F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Au g. 11, 20 08 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 07- 1410 8 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D. C. Docket N o. 05-00174 -CV -W LS -1 DR. FREDERICK POLITE, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,

ve rs us DO UG HE RT Y C OU

NT Y S CHO OL SY ST EM, SA LL Y W HA TL EY , I ndiv iduallyand in her Of ficial Ca pacity as Superintendent of the D o u g h t e ry C o u n t y S c h o o l S ys t e m, Defen da nt s- App el le es .

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the Middle District of Ge orgia

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(A ug us t 11, 200 8) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, CA RN E S an d B A RKE T T , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:Claims aga inst state actors f or violations of section 1981 must be brought pursuant to section 1 1983. Butts v. County

of Volusia, 222 F .3d 891, 892-94 (11th Cir. 2000). T i t l e VII an dsection 1983 claims have the same e lements wher e the claims are based on the same set of fac ts. Rioux v. City of Atlanta, G a., 520 F .3d 1269, 1275 n.5 (11th Cir. 2008). 2 Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant F re de ri ck

P oli te , an A fr ic an -A m er ic anm al e, appe al s th e district court’ s grant of summ ary j udgm ent in favor of his form er e m ploy er D ough er ty Co unty S ch ool S y ste m

( “ D CS S” ) an d D CS S supe ri nte nde nt S al ly Wha tle y , e ndi ng h is d isc ri m inatio n and r et al ia tio n c la im s un de r T itl e V II , 42 U
. S. C. § 20 00e -2 (a )( 1) , and 4 2 U
. S. C. §§ 1 981, 198 3, and d ism iss ing se ve ra l st at e la w cla im s. No rev ers ib le erro r ha s b een sh own ; we af fir m . 1 P o l i t e f o rme r l y w o rk e df

o r D C S S a s ama t h an ds c i e n c e t e a c h e r . H i s c l a i ms ste m f ro m his f ai lur e to b e hir ed

a s apr inc ipa l or

a ssi stant p ri nc ipa l a ft er

appl y ing fo r se ve ra l su chpos iti ons at c er ta in s ch ool s inD CS S. Wha tle y is re spon sib le f

or
recom m ending to DCS S persons to be hired. F or assistant princip als, W hatley de pe nd s o n t he pri nc ip al of t he hi rin g s ch oo l t o m ak e a rec omm en da ti on to he r. Principals generally

rely on a leadership com

m ittee at their school to assist th em
w ithint er vie w ing and r ec om

m en din g c an did at es . T he pr inc ipa l m ak es a
re co m m en da tio n to Wha tle y ; and s he the n m ak es ar ec om m en da tio n to the sc hool bo ard . In s el ect in g apri nc ip al , a se le ct io n c omm it te e atth e sc ho ol in te rv ie ws qua lif ie d a ppl ic an ts and r ec om

m en ds i ts t op tw o or

thr ee c hoi ce s to Wha tle y . S he3

the n e va luate s w he the r the top se le ct ionis ap pr opr ia te and m ak es a
recom m endation to the Board. In her te nure as superintendent, Whatley has
e ndor se d to the Bo ar d e ve ry r ec om m en da tio n m ad e to h er

by pr inc ipa ls and selection comm ittees. A ccording to Whatley , no one ever had recom m ended Po lit e to h er

f or apr inc ipa l or

a ssi stant p ri nc ipa l po sit ion ; and s he ne ve r tol d
an y on e n ot to reco m

m en d P ol it e fo r a p os it io n. Po lit e int er

vie w ed w ithse le ct ionc om

m itt ee s to be c onsi de re d f or vari ous pr inc ipa l and a ssi stant p ri nc ipa l po sit ion s w ith in D CS S. B as ed on a c onve rs at ion he had with Va lerie O verstreet- Thom as, the principal at L am ar R eese E lem entary Sc hool , he und er sto od tha t O ve rs tr ee t- T hom as ha d r ec om m en de d hi m

