[DO N OT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 10 55 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 5 :1 0- cv -0 02 43 -CLS
DERRICK LUCY,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,

ver su s
GEORGIA-PACIF IC COR RUGATED I, L LC,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee,
UNITED STEE L, PAPER AND FORESTRY, RUBBER, MANUFACTURING, ENERGY, ALL IED INDUSTRIAL AND SERVICE W ORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt

.

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t for th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of Al ab am a

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (No ve m be r 15 , 20 12 ) Case: 12-10554 Date Filed: 11/15/2012 Page: 1 of 8Befo re MAR CUS, WILSON an d M ARTIN, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

PER CURI AM:

Derri ck Luc y , an Afri can -Am eri can m al e, ap pe al s fo ll owi ng th e distr ic t co ur t’s

gr a n t o f s um m ary jud gm en t in fav or of Geo rg ia -Pac ifi c Co rru ga te d I, LLC (“ Geo r g i a
- Paci fic ”) in hi s em pl oym en t di sc riminat io n su it un de r Tit le VII an d 42

U

. S

. C. § 19 81

. Luc y arg ue s th at th e co ur t erre d by cred it in g Geo rg ia -Pac i f i c ’s

pr of fere d reas on fo r Luc y ’s te rm in at io n in li gh t of th e fact th at , in te r al ia , th e

co m pa ny fai le d to fo ll ow it s own po li cy du rin g a red uc ti on in fo rce ( “RI F ” ) an d

ret ai ne d wh it e em

pl oyees wi th les s s en io rit y . After t ho ro ug h re vi ew, we affi rm

. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t de no vo , ap pl y in g th e

sa m e le ga l st an da rd us ed by th e di st ric t co ur t. Jo hn so n v. Bd

. of Reg en ts of Uni v. of
Ga., 26 3 F.3 d 12 34 , 12 42 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 01 ). W e dr aw al l fact ua l in fere nc es in a li gh t

m os t fa vo rab le to th e n on -m ov in g p art y . Id. at 12 43

. Su m m ary jud gm en t is ap pr op ria te whe re “ th ere is no ge nu in e di sp ut e as to an y

m at eri al fact an d th e m ov an t is en ti tl ed to jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w.” Fed .R.Ci v.P

. 56 (a). Th e mo v a n t be ars th e bu rd en of pr od uc ti on

. Fi ck li ng v. Uni te d St at es , 50 7

F.3 d 13 02 , 13 04 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 07 ). If th e m ov an t m eet s th is bu rd en , “ th e no nm ov in g

pa rty m us t pr es en t ev id en ce be y on d th e pl ea d i n g s s h owi ng th at a reas on ab le jury

co ul d fin d in it s fav or .” Id

. “ Sp ecu la ti on do es n o t c r eat e a ge nu in e is su e of fact .”

2 Case: 12-10554 Date Filed: 11/15/2012 Page: 2 of 8Co rd ob a v. Dil la rd ’s, In c., 41 9 F.3 d 11 69 , 11 81 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 05 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

.

Lik e w i s e , a pl ai nt iff can no t de feat su m m ary jud gm en t by rel y in g up on co nc lu so ry
al le ga ti on s. See Hol ifi el d v . Ren o, 1 15 F.3d 15 55 , 15 64 n.6 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ).

Und er Tit le VII, it is un la wfu l fo r an em pl oyer “ to f

a i l o r r e f u s e to hi re or to
di sc ha rg e an y in di vi du al , or o t h e rwis e to di sc riminat e ag ai ns t an y in di vi du al wit h

res pe ct to hi s co m

pe ns at io n, te rm s, co nd it io ns , or pr iv il eg es of em pl oym en t, be cau se
of su ch in di vi du al ’s race

. . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 20 00 e-2 (a)( 1)

. Sect io n 19 81 of Tit le 42

pr ov id es th at “ [a]ll pe rs on s

. . . sh al l ha ve t h e s a me rig ht

. . . to m ak e an d en fo rce

co nt ract s

. . . to th e fu ll an d eq ua l be ne fit of al l la w an d pr oc eed in gs

. . . as is en joy ed by whit e ci ti zen s .

