F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Dece mber 5 , 2 005 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK

Honora ble J . Owen F orre ster, United States District Judge f or the Nor

thern District of * Geor g ia, sitting by

desig nation. [PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1171 3

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 02-00991 -CV -W S-L VIOLA W ILLIAMS UNDERWO OD, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us PERRY COUNTY COMM ISSI ON, AL BE RT TU RNE R, ALBERT PAIGE, Defen da nt s- App el le es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court f o r th e S o u th e rnD i s tr i c to f

A l ab a ma

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (D ec em be r 5, 200 5) Before CA RNE S and PRY OR, Circuit Judges, and FO RRE ST ER , D istrict Judg e. *2

PE R CU RIA M: A ft er w e va cate d our earl ie r opi nio n, w e or de re d su ppl em en ta l br ie fs f

ro m the parties. W e now substitu te this opi nion for our earlier one. T he iss ue in thi s a

ppe al is w he the r a co m

pla int of se x di sc ri m inatio n regarding the hiring of a truck driver for Perr y County , A labam a, survives sum m ar y j udgm en t whe n th e ap pli cant, V iol a U nde rw ood, f ai le d to e sta

bli sh tha t a m al e w as hir ed

f or the pos iti on. U nde rw ood sue d th e Co unty Co m m iss ionand i ts de ci sio n m ak er , A lbe rt

P ai ge , and the dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d sum m ar y j udgm en t i n f a v o r o f th e C o mmi s s i o nan dP a i g e . We a f f i rm. I. BACKG ROUND Be fo re we ad dre s s th e p ar t i es ’ le g al ar g u m en t s , we ad dre s s two m at t er s . We b e g i nwi th ad i s c u s s i o no f th e f a c t s , i n c l u d i n g th e h i r i n g p r o c e s s i nP e rry C o u n ty, the events that led to Underwood’ s com plaint, and the other indiv iduals who were hired by Per ry County around the tim e of U nderwood’ s application. W e then expla in the pr oc ed

ur al his tor

y of the appe al . A . F ac ts Be ca use sum m ar y j udgm en t w as e nte re d a ga ins t U nde rw ood, w e vie wthe ev ide nc e in the li ght

m ost f av or ab le to U nde rw ood w he ne ve r the re is a dis put e of fa ct . S ee S w int

v. Ci ty of W ad le y , 51 F . 3d 9 88, 992 ( 11th C ir . 199 5) . W e ad dr es s3

one a spe ct

of the r ec or d th at

w as de te rm inativ e in the dis tr ic t c ourt, but is not d et erm i n at i v e i nth i s ap p ea l : Un d erwo o d ’s p ri o r c o n v i ct i o n s fo r s p ee d i n g . We also address the aspect of the rec ord that is determ inative in th is appeal: whether a m al e was hi redby the Co un ty to fi ll th e v acan cy forwhi ch Und erwo odap pl ie d. 1. H ir ing P ro ce ss i n P er

ry Co unty Whe n aj ob o pe nin g oc curs in Pe rr y Co unty , the va canc y

is adve rt ise d inthe local newspaper. Prospective em ploy ees subm it an application for the advertised j ob throu gh the state unem ploym ent office. T he unem ploym ent office then fo rw ar ds the appl ic at ionto the c le rk of the P er ry Co unty Co m m iss ionw ho su bm it s t he ap pl ic at io n t o t he supe rin te nd en t o f th e ap pr op ria te de pa rtment. Appl ic at ion s f

or j ob o pe nin gs w iththe P er ry Co unty H igh w ay D ep ar tm en t are s ub m it te d t o Al be rt P ai ge , Sup eri nt en de ntof t he Perry Cou nt y Sh edOffic e. Pa ige r ev ie w s and s cr ee ns the appl ic an ts and c ondu ct s in te rv ie w s. A ft er thi s pr oc es s, P ai ge r ec om

m en ds a c an did at e to the Co m

m iss ionf or appr ova l. T he Co m m iss ionthe n de ci de s by

am aj or ity

vot e w he the r to a cc ep t or r ej ec t the re co m m en da tio n. I n th e fo urte eny ears that P ai ge ha s be ensup er int en de nt, the Co m m iss ionha s ne ve r re