f or the
as sis tant p ri nc ipa l po sit iona t tha t sc hool ; bu t P oli te ne ve r int er vie w ed pe rs ona lly
w ithO ve rs tr ee t- T hom as . S he inf orm al ly int er vie w ed P oli te ove r the pho ne and planned to rec omm end him and one other person for the assistant prin cipal po si ti on , bu t af

te r ch eck in g h is refe ren ces , dec id edag ai ns t re co m m en di ng Po li te . T houg h sh e ini tia lly

tol d Wha tle y

she planne d to r ec om

m en d P oli te , she ult im at el y did no t recom

m end him
. Polite also stated that Joh nny Scott, the principal at Southsi de Middle School, “basically prom ised” him

the assistant princip al posi tio n th er e; but

the n, a cc or din g to P oli te , S co tt tol d hi m that Wha tle y

w oul d no t allow his recom

m endation to go throug h. S cott stated that he toldPolite he hadPolit e a b an d o n e d th e f o ll o w in gc la im s b y

f a il in gto o f

f e r ar gume n t o nth e m: h o s ti le work 2 environment unde r Title VI I , violations of free dom of s p eec h, association and to pe tition t he g ov e rnme nt u

nd e r s e c tio n 1 98 3 a

nd the Ge or g ia

Con sti tutio n, e qu a l pr ote c tio n a nd du e pr oc e ss violations under section 1983, and state law brea ch of contra ct. See Denne y v. City of Albany , 247 F.3d 1172, 1182 ( 11th Cir. 2001) (explaining that issues not brief ed on appe al ar e aba

ndoned). 4 decided to recom

m end another person for the posit ion and th at he never prom ised Po li te th e p os it io n. In his com

plaint, Polite alleged that DC SS and Whatley , by failing to hire him , unl aw fu lly

dis cr im inate d a ga ins t hi m be ca use of his se x and r ac e. T he dis tr ic t c ourt c onc lud ed

that P oli te ha d no t m ad e a pr im a fa ci e ca se of di sc riminat ory

fai lu re t o h ire
. O n a ppe al , P oli te arg ue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

in de te rm ini ng tha t he did not m ak e a pr im a fa ci e ca se of f ai lur e to h ir e be ca

use he w as r ec om

m en de d f or t h e p o s i t i o n s i n qu es t i o n , b u tWha t l ey re je ct edh i m . We r ev i ew a d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s 2 gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t de nov o; w e vie wthe e vid en ce and a ll re as ona ble fa ct ua l i nf er en ce s inthe li ght

m ost f av or ab le to the non m ovi ng p ar ty . Manic ci a v. Bro wn, 1 71 F.3d13 64 , 13 67 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). A prim a fa cie ca se of hiring or prom otion discrim ination requires a plaintiff to prove the following th ings: (1) he belonged to a protected class, (2) he applied fo r an d w as qua lif

ie d f or aj ob f or w hic h th e em

plo y er w as se ek ing appl ic an ts, ( 3) de spi te the se qua lif

ic at ion s, he w as r ej ec te d, and ( 4) a ft er the r ej ec tio n, theNo di rec t evidenc e of discrimination is allege d. Be cause this case is a c ircumstantial evidenc e 3 c a se , th e burd e n- sh if

tin gfr ame wor k est a

bli sh e d in Mc Do nn e ll D ou g la s Co rp . v . G re e n, 93 S.Ct
. 1817 (1973), a

pplies. The district cour

t concluded that, beca

use Polite never w as re commended f or a position pursuant 4 to DCSS hiringprac tices, he ha d not “applied” for the positions. I t is c lear that Polit e did apply

for the positions but was not r ecommende d for them. This misconstruction of the word “ apply” does not impact on the ultimate corr ectne ss of the district court’ s decision. Polit e made clea

r in his complaint and deposition that he believe d only Whatley had 5 discriminated ag ainst him. 5 em plo y er c ont inu ed

to se ek appl ic at ion s f

ro m pe rs ons w ithsim ilar qua lif ic at ion s
orpro m ot eda pe rs on ou ts id e th e p ro te ct edcla ss . Perrym an v. J oh ns on Pro ds . Co., Inc. , 698 F. 2d 11 38, 1142 n n.6-7 (11th Cir. 1983 ). 3 T he dis tr ic t c ourt c om

m itt ed no e rr or w he n it c onc lud ed

that P oli te did

not
m ake a prim a fa cie ca se of discrim inatory failure to hire. T hat Polite never w as
recom m ended to Whatley

