FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT JUNE 7 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 15658 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 0 2 9 0 6 - CV - 2 - I PJ W I L L I E C . B A T C H , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s J E F F E R S O N C O U N T Y C H I L D D E V E L O P M E N T C O U N C I L , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( Ju n e 7, 2006) B efo re T JO F L A T , D U B IN A an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A pp el l antW i l l i e C . B at ch, an A fr i can-A m er i can m al e, appeal s the di stri ct2

co u rt’s g ra n t o f d ef

en d an t Jef

fe rs o n C o u n ty C h il d D ev elo p m en t C o u n cil, In c.’s (“ JC C D C ”) m ot i on for s um m ary j ud gm entas t o h i s c om pl ai ntal l egi ng ra ci al di s c r i m i na t i on, ge nde rdi s c r i m i na t i on, a nd r e t a l i a t i on, pur s ua ntt o T i t l e V I I of the C iv il R ig h ts A c t o f

1 9 6 4 ( “T itle V I I ” ) , 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 e - 2 , 3 , a n d 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 1 . O n ap p e a l, B a tc h a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr e d a s am a tte ro f la w in grant i ng JC C D C ’ s m ot i on for s um m ary j ud gm entbecause i ti gn ored evi dence su p p o rt i n g h i s p r i ma fa c ie c a s e o f d is c r im in a tio n a n d f

a ile d to d r a w r e a s o n ab le i nf e r e nc e s i n f

a vorof hi m , the non- m ovi ng party . S pe c i f i c a l l y , he a r gue s tha the p r e s e n te d s u f

f ic ie n t e v id e n c e to e s tab lis h th a t s im ila r lys itu a te d w h ite o rf e m a le e m pl oy e e s w e r e tr e a t e d m or e f a vor abl yw i th r e s pe c tt o J C C D C ’ s s i c k l e a ve po l i ci es , and thatJC C D C re t al i at ed agai nsthi m by l ow er i ng hi s per form ance eval uat i on and rel ocat i ng hi s w orkspace fol l ow i ng no t i ce of hi s E E O C char ge. W e r e v ie w th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s ru lin g o n s u m m a ryju d g m e n t de no vo . R oj as v . Flor i da , 2 8 5 F .3 d 1 3 3 9 , 1 3 4 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . T h e m o v in g p a rtyis e n title d to s um m a ryj udgm e nt“ i f

the pl e a di ngs , de pos i t i ons , a ns w e r s t o i nt e rr oga t or i e s , a nd a dm i s s i ons on f

i l e , t oge the rw i th the a f

f i da vi t s , i f

a ny , s how tha tthe r e i s no ge nui ne i s s ue a s t o a nym a t e r i a l f a c ta nd tha tthe m ovi ng pa rtyi s e nt i t l e d t o a j ud gm entas a m att erof l aw . ” F ed. R . C i v. P . 56 (c ). “ W hen d ec i di ng w hether sum m ary j ud gm enti s app ropri at e, al l evi dence and rea sonabl e f ac tual i nfer ence s3

draw n there fr om ar e r evi ew ed i n a l i gh tm ostfa vo rabl e t o the no n-m ov i ng party. ” R oj as , 2 8 5 F .3 d a t 1 3 4 1 - 4 2 ( c ita tio n a n d q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) . T he sa m e p r i ma fa c ie c a s e a n d b u r d e n - s h if tin g m e c h a n is m s ap p lyto T itle V I I a n d § 1 9 8 1 d is c r im in a tio n c la im s . See Shi e lds v . For t J am e s C or

p. , 305 F . 3d 12 80 , 12 82 (11th C i r. 20 02 ). In order t o est abl i sh a p r i ma fa c ie c a s e o f d is p a r a te tr e a tm e ntba s e d on r a c e orge nde rdi s c r i m i na t i on, apl a i nt i f f m us ts how ( 1) tha the i s am em ber of aprot ec t ed cl as s; (2) he w as qu al i fi ed for hi s j ob ; (3) he s uffe re d an advers e e m pl oym entac t i on ; and (4) hi s e m pl oyertre at ed si m i l ar l y s i tuat ed e m p lo y e e s w h o a r e n o t m e m b e r s o f th e p r o te c te d c la s s m o r e f a v o r ab ly . R i ce L a m a rv . C ityo

f Fo r t L a u de rda le , 2 3 2 F .3 d 8 3 6 , 8 4 2 - 4 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . W ith r e s p e c t to th e f

o u rth p r o n g , “[ i]n d e te rm in in g w h e th e re m p lo y e e s a r e s im ila r ly si tuat ed for purpo se s of e st abl i shi ng a pri m a f ac i e c as e, i ti s nec es saryt o con si der w hether the em pl oyee s are i nv ol ved i n o r a cc used of the sa m e or s i m i l arcond uct and are di sc i pl i ned i n d i ff er entw ay s. ” H

ol i f i e ld v . R e no , 115 F . 3d 1555, 1562 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) . T h e e v id e n c e b e f