j ec te d ar ec om

m en da tio n th at

he ha s m ad e to the Co m m iss ion . When he consid ers an applicant for a truck driver position , P aige ensures4

that the appl ic an t ha s th e re qui re d c om m er ci al dr ive r’ s li ce nse and r el ev an t dr ivi ng experience. Paige te stified that skil l, e xperience, lack of substance abuse, se nio ri ty , ove r- the -r oa d e xpe ri en ce , goo d dr ivi ng r ec or d, and c om m on- se nse j udgm en t w er e qua lit ie s of a“ good tr uc k dr ive r. ” H e expla ine d th at a“ good dr ivi ng r ec or d” is ac ci de nt- fr ee , w ithno c itatio ns f or spe ed ing or

dr ivi ng unde r the influence of alcohol or drugs. Paige later testified, in a declar ation executed after his de posi tio n and the c los e of dis co ve ry , that “ one of

the m ost im portant qua lif ic at ion s f or suc h apos iti on i s agoo d dr ivi ng r ec or d. I n f ac t, agoo d dr ivi ng re co rd , inc lud ing no c onvi ct ion s f or dr ivi ng unde r the inf

lue nc e or se ri ous m ovi ng violatio ns[,] is a qualification for a j ob as a truck driver w ith Perry County .” A s part of it s pr oc es s f

or hir ing tr uc k dr ive rs , P er

ry Co unty de te rm ine s f

ro m re co rd s of

the A la bam a D ep ar

tm en t of Mo tor V eh ic le s whe the r pr ospe ct ive em pl oyees h av e an y

au to m ob il e acc id en ts or c it at io ns form ov in g v io la ti on s. Paige testified that this backgroun d check is com pleted “ before hiring a driver. ” T he re is no e vid en ce that P ai ge c he ck ed U nde rw ood’ s dr ivi ng r ec or ds at the D ep ar tm en t of Mo tor V eh ic le s whe n P ai ge c onsi de re d he r ap pli catio n. 2. V iol a U nde rw ood’ s Appl ic at ionf or E m plo ym en t So m et im e in 1 998, w hil e she w as w orkin g a t W al -M ar t, U nde rw ood ha d a co nv ers at io n wi th Pai ge ab ou t b ei ng hi redas atru ckdri ve r fo r th e co un ty.5

Und erwo odask edPai ge if t he co un ty hire d fe m al es as t ru ckdri ve rs . Paige re plied affir m atively and “ told [her] how to get a j ob, and that if [she] got the experience he would hire a w om an.” Pa ige state d th at U nde rw ood ne ed ed

to obt ai n th e required training and that sh e “ would need to go up und er the hood and get fam il ia r wit h t he pa rts an d e ve ryth in g.” InN ove m

be r 2000 , U nde rw ood be gan he r tr ai nin g a s atr uc k dr ive r at

a tr uc k dr ivi ng p ro gr am

in Se lm a, A la

bam a, and s he c om

ple te d th is tra ini ng i n January 2001 . On Fe bruary

5, 2001, U nderwood obtained a Class A com m ercia l driver’ s license, which enabled her to drive large trucks, includi ng 18 -w heel tr ac tor -tra ile rs . W ithhe r Cl as s Ali ce nse , Unde rw ood al so h ad aha zard ous m at eri al s en do rs em en t an d apa ss en ge r en do rs em en t. Inhe r de posi tio n, Underw ood testi fied that she had two m onth s of driving exp erience as part of a training prog ram

with W iley

Sanders where she drove 18-w heel, 13-speed vehicles over long d istances with a tra iner. InJanuary

