FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT J AN 31, 2008 THOMAS 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N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T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. 07- 1108 7

____ ____ ____ _ D. C. Docket N o. 05-00472 -CV -W DO -5 SILVIA BROWN, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us PULASKI COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, d.b .a. Pu la sk i Co un ty Scho ol s, d.b .a. Pu la sk i Co un ty Scho ol Dis tri ct , RO N A L D E . Q U IC K , I ndi vid ua lly and i n His O fficial C apacity

as Mem ber of th e Pu la sk i Co un ty Boardof Educ at io n, JO HN W . BE MB RY , I ndi vid ua lly and i n H is Of ficial Ca pacity as Mem ber of the Pu la sk i Co un ty Boardof Educ at io n, JE RR Y A . D A V IS , I ndi vid

ua lly and i n H is Of ficial Ca pacity as Mem ber of the Pu la sk i Co un ty Boardof Educ at io n, BON NYC. DI XO N, Individu ally and in Her Of ficial Ca pacity as Mem ber of the Pu la sk i Co un ty Boardof Educ at io n, et al., D ef en dants -Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ (J an ua ry31, 200 8)All other cla ims alleg ed by Br own ar e without merit and a ffirme d without opinion. 1 2 Be fo re A N D E RS O N , BL A CK

and H IL L , Ci rc uit

Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: T his is anappe al by

S ilv iaBr ow n, an A fr ic an -A m er ic anf orm er e m plo y ee of the P ula ski Co unty

S ch ool D istri ct , f

ro m agr an t of

sum m ar y j udgm en t by

the di st ric t co ur t i n fa vo r of

th e Pu la sk i Co un ty Boardof Educ at io n, et al . ( the ap pe lle es ), on B ro w n’ s T itl e V II e m plo ym en t di sc ri m inatio n c la im of w ro ngf ul te rm inatio n onthe ba sis of r ac e, he r Fi rs t A m en dm en t c la im s, and h er br ea chof co ntr ac t c la im . B as ed

upo n th e fo llo w ing ana ly sis , w e af fi rm the j udgm en t of

the dis tr ic t c ourt. W e dis cu ss o nly

Br ow n’ s T itl e V II c la im . W e ag re e that, und er the r ubr ic 1 of McD onnell Dougl as Corp. v. Gree n , 93 S. Ct. 1817 (1973), Br own established her pri m a fa ci e c as e of

dis cr im inatio n: that sh e is an A fr ic an -A m er ic an ; tha t sh e wa s qualified for her j ob; th at she wa s term inated; and that sh e w as replace d by an in di vi du al who was n ota m em be r of a pr ot ect edcla ss . Se e D en ne y v. Ci tyof A lba ny , 247 F . 3d 1 172, 118 3 ( 11th C ir . 200 1) . H ow ev er , w e fi nd tha t the ap pe lle es m et

the ir bur de n of

pr ovi din g le git im at e, non -d isc ri m inator y r ea sons f or he r te rm inatio n: that B ro w n w as unp ro fe ssi ona l i n he r int er ac tio ns w ithsc hool pe rs onne l and s upe rv iso rs ; tha t sh e ex hib ite d in ap pr opr ia te be havio r in the3

workp la ce, i.e. , her

dem eanor, attitude and m anner w ere discourteou s, r ude, dis re spe ct fu l, and una cc ep ta ble ; tha t sh e w as ins ubor din at e; that sh e w as unw ill ing to f oll owthe ins tr

uc tio ns o f he r supe rv iso rs ; and tha t sh e w as unw ill ing to ch an ge orim pr ov e in an y

of t he se area s. Se e, e . g. , H oli fie ld v . R en o , 115 F . 3d 1 555, 156 4 (11th Cir. 1997). Br ow n ha s no t m et

he r ult im at e bur de n. S he ha s f ai le d to r eb ut tha t the st at edreas on s fo r he r te rm in at io n a re a p ret ex t fo r di sc riminat io n. See Com bs v. P lan tat ion P att erns , 106 F . 3d 1 519, 152 8 ( 11th C ir . 199 7) . N ei the r ha s sh e pe rs ua de d u s t ha t t he ap pe ll ees ’ reas on s ar e u nwo rth y of b el ie f. Id . T he de ci sio n m ak er

w as D r. L ind a H ay de n, sup er int en de nt o f the sc hool di st ric t, wh o re co m

m en de d t o t he m em

be rs of t he bo ardof e du cat io n t ha t Br own be term inated for lack of pr ofessionalis m , insubordin ation, poor attitude, and an unw ill ing ne ss t o c or

re ct poo r be havio r. I t i s no t our pla ce to de te rm ine w he the r or no t Dr. Hayden was c orrectin he r as se ss m en t o f Bro wn’s p erfo rm an ce. See Knight v. B aptis t Hosp. of M iami, Inc. , 33 0 F .3d13 13 , 13 18 n. 6 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). W e co nc lud e that D r. H ay de n ingoo d f ai th b el ie ve d B ro w n’ s pe rf orm an ce to be un sa ti sf act ory . Id . ; se e als o M

oorev . Se ars , R oe buc k & Co . , 683 F . 2d 1 321, 132 3 n.4 (11th Cir. 1982 ) (c itations om itted). T he a sse rt ed

r ea sons f or Br ow n’ s di sc harg e w er e not apr et ex t f

or4

discrim ination . The r ecord am ply ref lects that Dr . H ay den was a “by the book ” adm ini str at or

w ho e xpe ct ed

both C au ca sian and A fr ic an -A m er ic ane m plo y ee s to

“ tow the line.” She m ay

not have been a popu lar adm inistrator, but the record evidence ref

lects that wa s because she “ didn ’ t cut any slack left or r ight.” See Jo nes v . G erwe ns , 874 F . 2d 1 534, 154 0 ( 11th C ir . 198 9) ( “ T he lawis cl ear that, ev enif aT itl e V II c la im an t di d no t i n f ac t c om m it the vio la tio n w ithw hic h he is c h ar g e d , ane mp l o ye r

s u c c e s s f u l l y re b u t s an y pri m a fa ci e c as e of dis parate tr eatm en t by

sho w ing that i t ho ne stl y

be lie ve d th e em

plo y ee c om

m itt ed the violatio n.”) . Under de novo r ev ie w , the j udgm en t of the dis tr ic t c ourt i s AFFIR MED.