FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T APRI L17, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 11 76 1

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 9- cv -0 10 23 -ODE ARNITA JOHNSON, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff - App el lant , ver su s DOUGLAS COUNT Y SCHOOL DISTRICT, CONSTANCE CRAFT, in di vi du al ly andin he r of fic ia l capa ci ty as Pri nc ip al of Do ug la s C ou nt y Hig h S ch oo l, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt s - Ap pe ll ees , DOUGLAS COUNT Y BOARD OF EDUCATION, an d i ts m em

be rs , et al ., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll D efen da nt s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t forth e Nor th ern Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ap ril 17 , 20 12 )Befo re EDMONDSON an d WILSON, Circu itJu dg es , andVINSON, Dis tri ctJu dg e. * PER CURI AM: Arn it a Jo hn so n, a 5 0- y ear- ol d Afr ic an -Am eri can fem al e, br ou gh t s ui t ag ai ns t h er em

pl oyer, Dou gl as Co un ty Scho ol Dis tri ct , andag ai ns t Do ug la s Co un ty H ig h S ch oo l Pr in ci pa l Co ns ta nc e Cra ft ( co ll ect iv el y “ Defen da nt s” ) al le gi ng race di sc riminat io n u nd er 4 2 U.S.C. § 20 00 e-2 (“ Tit le VII”) an d 4 2 U.S.C. § 1 98 3, an d a ge di sc riminat io n u nd er 2 9 U.S.C. § 62 3 (“ ADEA”). Jo hn so n ap pe al s t he di st ric t co ur t’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of Defen da nt s. Und er McDo nn el l Do ug la s C or p. v. Gr een e , 41 1 U.S. 7 92 , 93 S. Ct. 1 81 7 (1 97 3) , if a p la in ti ff es tabl is he s a p rima facie cas e o f di sp arat e tr eat m en t an d t he
em pl oyer pro ffer s a l eg it im at e, no nd is cri m in at ory reas on forit s emplo y

m en t act io n, the pl ai nt iff

m us t t he n s ho w th atth e p ro ffer edreas on is m erel y a “pr et ex t fo r un la wfu l d is cri m in at io n.” Burke-Fo wl er v. Ora ng e Cn ty
. , 44 7 F .3d13 19 , 13 23 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (p er cu ria m ). Here, th e d is tri ctco ur t fo un d t ha t J oh ns on
es tabl is he d apri m a fac ie cas e o f di sc riminat io n a ndth atDefen da nt s p ro vi de d fo ur le gi ti m at e, no nd is cri m in at ory reas on s fo r rem ov in g J oh ns on fro m he r po si ti on as
co -ch ai r of

th e sc ie nc e d ep artm en t: (1) Jo hn so n s en t m as s emails to th e fac ul ty

Honora ble C. Roge r Vinson, United States District Judge f or the Nor

thern District of * Florida , sitti ngby

desig nation. 2ex pr es si ng di sc on te ntwit h a dm in is tra ti ve de ci si on s, (2 ) Jo hn so n re pe at ed ly and

publ ic ly que st io ne d t he cred en ti al s o f a co ll eag ue , (3) Jo hn so n was un wil li ng to
acce pta cl as sr oo m

wit ho uta labo rat ory

an d i nv ol ve d s tu de nt s i n t he co nt ro ve rs y , an d (4 ) Jo hn so n u nd erm in edstud en t an d p aren t co nf id en ce i n t he sch oo l’s In te rn at io na l Ba ccal au reat e p ro gr am . Upo n re vi ewin g t he reco rd , read in g the bri efs , andwit h t he be ne fitof o ral arg um en t, we fi ndth atJo hn so n h as no t p ro vi de d s uf fic ie ntev id en ce t o i nd ic at e th atth e le gi ti m at e, no nd is cri m in at ory reas on s p ro vi de d b y

Defen da nt s wer e a pr et ex t fo r rac e o r ag e d is cri m in at io n. Fu rth erm or e, sh e h as no t s ho wn t ha t h er
rem ov al wou ldno t h av e o ccu rredbu t fo r Defen da nt s’ di sc riminat ory an im us . Thu s, the di st ric t co ur t d idno t err in gra nt in g Def en da nt s’ m ot io n fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t. AFFIRMED.

3