200 1, U nde rw ood vis ite d th e Pe rr y Co unty S he d and s poke w ith Pai ge ab ou t p os si bl e em

pl oym en t o pp or tu ni ti es as atru ckdri ve r wit h t he co un ty. U nde rw ood te sti fi ed

that P ai ge tol d he r that the re w as one Cl as s Adr ive r posi tio n open and two Class B driver position s wer e “ goin g to be . . . open[] .” U nde rw ood’ s te sti m ony

is unc le ar

about w he n th e Cl as s B pos iti ons w er e goi ng t o6

becom e vacant. A lthou gh coun sel for the Com m issio n and Paige asked U nde rw ood to c lari fy

he r “ goi ng t o be . . . ope n[ ] ” state m en t, the r ec or d do es not co nta in the ne xt p ag e of

the de posi tio n tr an sc ri pt i n w hic h U nde rw ood pr es um ab ly an swe redth atqu es ti on . InA la bam a, aCl as s B dr ive r is l ic en se d to dr ive a“ str ai ght tr uc k” w ith ei th er a s in gl e, du al , or t rip le ax le , andweig ht rat in g o f 26 ,00 0 p ou nd s o r m or e. An ex am pl e o f a Cl as s B tru ckis a sm al l dum p t ru ck . A C lass A driver is licensed to dri ve anythi ng a

Cl as s B dr ive r can dr ive , a s w el l a s “ tr ac tor -tra ile r[ s] w iththe co m bi na ti on , two pa rt v eh ic le .” Pa ige sa id tha t he w as goi ng t o hi re D av id D al la s f or the Cl as s Apos iti on be ca use of D al la s’ s e xte nsi ve e xpe ri en ce . P ai ge sa id h e w oul d hi re U nde rw ood fo r one of the Cl as s B pos iti ons if

she appl ie d. U nde rw ood tol d P ai ge that sh e would take any

positi on as a truck driver, includin g the Class B positio n, even thou gh she had a Class A license. The r ecord shows that Underw ood su bm itted an application for ea ch posi tio n a s it

be cam e ope n. A ft er

U nde rw ood’ s c onve rs at ionw ithP ai ge in Ja nu ary 20 01 , Und erwo odtwi ce ap pl ie d fo r em pl oym en t as a truc k d riv er. U nde rw ood fi le d a

ppl ic at ion s th re e tim es – i n January 200 1, Marc h 20 01, and May 2001 , but U nderwood testified that she sub m itted the third appl ication form7

after the County

lost her second on e. A lthou gh the record does not cont ain either of he r oth er tw o a ppl ic at ion s, the r ec or d c ont ai ns a c opy of the May 200 1 ap pli catio n. The M ay 2001 application stated th at U nderwood wa s apply ing for a truck driver positio n with the county , but the application didnot specify whether U nde rw ood soug ht a

Cl as s Aor

Cl as s B pos iti on. T he appl ic at iondid not r eque st an d U nde rw ood did

not sup ply any inf orm at ionr eg ar din g he r dr ivi ng r ec or d or lic en se status . U nde rw ood te sti fi ed that sh e ne ve r int er

vie w ed f or and w as not of fere d a ny j ob with P erry Cou nt y . It is undis puted th at U nderwood had two conviction s for speeding in Perry Co unty D istri ct Co urt i n th e fi ve y ears be fo re he r ap pli catio n. C er tif ie d r ec or ds fr om P er ry Co unty r ef le ct that onF eb ru ar

y 11, 199 8, U nde rw ood w as f ound gui lty of dr ivi ng 7 1 m

ph i n a45 m

ph z one , and o n M ar ch23, 199 9, she w as f ound gui lty of dri vi ng 73 m

ph in a 55 m

ph zo ne . Ne ither Paige nor the Com m issio n knew ab ou t t he se co nv ic ti on s wh en th ey de ci de d n ot to hi re Un de rwo od . T he Co m m iss ionand P ai ge c ont en d th at U nde rw ood’ s c onvi ct ion s f or spe ed ing in ex ce ss o f 15 m ile s an ho ur above the pos te d sp ee d li m it ar e se ri ous traff ic violation s. Underwood does not dispu te that contention . Both federal re gul at ion s f

or c om m er ci al dr ive rs and A la

bam a lawpr ovi de that sp ee din g in8

ex ce ss o f 15 m ile s an ho ur above the spe ed

li m it is a se ri ous tr af

fi c vio la tio n, and convictio ns for a ser ious traffic violation tem porarily suspendthe license of a co m m er ci al dr ive r. 49 C. F. R. § 38 3. 51 ( c) ; A la . Co de § 32 -9 A -2 .