. .” 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 1. Ra ce d is cri m in at io n c la im s u nd er § 19 81

ha ve th e sa m e el em en t s an d req ui rem en ts of pr oo f as th os e un de r Tit le VII. See

Ch ap te r 7 Tru st ee v . Gate Go ur m et , Inc ., 68 3 F.3d 12 49 , 12 56 -5 8 (11 th Cir . 20 12 );

Ri ce-La m ar v. Ci ty of Fo rt Lau de rd al e, Fl a., 23 2 F.3 d 83 6, 84 3 n.1 1 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 00 ).

To ev al ua te cl ai m s ba se d on ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce of di sc riminat io n, a co ur t

m ay ap pl y th e bu rd en -s hi fti ng fram ewo rk es ta bl is he d in McDo nn el l Dou gl as Co rp

.

v. Green , 41 1 U.S. 79 2 (1 97 3)

. If th e pl ai nt iff be ars th e bu rd en of m ak in g ou t a pr im a
fa ci e cas e of di sc riminat io n, an d th e em pl oyer sh ows a le gi ti m at e, no n- di sc riminat ory

reas on fo r th e te rm in at io n, id . a t 8 0 2

- 03 , t he pl ai nt iff m us t th en of

fer ev id en ce th at

th e reas on is pr et ex tu al , Wil so n v. B/ E Ae ro sp ace, In c., 37 6 F.3 d 10 79 , 1 08 7 (1 1t h

3 Case: 12-10554 Date Filed: 11/15/2012 Page: 3 of 8Ci r. 20 04 ). Here, th e d is tri ct co ur t co nc lu de d t ha t Lu cy es ta bl is he d hi s pr im a faci e

cas e, an d al th ou gh Geo rg ia -Pac ifi c co nt es ts th at co nc lu si on in it s br ie f, we ne ed no t

co ns id er t ho se arg um en ts be cau se Lucy fail ed to de m on st rat e p ret ex t.

To sh ow pr et ex t, a pl ai nt iff m us t sh ow th at th e em

pl oyer’s of

fere d reas on was

no t th e tru e reas on fo r it s de ci si on , “ ei th er di rect ly by pe rs ua di ng th e co ur t th at a
di sc riminat or y reas on m or e li ke ly m ot iv at ed th e em pl oyer or i nd ire ct ly by sh owi ng
th at th e em

pl oyer’s pr of

fere d ex pl an at io n is un wor th y of cred en ce.” Ja ck so n v. St at e
of Ala. St at e Ten ur e Co m m ’n, 40 5 F.3 d 12 76 , 12 89 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 05 ) (q uo ta ti on

om it te d)

. A pl ai nt iff can no t su cces sf ul ly sh ow pr et ex t “ by si m pl y qu arre li ng wit h th e
wis do m of t ha t re as on .” Ch ap m an v. AI Tran sp or t, 2 29 F.3 d 10 12 , 10 30 (11 th Cir

. 20 00 ) (en ba nc ). M o r e ov er, th e la w i s cl ear th at th e pl ai nt iff ’s o wn ev al ua ti on an d

op in io n is no t a su ffi ci en t ba si s to es ta bl is h pr et ex t. St an da rd v. A.B.E.L. Serv s., In c.,
16 1 F.3 d 13 18 , 13 32 -3 3 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 98 ). In st ead , a pl ai nt iff m us t sh ow pr et ex t wit h

“ co nc ret e ev id en ce in th e fo rm of sp eci fic fact s.” Bryant v

. J on es , 57 5 F.3 d 12 81 , 13 08 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. Here, th e di st ric t c o u rt di d no t err by gr an ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t on Luc y ’s

race di sc riminat io n cl ai m

. Luc y al le ge d th at he was te rm in at ed in a RIF th at al lo wed

“ bu mp i n g ” of em

pl oyees whe reb y se ni or em pl oyees to ok th e job s of jun io r

em pl oyees, unt il L uc y , a bla ck em plo y ee w ho wor ke d in Geo rg ia -Pac ifi c’s pr od uc ti on

4 Case: 12-10554 Date Filed: 11/15/2012 Page: 4 of 8de pa rtment, was at th e po in t of bu m pi ng a jun io r em

p l o ye e i n i ts al l-wh it e

m ai nt en an ce de pa rtment. At th at po in t, sa y s Luc y , th e ru le s were ch an ge d an d Luc y , who was qu al ifi ed to ta ke th e po si ti on , was de ni ed hi s bu m pi ng rig ht s an d te rm in at ed