o r e th e d is tr ic t c o u rt s h o w e d th a t th r e e s p e c if ic s im ila r ly s i tua t e d e m pl oy e e s w e r e doc ke d pa yw he n abs e ntf r om w ork w he n the ydi d not h a v e e n o u g h a c c ru e d le a v e tim e , o rw h e n th e irle a v e r e q u e s ts w e r e n o t ap p r o v e d . S upe rvi s or s of

t e n r e que s t e d w hi t e orf e m a l e e m pl oy e e s t o s ubm i tve r i f i c a t i on f orBe cau s e § 1 9 8 1 i s a s t atut o ry re m edy fo r c l ai m s o f di s cri m in at i o nb as edo nra ceo r a l i en age 1 only, its appli cation to B atch’ s claim of retaliation is li mited in that respect. See42 U. S.C. § 1981(a) . 4 s i c k l e a ve r e que s t s . B a t c h w a s the onl ye m pl oy e e r e qui r e d t o s ubm i tve r i f i c a t i on f o re a c h s ic kle a v e r e q u e s t, h o w e v e r , th is p o lic yw a s im p le m e n te d d u e to h is previ ou sl y a dm i tt ed att endance proble m . B ec ause B at ch fa i l ed t o sho w that s im ila r lys itu a te d w h ite o rf e m a le e m p lo y e e s w e r e tr e a te d m o r e f a v o r ab lyw ith r e s p e c t to th e ap p lic a tio n o f J C C D C ’s s ic kle a v e p o lic y , w e c o n c lu d e th a t h e d id no tes t abl i sh a p r i ma fa c ie c a s e o f r a c e o rg e n d e rd is c r im in a tio n . T o est abl i sh a p r i ma fa c ie c a s e of r e t a l i a t i on f

orbi dde n byT i t l e V I I , the pl ai nt i ff m ustshow that : (1) he part i ci pat ed i n an act i vi ty prot ec t ed by T i t l e V II ; ( 2) he s uf

f e r e d a n a dve r s e e m pl oy m e nta c t i on; a nd ( 3) the r e i s ac aus a l c onne c t i on be tw e e n the pa rt i c i pa t i on i n the pr ot e c t e d a c t i vi tya nd the a dve r s e e m pl oy m e nt d e c is io n . G u

p ta v . Fla . B d. o

f R eg e n ts , 2 1 2 F .3 d 5 7 1 , 5 8 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . W e ha ve f ound r e t a l i a t i on c l a i m s t o be c ogni z abl e unde r§ 1981. See A ndre w s v . 1 L ake s hor e R e habi l i tat i on H os p. , 1 4 0 F .3 d 1 4 0 5 , 1 4 1 1 - 1 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) . M or e ove r , i n the c ont e xtof othe rdi s c r i m i na t i on c l a i m s , w e ha ve c ons true d § 1981 a s ap a r a lle l r e m e d y , w h ic h m a yd e r iv e its p r in c ip le s f r o m T itle V I I . See B lum v. G ul f O i l C or p. , 5 9 7 F .2 d 9 3 6 , 9 3 8 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 7 9 ) . A n a dve r s e e m pl oy m e nta c t i on m us ti nvol ve “ a n ul t i m a t e e m pl oy m e nt5

d eci si o n . . . o r o th er co n d u ctth atal t ers th e em p l o yee’ s co m p en sat i o n , t erm s, c ondi t i ons , orpr i vi l e ge s of e m pl oy m e nt , de pr i ve s hi m orhe rof e m pl oy m e nt op po rtun i t i es , or advers el y a ff ec t s hi s or herst atus as an em pl oyee . ” G u p ta , 212 F . 3d at58 7. (C i t at i on and q uo t at i on om i tt ed). W e have hel d thatem pl oyee pe r f orm a nc e e va l ua t i ons , w hi c h “ do notl e a d t o t a ngi bl e j ob c ons e que nc e s , ” a r e not s u f f ic ie n t to f

o rm th e b a s is o f

ar e ta lia tio n c la im u n d e rT itle V I I . D av is v . T ow n of L a ke P a rk , 245 F . 3d 1232, 1241 ( 11th C i r . 2001) . “ A n a c t i on, w hi c h . . . ha d no ef fe cton an em pl oyee i s notan ‘ advers e’ ac t i on . ” G u p ta , 212 F . 3d a t588. A s s um i ng ar

gue ndo th a th i s s u p e rv i s o r s ’ d i s c u s s i o n o f B a t c h ’ s E E OC char ge af fe ct ed hi s per form ance eval uat i on , w e c on cl ud e thatthe l ow er ed pe r f orm a nc e e va l ua t i on di d notr e s ul ti n ac ha nge i n the t e rm s orc ondi t i ons of B a t c h’ s e m pl oy m e nt . B a t c h w a s nott e rm i na t e d, de m ot e d, orr e a s s i gne d, a nd he c ont i nue d t o r e c e i ve the s a m e s a l a ry . B e c aus e B a t c h f a i l e d t o de m ons tr a t e tha the suff er ed an adverse em pl oym entac t i on , he di d n otes t abl i sh a p r i ma fa c ie c a s e of r e ta lia tio n . F or the abov e s t at ed re as on s, w e a ff i rm the di stri ctcourt ’ s grantof s u m m a ryju d g m e n t. AF F I RME D.