3. O the rs H ir ed

by P er ry Co unty D av id D al la s w as hir ed

f or the pos iti on a s aCl as s Atr uc k dr ive r, but Underw ood con ceded that he w as better qualified. U nderwood never identified the indiv idual who rece ived the oth er j ob for which she applied. T he rec ord co nta ins the nam es and s ex es of ind ivi dua ls h ir ed

a s C la ss B tr

uc k dr ive rs dur ing 2001 and 2 002. S om e of the dr ive rs of

fe re d j obs by

the Co unty

w er e m al es , but oth er s w er e fe m al es . Ac cording to Paige’ s testim ony , thre e m ales w ere hired as Class B drivers dur ing 200 1 and 2 002. D rake Wri ght w as hir ed

a s atr uc k dr ive r ar ound

200 0 or 20 01 . Alth ou gh he ha d aCla ss A li cen se , he d ro ve a Cl as s B tru ckforth e co un ty. Wright also had a comm ercia l driver’ s license and had been trained at a truck dr ivi ng s ch ool . Wri ght

a lso ha d be ene m

plo y ed a s adr ive r fo r a loc al w ood c o mp an y b e f

o r e h i s e mp l o ym e n twi th P e r ry C o u n ty. Stanley

Stew art w as hired as a tr uc k dr ive r “ [p ] ro bably

som ewhe re m id 2 001, e ar ly 200 2. ” S te w ar

t ha d a co m m er ci al dr ive r’ s li ce nse and a Cl as s Ali ce nse , but

w as hir ed

f or aCl as s B posit ion. Stew art had experience with a tandem truck, which is a ten-whee led9

tru ckwit h adu al ax le on th e rea r. Paige did not th ink th at Stew art had re ceived tr ai nin g a t a

dr ivi ng s ch ool . K

w am e Mc K inn ey

w as hir ed

a s atr uc k dr ive r in 2001 . L ike Wri ght

and S te w ar

t, Mc K inn ey

ha d ac om

m er ci al dr ive r’ s li ce nse and a Cl as s A l ic en se , bu t h e d ro ve a Cl as s B tru ckforth e co un ty. Mc K inn ey did not have any pr ev iou s dr ivi ng e xpe ri en ce , but he ha d be ento tr

uc k dr ivi ng s ch ool . Ac cording to Paige’ s testim ony , tw o fem ales w ere hired as Class B drivers du rin g 2 00 1 a nd20 02 . Mic he ll e Lee was hi redas atru ckdri ve r in 20 00 or 2 00 1. Although Le e initially

acce pted the pos ition , she late r ca lled and declined em ploym ent. Johnnie Shepperd was e m ploy ed by the county

as a C lass B truck driver for a

pproxim ately

seven m onth s. P aige testified that Shepperd w as em plo y ed a ft er L ee de cl ine d e m

plo ym en t w iththe c ounty , be tw ee n 20 01 and 2002 . B . Proc ed ural H istory O n D ec em

be r 31, 200 2, U nde rw ood sue d th e Pe rr y Co unty Co m m iss ion ; A lbe rt T ur ne r, aP er ry Co unty Co m m iss ion er ; and A lbe rt

P ai ge . U nde rw ood al le ge d th at

she w as not

hir ed ba se d onhe r se x, in vio la tio n of T itl e V II of

the Ci vil Ri ght s A ct

of 196 4 and the E qua l P ro te ct ionCl au se of the F ourte en th Am endm ent. T he Com

m issio n was sued as a governm ent entity , and bo th Turner an d P ai ge w er e sue d inthe ir ind ivi dua l c ap ac iti es . A ft er the de fe ndants f

ile d a10

m oti on f or sum m ar y j udgm en t, U nde rw ood co nc ed ed that T ur ne r w as not

a pr op er d efen da nt , andth e d is tri ctco ur t d is m is se d t he cla im s ag ai ns t h im . T he dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d sum m ar y j udgm en t f

