### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Ma y 2 4, 2005 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T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- 1447 7 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D . C. D oc ke t N o. 02- 0342 0- CV -T W T -1 CARL S CHW EE RS, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant, ve rs us BEST BUY, INC., De fendant-Appellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt f or the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (M ay 2 4, 200 5) Be fo re A N D E RS O N , CA RN E S an d H U L L , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

Ca rl Sc h we er s ap p ea l s th e d i s tri ct co u rt ’s o rd erg ra n t i n g Be s tBu y, In c. ’s m oti on f or sum m ar y j udgm en t i n hi s a ge dis cr im inatio n a ct ionf ile d un de r the A ge D i s c r i mi n a t i o n i n E mp l o yme n tA c t , 2 9 U . S . C . § 6 2 1 e ts e q . We a f f i rm. I. InJun e 1997 , S ch w ee rs , the n f if ty -f our y ears old , w as hir ed

by Be st B uy to w o rka s ame r c h an d i s e man a g e r i no n e o f i t s N o rth C ar o l i n as t o r e s . As h o rtt i me later, Schw eers w as transfer red to a store in A tlanta, G eorgia to be a genera l man a g e r , ajo b wi th c o n s i d e r ab l y m o r e r e s p o n s i b i l i ty. W ith in the y ear, how ev er , S ch w ee rs ’ s m oth er too k il l and h e as ke d B es t Bu y to tra ns fer h im

to a st or e cl os er t o h is m ot he r so he co ul d t ak e car e o f he r. Be st B uy obl ige d, m ovi ng S ch w ee rs to an oth er sto re in suburb anA tlanta and shifting him

to the sales m anager position , a j ob with less responsi bilitythan ge ne ra l m an ag er . S ch w ee rs soo n sw itc he d to the m er ch an dis e m an ag er pos iti on i n the sam e store, a j ob equiv alent to sales m anager, but on e he had m ore experience w ith . D ur ing his ti m e w ithBe st B uy , S ch w ee rs r ec ei ve d e igh t c om pla int s, or Pe rf orm an ce Co unse lin g R ep orts, f ro m his sup er vis or s f or suc h th ing s a s le av ing door s to the sto re and t o di spl ay c as es unl oc ke d, im

pr ope rl y sus pe ndi ng em plo y ee s, le av ing m one y

uns ec ur ed , im

pr ope rl y auth or iz ing ove rt im e, and l y ing3

ab out c om ple tin g ta sks . O n M ay

2, 200 2, tw o w ee ks b ef

or e he w as f

ir ed , Sc hw ee rs w as iss ue d hi s la st P CR f or “ una cc ep ta

ble pe rf orm an ce ” an d f

ai lur e to fo llo wthe dir ec tio ns o f m an ag em en t. T he P CR e xpl ic itl y

state d th at

thi s w as his fi na l w ar nin g. Fo r t h e n ex ttwo we ek s , S ch we er s fa i l edt o co m p l y wi th Be s tBu y’ s standard ope ratin g pr oc ed

ur es f or sto ck ing and d isp lay ing m er ch an dis e. H is superviso r also found sig ns in th e back of the store a dvertising prom otion s that Sc hw ee rs ha d no t di spl ay ed , a lth oughthe pr om oti ons ha d e xpi re d. O n M ay 17, 2002 , Be st B uy

f ir ed S ch w ee rs ; he w as f

if ty -n ine y ears old . Sc hw ee rs be lie ve d, and c ont inu es to be lie ve , that he w as f ir ed be ca use of his a ge . A ft er

r ec ei vin g pe rm iss ionf

ro m the E qua l E m

plo ym en t O ppor

tun ity Co m m iss ionto sue , S ch w ee rs f ile d th is l aw sui t a ga ins t B es t B uy f or e m plo ym en t dis cr im inatio n ba se d ona ge . A ft er e xte nsi ve dis co ve ry , Be st B uy m ove d f or sum m ar y j udgm en t, w hic h th e dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d inf ull . S ch w ee rs appe al s. II.