. As th e reco rd sh ows , ho wev er, th ere was no in di cat io n th at R an dy Hun t, th e
Co nv ert in g Su pe rin te nd en t at Geo rg ia -Pac ifi c’s Hun ts vi ll e , Alab am a, faci li ty, was

aware of an y of Luc y ’s m ai nt en an ce ex pe rie nc e whe n Luc y was la i d o f f

. Lu cy ’s

ap pl ic at io n fo r Geo rg ia -Pac ifi c di d no t m en ti on t h e th ree te ch ni cal co ll eg e co ur se s
he to ok , an d di d no t in cl ud e al l of th e ta sk s th at he de em ed m ai nt en an ce-r el at ed th at
he pe rfo rm ed at p as t jo bs

. The ap pa ren t la ck of cl ari ty reg ard in g th e q ua li fic at io ns

re q u i red to wor k in th e m ai nt en an ce de pa rtment di d no t de tra ct fro m Hun t’s

ex pl an at io n th at he ne ve r ev en co ns id ered Luc y go in g to th e m ai nt en an ce de pa rtment,
be cau se Hun t di d no t kn ow th at Luc y ha d an y m ai nt en an ce-r e l a t ed qu al ifi cat io ns

. The reco rd al so sh ows th at no ot he r em pl oyee bu m

pe d in to th e mai n t e n a n ce
de pa rtment at th at ti m e, an d th at m ai nt en an ce job s, un li ke ot he r job s in th e pl an t, di d

no t h av e to be in te rn al ly pos te d, wh ic h s et th at de pa rtment a pa rt f ro m th e o th ers

. Fu rth er, th e reco r d sh ows th at Luc y ne ve r to ld Hun t th at he wan te d to bu m p
in to th e m ai nt en an ce de pa rtment or ev en di sc us se d th e po ss ib il it y of do in g so

. Luc y

arg ue s th at Hun t wro ng ly de pr iv ed hi m of an i n d iv id ua l m eet in g, bu t Hun t si m pl y

co nc lu de d th at , as th e le as t-s en io r em pl oyee le ft, th ere were no rem ai ni ng po si ti on s.

5 Case: 12-10554 Date Filed: 11/15/2012 Page: 5 of 8In de ed , be cau se Luc y was th e le as t-s en io r em pl oyee w ho was no t im m ed ia te ly

te rm in at ed , Luc y face d a hi gh pr ob ab il it y of lo si ng ou t du rin g th e bu m pi ng pr oc es s.
The refo re, th e co ur t pr op erl y co nc lu de d th at Hun t ha d no reas on to co ns id er pu tt in g
Luc y , a m an uf

act ur in g wor ke r, in to th e m ai nt en an ce de p a rtment, whi ch de m an de d

so m e so rt o f di ffer en t s ki ll set an d s om e ex po su re t o ri sk

. Mo reo ve r, whi le it ap pe ars th at at le as t th ree em pl oyees -- Do n i t a R a t cl iff e,
Ced ric Rea du s, an d Perv is W il li am s, al l o f w h o m a re bl ack -- were no t req ui red to
de m on st rat e th ei r ab il it y pe rfo rm th ei r ne w po si ti on s in th e co nv ert in g de pa rtment
wit h on e ho ur of in st ru ct io n, th os e em pl oyees ha d pr ev io us ly wor ke d in th e

co nv ert in g de pa rtment, so Hun t as su m ed th at th ey wou ld be ab le to pe rfo rm th e ta sk s
ad eq ua te ly. Alt ho ug h Hun t arg ua bl y di d no t ap pl y th e on e ho ur ru le co ns is te nt ly, th at
do es no t i nd ic at e th at hi s ex pl an at io n fo r te rm in at in g Lu cy in st ead of b um

pi ng hi m
in to th e m ai nt en a n c e d e p a r tm en t was a pr et ex t fo r race di sc riminat io n. As th is

ev id en ce al so sh ows , al th ou gh th e pa rti es di sp ut ed th e se m an ti cs , th e effe ct of th e RIF

was th at se ve ral bl ack em pl oyees to ok po si ti on s form al ly he ld by whi te em pl oyees,
whe th er de sc rib ed as a bu m p or jus t fil li ng an op en sp ot

. Eit he r way , th e le ss se ni or

em pl oyees wou ld ha ve be en di sp la ced by th e m or e se ni or em pl oyees du rin g th e RIF.