or the Co m m iss ionand P ai ge on the gr ound

that U nde rw ood fa ile d to e sta bli sh a pr im a fa ci e ca se of dis cr im inatio n. T he dis tr ic t c ourt c onc lud ed that U nde rw ood co uld

not e sta bli sh that sh e w as qua lif

ie d f or the pos iti on b ec au se she ha d tw o c itatio ns f or spe ed ing that r en de re d he r ine lig ibl e fo r the pos iti on. A lth oughshe did not dis put e the ex ist en ce of

the c itatio ns, U nde rw ood co nte nde d th at the Co m m iss ionand P ai ge co uld not use thi s e vid en ce to de fe at he r qua lif

ic at ion s be ca

use the Co m

m iss ion an d P ai ge did

not ba se the ir

de ci sio n no t t o hi re he r on the spe ed ing c itatio ns. T he dis tr ic t c ourt st at ed

that no party

ide nti fi ed

w ho w as hir ed

to fi ll the va canc y

f or w hic h U nde rw ood ap pli ed , but the c ourt de cl ine d to a ddr es s whe the r U nde rw ood s a t i s f i e dh e r b u r d e no f

p r o v i n g th a tamal e wa s h i r e dt o f i l l th e v a c an c y. II. ST AN DA RD OF RE VIEW T his Co urt r ev ie w s agr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t de nov o. D am on v . Fl em in g S up erm ark et s o f Fl a., In c., 19 6 F .3d13 54 , 13 57 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). Sum m ar y j udgm en t i s a

ppr opr ia te w he n “ the re is no g enuin e iss ue a s to any m aterial f act and . . . the m ovin g party is entitled to a judgm ent as a m atter of law. ” Fe d. R. Ci v. P . 56 ( c) ; se e Ce lot ex Co rp v. Catr ett, 477 U . S. 317 , 322 , 106 S . Ct .11

2548 , 255 2 ( 1986 ). Age nui ne f ac tua l di sput e ex ist s “ if

the j ur y c oul d r et ur n a verdict for the non-m ovin g party .” D am on, 196 F.3d at 1358 (quo ting United States v. Four Par cels of Re al Prop. , 941 F. 2d 14 28, 1437 (11t h Cir. 1991 ) (e n banc )) . I n e xam ini ng the r ec or d, w e vie wthe e vid en ce in the li ght m ost f av or ab le to th e n on -m ov in g p art y . See Dam on , 19 6 F .3dat 1 35 8. III. D ISCU SSION T o r es olv e thi s a

ppe al , w e ad dr es s tw o m atte rs . W e fi rs t di sc uss the gove rn ing lawin the e va luatio n of ac om pla int of se x di sc ri m inatio n su

ppor te d by ci rc um stanti al e vid en ce r eg ar din g ar ef usa l t o hi re an a

ppl ic an t. W e the n a ddr es s whe th er Un de rwo odest ab li sh eda pr im a fac ie cas e o f se x d is cri m in at io n. A lth oughw e co nc lud e that the dis tr ic t c ourt c or re ct ly de te rm ine d th at

U nde rw ood fa ile d to e sta

bli sh a pr im a fa ci e ca se , the ba sis of our c onc lus ionis dif

fe re nt f ro m the ba sis of

the j udgm en t of

the dis tr ic t c our

t. C oc hr anv. U . S. H ea lthCare F in. A dm in. , 291 F . 3d 7 75, 778 n. 3 ( 11th C ir . 200 2) ( ap pe llate c ourt c ana ff irm on any groundsuppo rted by

the rec ord). A . T he L awG ov ernin g a C

om pla int of Se x D isc rim ina tio n Supp orted by Circumstanti al Evidence Re gard ing a Refusal to Hire. U nde rw ood as se rt ed

c la im s of ge nde r dis cr im inatio n invio la tio n of both T itl e V II and the F ourte en th A m en dm en t. A lth oughthe S upr em e Co urt “ do[ es ]12