“ W e re vie wde nov o adis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t, appl y ing the sam e le ga l st an dard

a s th e dis tr ic t c ourt. ” Ch ap m anv. A I T ransp. , 229 F . 3d 1012 , 102 3 ( 11th C ir . 200 0) ( enbanc ). “ ‘ Sum m ar y j udgm en t i s a

ppr opr ia te if

the evidence before the court shows that there is no genui ne issue as to any m aterial4

fa ct . . . . I n m ak ing thi s de te rm inatio n, the c ourt m ust vie wa ll ev ide nc e an d m ak e al l r ea sona

ble inf er en ce s inf

av or of the party opp osi ng s um

m ar y j udgm en t. ’ ” I d. (quotin g Haves v. City

of Miam i, 52 F. 3d 91 8, 921 (11th Cir. 1995)). T he A D E Am ak es it

“ unl aw fu l f

or an e m plo y er to . . . dis ch ar ge any in di vi du al . . . be cau se of s uc h i nd iv idua l’s ag e.” 2 9 U.S.C. § 62 3( a)(1 ). A plaintiff m ay

establish a prim a fa cie ca se of age discrim ination with, inter alia, dir ec t e vid en ce of

dis cr im inatio n or

c ir cum stanti al e vid en ce usi ng a vari at ionof the McD onnell Dougl as Corp. v. G reen, 411 U.S . 792, 93 S. Ct. 1817 (1973), fourpart te st. D am on v . F le m ing S upe rm ar ke ts o f Fl a. , I nc . , 196 F . 3d 1 354, 135 8 ( 11th Ci r. 199 9) . S ch w ee rs c ont en ds tha t he ha s pr es en te d bo th d ir ec t and circum stantial evidence. A. D i r e c te v i d e n c e o f

d i s c r i mi n a t i o ni s e v i d e n c e w h i c h r e f l e c t s “a dis cr im inator

y or r et al ia tor y a tti tud e co rr el at ing to the dis cr im inatio n or r et al ia tio n com plained of by

the em ploy ee. ” Id. (citation and quo tations o m itted). “ Dire ct evidence is evidence which itself proves the existence of discrim ination and does n o tr e qu i r e i n f

e r e n c e o r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , a s f

o r e x a mp l e af

r an ka d mi s s i o nf

r o m a m an ag er that he r ef

use d to hir e anappl ic an t be ca use he w as bla ck

or be ca use she was fem al e.” Co op er v . Sou th ern Co ., 39 0 F .3d69 5, 7 24 n.1 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 4) .5

D ir ec t e vid en ce is “ en co unt er ed onl y inf re que ntl y , sin ce [ it] is co m pose d of onl y the m ost blatant r em ar

ks, w hose int en t c oul d be nothin g othe r than to dis cr im inate on the basis of som e im

perm issib le fac tor.” Id. (citation and quo tations o m itted). As proof of dire ct evidence that he w as fire d because of his age, Schw eers poi nts to se ve ra l st at em en ts p ur porte dly m ad e by D ean Whe atm an , the Be st B uy corporate supervisor for A tlanta area stores, including th e store Sc hweer s worked at . Whe atm an , S ch w ee rs c ont en ds, c al le d S ch w ee rs an “ old m an , ” tol d hi m

he wa s a “se n i o r mem

b ero f t h e man ag emen tt ea m ,” an dre co m m en d edt o Sc h we er s ’s f o rmers up e rv i s o r

th a th e s h o u l db e f

i r e d . Wh e nth e f

o rmers up e rv i s o r

a s k e dwh y, Whe atm ana lle ge dly

sa id “ not to w or ry about it be ca use S ch w ee rs w as c los e to retirem ent.” (T his conv ersation was m ore than two y ears bef ore Sc hweer s was fir ed .) T his is not

dir ec t e vid en ce . A ssum ing , a s w e do f or the pur pose s of sum m ar y j udgm en t, that Whe atm ana ct ua lly m ad e the se state m en ts, the y sti ll require an infer ence about his int entions . Wheatm an’ s having called Sc hweer s an “o l dman ” an da“ s e n i o r

memb e r o f th e man a g e men tt e a m” d o e s n o tn e c e s s ar i l y, or by im pli catio n, m ean th at

