, or

a ct s is not

a dm iss ibl e to p ro ve the charac ter of a

person in order to sho w a ction in con form ity therew ith.” Fed. R.E vid. 404(b). But this evidence “ m ay , how ever, be adm issib le for other pur pose s, suc h a s pr oof

of m oti ve , opp ortun ity , int en t, pr ep ar at ion , plan,Irela

nd testified that he mere ly would be spec ulating a

bout whether

he fe lt he had bee n treated 2 dif fe re ntl y fr om a bla c k c ow or

ke r o n th e ba sis of

ra c e ; and he a dmi tte d th at he ha d e ng a g e d in so me un pr of e ssi on a l c on du c t pr ior

to t he e mpl oy

me nt a c t tak e n a g a ins t hi m. L ang fo rd state d th at, althoug h Plaintiff told him he was being discriminated ag ainst rac ially , he did not know whethe r he was be ing de moted beca

use of his ra ce. 4 knowledge, identity , or absence of m istake or accident. ” Id. A nd the dis trict court
m ay e xc lud e suc h e vid en ce “ if it s pr oba tiv e va lue is subs tanti al ly outw ei ghe d by the danger of unfair pre

j udice, confusion of the issu es, or m isleading th e j ury .” Fe d. R. E vid
. 403
. A ft er apr of fe r, the dis tr ic t c ourt e xc lud ed the te sti m ony

of Joh n I re land and D an ny L an gf or d, both C CS D te ac he rs w ho s ai d th at , a ft er the y suf fe re d a dve rs e
em plo ym en t a ct s, the y

w er e inf orm ed by P la int if f that the y

w er e be ing discrim inated against and th at they shoul d hire a lawy er. T he district court
co rr ec tly not ed that bo th I re land and L an gf or d a dm itt ed

that the y ha d no knowledge that the em

ploym ent decisions against them we re m otivated byrac e. 2 And the district court stated that Plaintiff him self could testify on what D ef en dants sa id t o hi m

about L an gf or d and I re land. W e cannot say that the d i s t ri ct co u rt ab u s ed i t s d i s cr et i o n i n ex cl u d i n g La n g fo rd ’s an dIr el an d ’s te sti m ony . Ar isk

of unf ai r pr ej udi ce to D ef

en dants e xis te d if

thi s c as e tur

ne d in to,
as the dis tr ic t c ourt st at ed , “ a re lit igatio n of e ve ry pe rs onne l de ci sio n m ad e w hil e [D ef en dants ] w er e in p la ce down inthe Cl ay tonCo unty

S ch ool S y ste m . ” A nd5

sin ce the onl y

inf orm at ionabout

r ac e dis cr im inatio n th at

L an gf or d and I re land offer ed would have com e fr om Plaintiff, the probative value of their testim ony wa s not gr eat. Pl ai nti ff a lso pr of fe re d th e de posi tio ns o f W ay ne a nd G le nic e G rave s. T he deposit ion of Ms. G raves, who w as an assistant principal, showed that she was pa sse d ov er

f or pr om oti on b y

H ai rs tonin favor

of bla ck pe rs ons an d th at

she tho ught that sh e w as “ a vic tim

of H ai rs ton . ” Mr
. G rave s, w ho w as a n a ssi stant principal at a differ ent school, stated in his depositi on that he, too, w as passed
ove r fo r a pr om oti on b y

H ai rs tona nd tha t he f

ile d an E E O C c la im , w hic h he did not pu rsue, about th is m atter. A s th e dis tr ic t c ourt su gge ste d, ar isk of sub stanti al ly

unf ai r pr ej udi ce to D ef en dants e xis te d ha d th e dis tr ic t c ourt a llo w ed thi s tr ia l t o be co m e a se t of m ini
tr ia ls o n D ef

en dants ’ pe rs onne l de ci sio ns. A nd the se m ini -tri al s c oul d have
co nf use d th e j ur or s in to thin kin g th at the m ini -tri al s w er e the m ai n c as e. W e al so obse rv e that the dis tr ic t c ourt a llo w ed Ms
. G rave s to pr es en t, on the iss ue of D ef en dants ’ r ac ia l anim

us, m or e pr oba tiv e te sti m ony ( 1) that P ears on h ad

a reputation in th e com

m unity for not “ regard[ ing] the white race with a gre at deal of respect” and (2) that once she got to kn ow H airston, he seem ed to prefer black adm ini str at or s.6