no t re ga rdas i de nt ic al th e co ns tra in ts of Ti tl e VII an d t he Fed eral Co ns ti tu ti on ,” John son v. Tr ansp. A gency , S anta Clara County , C a. , 480 U. S. 616, 632, 107 S. Ct . 144 2, 145 2 ( 1987 ), “ [w ] he n se ct ion198 3 is use d a s apara lle l r em edy f or violatio n . . . of T itle VI I, the elem ents of the two causes of a ction are the sam e. ” H ar dinv. S ty

nc hc om b, 691 F . 2d 1 364, 136 9 n. 16 ( 11th C ir . 198 2) ( ci tin g Whit ing v. Ja ck son St at e U niv . , 616 F . 2d 1 16, 123 ( 5thCi r. 198 0) ). W e, the re fo re , dis cu ss the se c la im s un de r the sam e fr am ew ork. A plaintiff m ay

establish a claim

of illegal disparate treatm ent through either dir ec t e vid en ce or

c ir cum stanti al e vid en ce . W ils on v . B/ E A er ospa ce , I nc . , 376 F. 3d 1 079, 108 5 ( 11th C ir . 200 4) ( ci tin g S ch oe nf el d v. Ba bbi tt, 168 F . 3d 1 257, 1266 ( 11th C ir . 199 9) ). U nde rw ood al le ge s th at the Co m m iss ionand P ai ge dis cr im inate d a ga ins t he r ba se d onhe r se x, but U nde rw ood did

not pr es en t any direct evidence of discrim ination in supp ort of her c om plaint. U nderwood argues th atcir cu m st an ti al ev id en ce s up po rts he r co m pl ai nt . W e use the f

ram ew ork e sta

bli she d by

the S upr em e Co urt i n M cD onne ll Douglas Corp. v. Gr een, 411 U.S . 792, 93 S. Ct. 1817 (1973), and T exas D ep ar tm en t of Co m m uni ty A ff ai rs v. Burd ine , 450 U . S. 248 , 101 S . Ct . 108 9 (1981), to evaluate a c om plaint of sex dis crim ination regar ding a fa ilure to hire w he n th e co m

pla int is supp orte d by

c ir cum stanti al e vid en ce . U nde r thi s13

fram ew ork, the plaintiff fir st m ust establis h a prim a fa cie ca se of sex dis cr im inatio n. S ee Co m bs v . P lantatio n P atte rn s, 106 F . 3d 1 519, 152 7- 28 ( 11th Ci r. 199 7) . T o e sta

bli sh a pr im a fa ci e ca se , the pla int if f m ust pr ove that ( 1) she is a m em be r of apr ote ct ed

c la ss, ( 2) she w as qua lif

ie d f or apos iti on and a

ppl ie d f or it, ( 3) she w as not

c onsi de re d f

or the pos iti on d es pit e he r qua lif ic at ion s, and ( 4) equally or less qualified indiv iduals ou tside of her protected class w ere considered or hir ed f or the pos iti on. S ee W ils on, 376 F . 3d at 10 87, 108 9; W el bor n v. Re ynol ds M et al s C o. , 810 F . 2d 1 026, 102 8( 11th C ir . 198 7) . T he pr im a fa ci e ca se cr eate s ar eb utt ab le pr es um pti on tha t the e m

plo y er a ct ed il le ga lly . C om

bs, 106 F. 3d at 152 8. “ At that point, the burden shifts to the em ploy er to articulate a le git im at e, non dis cr im inator y r ea son fo r [n ot h ir ing ] the pla int if f . . . . I f the em plo y er doe s so , the bur de n sh if

ts b ac k to the pla int if

f to i ntr oduc e sig nif

ic an tly pr obativ e ev ide nc e show ing that the a sse rt ed r ea son is m er el y

apr et ex t f

or dis cr im inatio n. ” Z ab env. A ir P ro ds. & Ch em s. , I nc . , 129 F . 3d 1 453, 145 7 ( 11th Cir. 1997 ) (quotations andcitation om itted).