Whe atm anf

ir ed S ch w ee rs be ca

use of his a ge . N or would directing a superviso r to fire Schw eers a utom atically

m ean that Wheatm an w an te d S ch w ee rs f

ir ed f or apr ohi bit ed

r ea son. I n f

ac t, Whe atm an ’ s st at em en t no t6

to w or ry about f ir ing S ch w ee rs be ca

use he is cl ose to re tir em en t m or e lik el y m eans tha t Whe atm anf

ound S ch w ee rs unqua lif

ie d, but de ci de d to a voi d a confrontation b ecause he w ouldbe leaving soo n anyway . Whatever the ca se, dir ec t e vid en ce of

a ge dis cr im inatio n w oul d be m or e lik e, “ Fi re S ch w ee rs be ca use he is to o o ld .” Neit he r th atst at em en t n oran yth in g c lo se to itwas e ve r m ad e. B. Circum stantial evidence, in contrast to direct evidence, requires an infer ence be y ond the f

ac e of the e vid en ce it se lf

that an e m

plo y er int en de d to f

ir e the em plo y ee be ca

use of the e m plo y ee ’ s a ge . I t i s m

uc h m or e co m

m onl y e nc ount er ed . To evaluate circum stantial evidence in age discrim ination cases, we use a m od ifi edfor m

of t he McDo nn el l Do ug la s t es t. Un de r th atm od ifi edfor m , a em plo y ee e sta

bli she s apr im a fa ci e ca se of a ge dis cr im inatio n ba se d on ci rc um stanti al e vid en ce by de m onstratin g th at

he “ (1 ) w as am em

be r of the protected age group, (2) wa s subjected to adverse e m ploym ent action, (3) wa s qua lif ie d to do the j ob, and ( 4) w as r ep la ce d by or oth er w ise los t a

pos iti on t o a y oung er individu al.” Chapm an, 229 F. 3d at 102 4. When the plainti ff e stablish es a pr im a fa ci e ca se , it

c re at es apr es um

pti on tha t the e m

plo y er unl aw fu lly dis cr im inate d a ga ins t the e m plo y ee . I d.7

H er e, a ll part ie s c onc ed e that S ch w ee rs ha s m et the f ir st, se co nd, and f

ourth part s of the te st. H ow ev er , Be st B uy c ont en ds tha t S ch w ee rs w as not qua lif ie d to be m er ch an dis e m an ag er

be ca use of the num er ous co m

pla int s a bout his poo r j ob pe rf orm an ce . T his is a tou gh s el l. S ch w ee rs ha d ov er thi rty y ears of e xpe ri en ce in retail m anagem ent, which is why Best Buy initiallyhired him

as a gener al m an ag er , apos iti on w ithc onsi de ra bly m or e re spon sib ili ty

than th e m er ch an dis e m an ag er pos iti on h e he ld whe n he w as f ir ed . A cc or din gly , w e ag re e w iththe di st ric t co ur t t ha t Sc hwe ers est ab li sh eda pr im a fac ie cas e fo r ag e d is cri m in at io n. B u t , th e i n qu i ry d o e s n o te n dth e r e . O n c e ane mp l o ye e e s t ab l i s h e s ap r i ma facie case, the burden shifts to the em ploy er to “ articulate a

legitim ate, nond isc ri m inator

y r ea son fo r the c ha lle nge d e m plo ym en t a ct ion . ” I d. T he em ploy er’ s burden is “ m erely one of production ; it need not persuade the court that i t w as a ct

ua lly m oti va te d by

the pr of fe re d r ea sons . I t i s su ff

ic ie nt i f the defendant’ s evidence raises a genuin e issue of fac t as to whether it discrim inated against the plain tiff. ” Id. (quotations om itted). If the e m ploy er articulates one or m ore legitim ate, non-dis crim inatory re as ons fo r the de ci sio n, the pr es um pti on o f dis cr im inatio n is e lim inate d and “ the pla int if f ha s th e oppo rt

uni ty to co m e fo rw ar d w ithe vid en ce , inc lud ing the pr ev iou sly

pr oduc ed

e vid en ce e sta

bli shi ng the pr im a fa ci e ca se , suf fi ci en t t o8

perm it a rea sonable factfinder to conclude that the reasons given b y the em ploy er w er e not the r ea l r ea sons f

or the a dve rs e em

plo ym en t de ci sio n. ” I d. ( quot at ion s om itt ed ). I f the e m

plo y ee doe s no t pr es en t e vid en ce c re at ing age nui ne iss ue of m aterial f act that the em

ploy er’ s articulated re ason is pretextual, the district court sh ou ldgra nt su m

m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of th e em pl oyee. Id. at10 24 –2 5. “ [A] re as on c annot