-- either by

a principal or selection com m ittee -- for a posit ion is u ndisp uted; and th us, Whatley never re j ected him

for a posit ion. See id. A s pe r hir ing pol ic y , Wha tle y r ec om m en de d to the Bo ar d ac an did at e w ho a 4 principal or selection comm ittee had rec omm ended to her. B ecause P olite never
w as r ec om

m en de d to he r, she ne ve r co nsi de re d hi m in he r re co m

m en da tio ns t o th e Board. In his affidavit oppos ing su m m ary j udgm ent, P olite alleged that 5 O ve rs tr ee t- T hom as and S co tt re co m m en de d hi m

to Wha tle y ; bu t the se a lle ga tio ns
w er e not ba se d onpe rs ona l kn ow le dge and w er e co ntr ad ic te d di re ct ly by the deposit ion testim ony

of O verstreet- Thom as and Scott, who didhave personal6

knowledge of whether they m ade such recom

m endations
. See Fed. R.C iv.P. 56(e)(1) ( an aff

idavit op posin g summ ary j udgm ent m

ust be m ade on personal knowledge and set out fac ts that would be adm issib le in evidence). W e nowa ddr es s P oli te ’ s r et al ia tio n c la im
. H e al le ge d th at , dur ing his
em ploym ent with D CSS, he com plained to W hatley

about her “ discrim inatory hir ing pr ac tic es . ” A nd s hortly a ft er his c om pla int s, he w as tr an sf

er re d to a dif fe re nt s ch ool in D CS S. H e al le ge d th at the tr an sf

er w as in re ta liatio n f

or
co m pla ini ng a

bout Wha tle y ’ s hi ri ng p ra ct ic es . O n a ppe al , P oli te arg ue s th at

the tra ns fer v io la te d DCS S p ol ic y an d, t hu s, was di rect ev id en ce o f ret al ia ti on . T o e sta bli sh a pr im a fa ci e ca se of

r et al ia tio n un de r T itl e V II , apla int if f m ust sh ow, am on g o th er t hi ng s, t ha t h e su ffer edan ad ve rs e em pl oym en t ac t. Pen ni ng to n v . Cit y

of Hu nt sv il le , 26 1 F .3d12 62 , 12 66 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). An adve rs e em

plo ym en t a ct

is “ [a ] tangi ble e m

plo ym en t a ct ion[ that] c onst itu te s a signi ficant change in em

ploym ent status su ch as hiring, firing, failing to prom ote,
re as sig nm en t w ithsig nif

ic antly dif fe re nt r es pons ibi lit ie s or

ade ci sio n c au sin g a
s i g n i fi ca n tch an g e i n b en ef i t s .” Web b -E dwa rd s v . Or an g e C o u n t y Sh er i ff ’s O ff ic e, 525 F
. 3d 1 013, 103 1 ( 11th C ir
. 200 8) ( int er na l qu otatio n and c itatio n
om itt ed ). T he a ct

m ust be suc h th at

“ a re as ona

ble e m plo y ee w oul d have f

ound theThe dist rict court corr ectly grante d summary judgme nt on all Title VI I claims ag ainst Whatley 6 in her indiv i du al capa city : Title VI Idoes not provide f or suits ag ainst persons in their individual capa cities. Cross v. State of Ala., 49 F.3d 1490, 1504 (11th Cir. 1995). B eca use the sec tion 1981 claims, brought pursuant to section 1983, ag ainst Whatley wer e brought as a “para llel remedy” for Title VI Iviolations, summ ary judgme nt also was appropriate on those claims. See Unde rwood v. Pe rr y County Comm’ n, 43 1 F .3 d 78 8, 79 3 ( 11 th C ir . 2 00 5) (T itl e VI Iand se c tio n 1 98 3 u se the same analy tical fra mework when sec tion 1983 is used as a par allel re medy for a Title VI Iviolation). 7 ch al le nge d a ct ionm at er ia lly a dve rs e. ” Burl ing tonN
. & Santa F e. Ry
. Co
. v. White, 126 S.C t. 2405, 2415 (200 6). T he dis tr ic t c ourt c om