B . W he the r U nde rw ood E

sta bli she d a Prim a F

ac ie Ca se of Se x D isc rim ina tio n. A lth oughw e ag re e w iththe dis tr ic t c ourt tha t Unde rw ood fa ile d to e sta bli sh a p rima facie cas e o f se x d is cri m in at io n, we b as e o urde ci si on on an ot he r rea so n.14

U nde rw ood es ta

bli she d th at

she is a m em

be r of apr ote ct ed

c la ss who a

ppl ie d f or an d w as de nie d e m

plo ym en t, but

she f ai le d to e sta

bli sh tha t a

m al e w as hir ed

to fi ll the va canc y

f or w hic h sh e ap pli ed . W e de cl ine to ad dr es s whe the r the evidence of U nderwood’ s speeding conviction s, which wer e discovered after U nde rw ood co m

m en ce d th is l iti ga tio n and u pon w hic h th e dis tr ic t c ourt ba se d it s de ci sio n, c oul d be use d by the Co m m iss ionand P ai ge to es ta bli sh tha t U nde rw ood wa s not qu alified for the position o f truck driver. O ur pr ec ed en t do es not

r equir e U nde rw ood to “ ide nti fy the suc ce ssf

ul ap pli cant f

or apos iti on unde r the Mc D onne ll- D ougl as pr im a fa ci e fr am ew ork; s he is onlyrequired to establish that th e successful applicant [w as] not within her protected class.” W alker v. Mortham , 158 F. 3d 11 77, 1193 (11t h Cir. 1998 ). If the r ec or d sh ow ed

that the Co m

m iss ionand P ai ge hir ed

onl y m al es f or the posi tio ns whic h U nde rw ood ap pli ed , the n Unde rw ood w oul d satis fy he r bur de n of proving that a person outsi de of her protecte d class was hire d. I t is not n ecessar y that U nde rw ood nam e the ind ivi dua l hi re d by the Co m m iss ionand P ai ge ; i t i s necessary that Underw ood p resent evidence that the favored applicant was m ale. U nde rw ood fa ile d to sa tis fy thi s burd en . A lth oughthe dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t ba se it s de ci sio n onthi s gr ound , the dis tr ic t c ourt e xpl ai ne d th at Unde rw ood

“ m ak es no p re te nse of

nam ing the suc ce ssf

ul a ppl ic an t. ” A ft er

r ev ie w ing the15

re co rd , the dis tr ic t c our

t st at ed that i t ha d “ no w ay

of kno w ing w he the r the j ob Underw ood so ught wa s filled by a m an or a w om an, m

uch less who that person was or w ha t hi s or

he r qua lif

ic at ion s w er e. ” F or

that r ea son, the Co m

m iss ionand P ai ge argue U nderwood failed to establish that th e positio n for w hich she appli ed wa s fi lle d by ape rs on o uts ide he r pr ote ct ed c la ss. On appeal, Underw ood st ill failed to identify the indiv idual who was hired fo r the pos iti on f

or w hic h sh e ap pli ed . U nde rw ood did not dis cu ss this r equir em en t in her brief to this Court, but left us to guess whether there wa s a positio n for w hich she applied and whether that positi on was filled by a m an or w om an. The r ecord re ve al s th at

six ind ivi dua ls w er e hir ed ne ar the ti m e U nde rw ood’ s tw o a ppl ic at ion s w er e pe ndi ng. O ne of

tho se ind ivi dua ls w as D av id D al la s, w ho w as hir ed a s a Class A dr iver, but Underwood conceded, in her deposit ion, that Da llas was m ore qua lif ie d th anhe r. T hr ee oth er ind ivi dua ls, li ke D al la s, w er e m al e – Wri ght , St ewart , andMcKi nn ey

– b ut two in di vi du al s wer e fem al e – Lee an d S he pp erd . The only inference about gend er and the hiring of a truck driver is that both m en and wom en we re hired. When Underw ood failed to iden tify a position for which she applied and th e gender of the per son who filled that po sition , she f ailed to carr

y he r bur de n to a va il he rs el f of the Mc D onne ll D ougl as pr es um pti on. T ha t f

ai lur e is fat al to he r co m

pl ai nt of d is cri m in at io n.16 IV. C ONC LUS ION W e af fi rm the sum m ar y j udgm en t e nte re d inf

av or of the Co m m iss ionand Pai ge . AF FIRMED .