Plaintiff also proffe red the depositio n of Morris Blasingam e, a black CC SD
em plo y ee . A cc or din g to P la int if f, D ef en dants w er e atte m

pti ng t o su

ppor t the al le gatio n th at

D W ha d se x w ithabla ck

stu de nt b y

tr y ing to fi nd a

bla ck c oll ea gue
o f D W’s wi t h wh o m

s h e mig h th av e h ad s ex . P l ai n t i ff i n s i s t s t h atBl as i n g ame’s testim ony would have shown that Def endants and th e police threatened Bl as ing am e that he w oul d lo se his j ob i f he li ed about ha vin g se x w ithD W
. B ut
our r ev ie wof

Bl as ing am e’ s te sti m ony

sho w s th at

the de te ct ive inv es tig at ing the D W c as e- -n ot D ef

en dants -- thr eate ne d B la sin ga m e if Bl as ing am e lie d. N oth ing in Bl as in ga m e’s te st im on y

co nn ect s Def

en da nt s wi th th e d et ect iv e’s th reat s. Bl as ing am e’ s te sti m ony

on this m atte r w oul d have ha d no pr oba tiv e va lue on the iss ue of D ef en dant’ s r ac ia l anim

us. In sum , the district court w as within its discretion to conclude that evidence of the a dve rs e em

plo ym en t a ct s su ff

er ed by I re land, L an gf

or d, a nd M r. a nd M s. G rave s po se d to o gr eat a

dange r of

im pr ope rl y sw ay ing the j ur

y to re nde r its de ci sio n ba se d onar el iti ga tio n of pe rs onne l i ssu es r athe r than onD ef en dants ’ al le ge d r et al ia tio n a ga ins t P la int if f fo r his te sti m ony

in the D W

c as e. A nd the testim ony of Blasingam e is not probativ e of the issues in this case. Pl ai nti ff a rg ue s se co nd tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed by r ef usi ng t o a llo whim to refr esh the recollection of one of D efendants’ witnesses, Ed Sc ott, a f orm erPlaintiff’s attempt to introduc e the ne wspape r ar ticle might be char acte rized more prope rly as 3 an attempt to use extrinsi c evide nce to impea ch Scott’s testimony . But Plaintiff does not ar g ue on a pp e a l, n or

did he argue at tr ia l, t

hat he wi sh e d to imp e a c h Sc ott ’s test im on y ; this a rgume nt i s abandone d. See Ac cess Now , Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1330 (11th Cir. 2004). We rejec t Plainti ff’ s reque st that we take judicial notice of the newspa per a rticle. 4 7 pr inc ipa l w ho b ec am e a CC SD pe rs onne l di re ct or , on H ai rs ton ’ s r ep utatio n inthe
co m m u n i t y fo r p ro fe s s i o n al m i s co n du ct . P l ai n t i ff s o u g h tt o re fr es h Sc o t t ’s
m em ory by question ing hi m

on a newspaper article a ccusing Hairston of racia l
m iscondu ct against white em ploy ees. Plaintiff m aintains that th is evidence wa s
re le vant t o sh owD ef

en dants ’ r ac ia l anim

us. Our r eading of the record does not sup port Plaintiff’ s argum ent. P laintiff asked Scott what H airston’ s reputation in the com m unitywa s for ra ce d i s cr i m i n at i o n . S co t tan s we re dt h at h e d i dn o th av e k n o wl ed g e o f H ai rs t o n ’s reputation in th e com

m unity
. But Scott did no t say that he could no t rem em ber what H airston’ s reputation was in the com m unity
. Thus, the r ecord belies Pl ai nti ff ’ s st at em en t tha t S co tt’ s m em or y ne ed ed r ef re shi ng. P la int if

f ha s no t 3 de m onstrate d th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt a

buse d it s di sc re tio n inr ef usi ng t o a llo w Pl ai nti ff to re fr es h S co tt’ s r ec oll ec tio n onH ai rs ton ’ s r ep utatio n inthe c om m uni ty through the newspaper article. 4 AFFIR MED.