Thu s, al lo win g bl ack em pl oyees to fil l p o s i ti on s whi ch us ed to be lo ng to whi te

em pl oyees do es no t sh ow th at Hun t’s reas on fo r la y in g of f Luc y was pr et ex tu al

. And

6 Case: 12-10554 Date Filed: 11/15/2012 Page: 6 of 8as fo r Luc y ’s cl ai m th at th e al le ge d l y raci st at m os ph ere in th e m ai nt en an ce

de pa rtment so m eh ow affe c t e d H u n t’s de ci si on , Luc y hi m se lf ad m it te d th at he ha d

ne ve r wit ne ss ed an y raci st co nd uc t at Geo r g i a
- P aci fic or he ard Hun t ex pr es s an y
raci al ly dis cri m in at or y

sen ti m en t.

Luc y ’s cl ai m th at Geo rg ia -Pac ifi c ch an ge d it s pr of fere d ex pl an at io n si m il arl y
la ck s m eri t. The wor di ng in Geo rg ia -Pac i f i c ’s po si ti on st at em en t to th e EEOC in

res po ns e to Luc y ’s ch arg e of di sc riminat io n di d no t m en ti on bu m pi ng be cau se , at th e
ti m e of th e RIF, Hun t ha d no id ea th at Luc y was in te res te d in bu m pi ng an em

pl oyee
in th e m ai nt en an ce de pa rtment. Mo reo ve r, whi le th e la ng ua ge is so m ewh at un cl ear,
Geo rg ia -Pac ifi c ha s arg ua bl y m ai nt ai ne d th at th e RIF w a s do ne ba se d on pl an t

se ni or it y an d co nd uc te d by g oi ng th ro ug h th e em pl o ye e s o n e de pa rtment at a ti m e.
Fi na ll y , th at Ri ch m on d Han ey , th e on ly em pl oyee ev er to ha ve tra ns ferr ed in to

th e m ai nt en an ce de pa rtment fro m an ot he r d e pa rtment, m ov ed to th e m ai nt en an ce
de pa rtment di d no t su gg es t pr et ex t si nc e Han ey ’s si tu at io n was no t si m il ar to Luc y ’s.

The reco rd in di cat es th at Han ey de m o ns tra te d a hi gh de gr ee of m ai nt en an ce
kn owl ed ge whi le wor ki ng in th e pr od uc ti on de pa rtment, an d he te st ifi ed th at he ha d

le arn ed ho w to pe rfo rm m ai nt en an ce ta sk s jus t by ob se rv in g m ai nt en an ce em pl oyees
du rin g hi s 16 y ears at Geo rg ia -Pac ifi c. Lon g be fo re th e RIF, Pl an t Man ag er Mel vi n
Yate s ha d ob se rv ed Han ey ’s sk il ls an d s e nt hi m to as si st th e sh or t-h an de d

7 Case: 12-10554 Date Filed: 11/15/2012 Page: 7 of 8m ai nt en an ce de pa rtment, whi ch H a n e y di d da il y fo r ei gh t m on th s. Afte r do in g so ,

Han ey fo rm al ly ap pl ie d fo r an d rece iv ed a m ai nt en an ce po si ti on , be at in g ou t se ve ral

ot he r can di da te s. Han ey ’s lo ng er te rm at Geo rg ia -Pac ifi c, sp eci fic kn owl ed g e an d

ex pe rie nc e wor ki ng on th e co m pa ny’ s m ach in es , an d su cces s in di rect co m pe ti ti o n
wit h ot he r job ap pl ic an ts sh ows th at Han ey rece iv ed th e po si ti on on hi s own m eri t,

an d no t be cau se of an y raci al fav or it is m

. Luc y , in co m pa ris on , ne ve r ev en in di cat ed

th at he was in te res te d in m ai nt en an ce, an d Hun t was no t aware th at he ha d an y
rel ev an t ex pe rie nc e. The refo re, Han ey ’s tra ns fer to th e m ai nt en an ce de pa rtment do es

no t i nd ic at e th at Hun t’s p ro ffer ed reas on was p ret ex tu al

.
In sh or t, Luc y fai le d to m eet hi s bu rd en of pr es en ti ng co nc ret e ev id en ce
sh owi ng th at Geo rg ia -Pac ifi c’s le gi ti m at e reas on fo r hi s te rm in at io n was a pr et ex t fo r

race di sc riminat io n. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of

Geor gi a-Pa ci fic

. AFFIRMED.

8 Case: 12-10554 Date Filed: 11/15/2012 Page: 8 of 8