m itt ed no e rr or in gr an tin g sum

m ar y j udgm en t on Po lit e’ s r et al ia tio n c la im

be ca use he suf

fe re d no a dve rs e em

plo ym en t a ct . H is te ac hin g j ob a ft er

the tr an sf

er inv olv ed the sam e re spon sib ili tie s, and h e ha d th e
sam e pay . He stated in his d epositio n that he got alon g well w ith the principal at his ne wsc hool
. T hus, his e m plo ym en t st at

us w as not

m at er ia lly

a dve rs el y affe cted by

the transfer
. 6 O n a ppe al , P oli te a lso c ha lle nge s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s di sm iss al of his state law claim s on so vereign im m unitygrounds
. He contends th at because D CSS had lia bil ity ins ur an ce , it

w ai ve d it s so ve re ignim

m uni ty . S ove re ignim

m uni ty e xte nds t o th e s t a t e an da l l o f

i t s d e p a rt men t s an da g e n c i e s an dc a n b e wa i v e do n l y b y a le gi sl at iv e act sp eci fic al ly del in eat in g t he waiv er. Ga. Co ns t. Art . I, § 2 , ¶ IX(e). Whi l e t h e G eo rg i a T o rt Cl ai m s Ac tp ro v i d es fo r al i m i t edwa i v ero f t h e s t at e’s
sove re ignim

m uni ty f or tor ts o f its of

fi ce rs and e m

plo y ee s, thi s w ai ve r expr es slyWe b ri e fl y a dd re ss P ol it e’s re ma ini ngargume nts . H e argue s th at th e dis tr ic t c ourt e rr e d in 7 de nyinghis mot ion

to i nc re a se the numbe r o f d e po sit ion s h e c ou ld take fr om 10 to 2 0. B ut P oli te offe rs no substantive ar gument on why this decision was in err or; we de em this argument waived. See F lanig an’s Ente rs., Inc. of G a. v. F ulton County , Ga., 242 F.3d 976, 987 n.16 (11th Cir. 2001) (a pa rty waives a n issue wher e, al t h o u gh the issue was me ntioned in passing, the party did not elabor ate or provide any citation of authority in support of t he is sue). He also argues that the district court e rre d in denying his motion to strike Watley ’s af fidavit in support of summary judgme nt. But motions to strike are onl y appropr iately addre ssed t owar ds matters conta ined in the pleading s; here, th e a ff i d a v i t w a s s u

b m i t t edas p arto f t h e m o t i o n fo r s um m ary

j u d gm en t , wh i ch i s n o ta p l ea d i n g. See F ed.R.Civ.P. 7(a), 12(f) . Contrary to Poli te’s unsupported a ssertions on appea l, nothing evidenc es that the district cour t vie wed the evidenc e in the lig ht most favorable to Defe ndants or that Def endants did not seek summary judgme nt on all of his claims. The re cord shows that the district court a dequate ly

evaluated and c onsid er ed t h e ev idence befor e it and applied the corr ect leg al standards in de cidingthe summary judgme nt motion.

8 excludes schoo l districts. O .C. G. A. § 50-21-22 (5). Polite has not sho wn that DCS S w aived its imm

unitybecause he points to n o legislativ e act pr ovid ing for a
wa iver. In addition, because Whatley wa s a state em

ploy ee whose alleged tort was
com m itted while acting within the scope of her em ploym ent, she also w as entitled to imm unity
. O. C.G .A . § 50-21-25(a). AFFIR MED. 7