be pr ove d to be apr et ex t f or dis cr im inatio n un le ss i t i s sh ow n bo th th at th e r ea s o n wa s fa l s e, an dth at d i s cr i m i n at i o nwa s th e r ea l re as o n .” St . M ary’ s H onor Ctr. v. H ic ks, 509 U . S. 502 , 515 , 113 S . Ct . 274 2, 275 2 ( 1993 ) (quot at ion om itted). Best Buy argues that it fired S chwee rs for a legitim ate, non-dis crim inatory reason, nam ely , his continued failure to perform core ta sks required of a m er ch an dis e m an ag er , e ve n a ft er be ing w ar

ne d th at he w as not

pe rf orm ing up t o snuff. S chwee rs concedes that Best Buy “presented com

petent evidence that it had a b us in es s re as on fordi sc ha rg in g [h im ]. ” (R.1 :3 2: 21 –2 2) . Sc hw ee rs stake s hi s c as e on the c ont en tio n th at Be st B uy ’ s pr of

fe re d r ea son is a pretext for its ac tual reason for fir ing hi m —his age. A s evidence, S chwee rs offer s three pieces of circum stantial evidence: (1) Best Buy em ploy ees in other stores who rec eived a num ber of P CRs w ere not fired, a lthou gh these oth er em ploy ees w ere not in volv ed in the sam e or sim ilar conduct; (2) prior supervisors9

sa id tha t he ha d a“ supe ri or tr ac k r ec or d” ; and ( 3) Be st B uy did not f oll owit s standard ope ratin g pr oc ed

ur es in fi ri ng h im . E ac h of the se pie ce s of ci rc um stanti al e vid en ce is ins uf fi ci en t t o e sta

bli sh p re te xt unde r the lawof thi s circuit. See Maniccia v. Brow n, 171 F.3d 1364, 1368 (11th Cir. 1999) (“ In de te rm ini ng whe the r em

plo y ee s are sim ilarl y

sit ua te d f or pur pose s of e sta bli shi ng a prim a fa cie ca se, it is nece ssary to consid er whether the em ploy ees ar e involv ed in or a ccu se d o f th e sa m e o r si m il ar co nd uc t an d a re d is ci pl in edin di ffer en t ways. .

. . W e re qui re that the quanti ty and qua lity

of the c om parator ’ s m isc ondu ct

be ne ar ly ide nti ca l t o pr ev en t c ourts f ro m se co nd- gue ssi ng e m

plo y er s’ r ea sona

ble decisions and confusing apples with oranges.” (citation and quo tation om itted)); Roj as v. F lorida, 285 F.3d 1339, 1343 (11 th Cir. 2002 ) (“ Roj as has also presented ev ide nc e that he r [p ri or

sup er vis or s] pr ai se d he r w ork . . . . T he se dif fe re nc es in th e ev al ua ti on of R ojas ’s per fo rm an ce d o n ot est ab li sh a ge nu in e is su e o n p ret ex t. Diff erent supervisors m ay

im pose different standards of behavior, and a new supe rv iso r m ay

de ci de to en fo rc e pol ic ie s th at apr ev iou s su

pe rv iso r did

not consider im

portant.”); Mitchell v. US BI Co. , 186 F. 3d 13 52, 1355– 56 (11th Cir. 1999 ) (“ Even assum ing th at U SBI did devi ate fr om its poli cy , this deviation do es n o tr a i s e an i n f

e r e n c e o f d i s c r i mi n a t i o n . S t an d i n g a l o n e , d e v i a t i o nf r o m a com pany policy does not d em onstrate discrim inatory anim us.”).10

Sc hw ee rs ’ s r em ai nin g a sse rt ion s—tha t B es t B uy ha d a“ y outh c ult

ur e” and Whe atm ansom eh owse cr et ly inf lue nc ed the de ci sio n to f

ir e him —are not supp orte d by

the r ec or d be fo re the dis tr ic t c ourt. S ee Ch ap m an , 229 F . 3d at 10 26 (“ The r ule is that a feder al appellate court m ay exam ine onlythe evidence w hich wa s before the district court w hen the latter decided the m otion for sum m ary ju d g m en t .” (q u o t at i o n o m i t t ed )) . In s u m , S ch we er s h as n o ts h o wn th at Be s tBu y’ s reason for f

iring him —his failure to do the basic requirem ents of his job—was fa lse or that di sc ri m inatio n w as the r ea l r ea son. S ee S t. Mary ’ s H onor Ctr. , 509 U . S. a t 51 5, 113 S . Ct . a t 27 52. AFFIR MED.