FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT DE CEMB ER 21, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NOT P UB L I S H] I N TH E U N I TED STA TES C O U R T O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 13494 N on - A r gu m e n t C al e n d ar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 03 -034 67 -C V -M H S -1 Y V E T T E B O Y K I N , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s B A N K O F A M E R I C A C O R P O R A T I O N , an d i t s w h o l l y-o w n ed su b si d i ary d .b .aB a n ko f

A m e r ic a , E Q U I C R E D I T C O R P O R A T I O N , ST ATE OF NEW YO RK EXEC UTI VE D E P A R T M E N T , D I V I S I O N O F H U M A N R I G H T S , D E P A R T M E N T O F H O U S I N G A N D U R B A N D E V E L O P M E N T , E Q U I C R E D I T C O R P O R A T I O N O F A M E R I C A , B A N K O F A M E R I C A , N .A ., D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A p p ealfr om th e U n i te d S tate s D i st ri ct C ou rt f o r t h e N o r t h e r n D is t r ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( D e c e m b e r 21, 2005)In de terminingwh e ther t hedis tric t c ourt

erre d in gra ntingsumma

ry judgment – 1 beca use a material issue of f

act remains to be litigated – we usethe time-honore d standard. That is, we consider

the evidenc e in the light most favorableto the non-movant, here B oy kin, and g iveher t hebene fit of

all re a so na

bleinf erenc e s th at evidenc eyie lds . 2 B efo re T J O F L A T , M A R C U S a n d W IL S O N , C i rcu i t J u d g es. P E R C U R I A M: T he di stri ctcourtgrant ed sum m ary j ud gm enti n favor of B ank o f A m er i ca and i t s w ho l l y- ow ned sub si di ary E qu i C re di tC orpo ra t i on (c ol l ec t i vel y the “ B ank”) on Y ve tt e B oy ki n’ s di s c r i m i na t i on c l a i m unde rthe F a i rH ous i ng A c t( “ F H A ” ) , 42 U . S . C . § 3601, e ts e q. B oy ki n now appe a l s , c ont e ndi ng the f ol l ow i ng: ( 1) the di s tr i c tc ourtappl i e d the w r ong pr i m af a c i e e l e m e nt s i n r e s ol vi ng he rc l a i m , a nd ( 2 ) to m a k e o u t h e rc la im , s h e d id n o t n e e d to s h o w th a t th e B an kc o n tin u e d to ap p r o v e lo a n s f

o rn o n - m in o r ityap p lic a n ts w ith c r e d it q u a lif ic a tio n a n d lo a n d e ta ils ne a r l yi de nt i c a l a nd s i gni f i c a nt l ypa r a l l e l t o he r s , be c aus e tha ts t a nda r d w oul d be v irtu a llyim p o s s ib le to m e e t; ( 3 ) a s s u m in g th e c o u rt u s e d th e c o rr e c t p r im af a c ie e l e m e nt s , s he pr ovi de d e vi de nc e s uf f i c i e ntt o s a t i s f

ys uc h e l e m e nt s ; a nd ( 4) s he p ro v ed th atth e B an k ’ s l eg i t i m at e n o n -d i scri m i n at o ry reaso n –th ath er l o an w as a

“ hi gh- c os t ” l oa n unde rN e w Y ork s t a t e l a w a nd, a s s uc h, w a s i n vi ol a t i on of the B a nk’ s w r i tt e n l e ndi ng pol i c y– w a s apr e t e xtf ordi s c r i m i na t i on. 1 T h e F H A m ak es i tu n l aw fu l fo r “ an y p erso n o r o th er en t i ty w h o se b u si n ess in c lu d e s e n g a g in g in r e s id e n tia l r e a l e s ta te - r e la te dtr a n s a c tio n s to d is c r im in a te3

a ga i ns ta nype r s on i n m a ki ng a va i l abl e s uc h atr a ns a c t i on, ori n the t e rm s or c o n d itio n s o f

s u c h atr a n s a c tio n , b e c au s e o f r a c e [ .]” 4 2 U .S .C . § 3 6 0 5 ( a ) . A

“ r e s i de nt i a l r e a l e s t a t e - r e l a t e d tr a ns a c t i on” i nc l ude s “ [ t ] he m a ki ng orpur c ha s i ng of l oa ns ” “ f orpur c ha s i ng, c ons truc t i ng, i m pr ovi ng, r e pa i r i ng, orm a i nt a i ni ng a dw e l l i ng[ . ] ” I d. § 3605( b) ( 1) ( A ) . I n ac a s e s uc h a s the i ns t a ntc a s e , w he r e the pl a i nt i f f r e l i e s on c i r c um s t a nt i a l – r a the rtha n di r e c t– e vi de nc e of di s c r i m i na t i on, w e us e the bur de n- s hi f

t i ng f r a m e w ork s e tf

orth i n M c D onne l l D ougl a s C orp. v. G r e e n, 411 U . S . 792, 93 S . C t . 1817, 36 L . E d. 2d 668 ( 1973) , a nd T e xa s D e p’ tof C m ty . A f

f a ir s v . B u r d in e , 4 5 0 U .S . 2 4 8 , 1 0 1 S .C t. 1 0 8 9 , 6 7 L .E d .2 d 2 0 7 ( 1 9 8 1 ) , to e va l ua t e the c l a i m of

di s c r i m i na t i on unde rthe F H A . S e e S e c ’ y , U . S . D e p’ tof H ou s. and U rban D ev. v. B l ac kw el l , 90 8 F . 2d 86 4, 87 0 (11 th C i r. 19 90 ). “ [ T ] he e l e m e nt s of

apr i m af

a c i e c a s e a r e f

l e xi bl e a nd s houl d be t a i l or e d, on ac a s e - by - c a s e ba s i s , t o di f f e r i ng f a c tua l c i r c um s t a nc e s . ” F i t z pa tr i c k v. C i tyof A t l a nt a , 2 F . 3d 1112, 1123 ( 11th C i r . 1993) ( quot a t i on m a rks om i tt e d) . I n the c r e di tdi s c r i m i na t i on c ont e xt , apl a i nt i f f c a n e s t abl i s h apr i m af

a c i e c a s e of di sc ri m i nat i on by offe ri ng evi dence s ho w i ng : (1) thatthe pl ai nt i ff i s am em ber of a pr ot e c t e d c l a s s ; ( 2) tha tthe pl a i nt i f f appl i e d f

ora nd w a s qua l i f

i e d f oral oa n f

r om th e d efen d an t ; (3 ) th atth e l o an w as rej ect ed d esp i t e th e p l ai n t i ff’ s q u al i fi cat i o n s; a nd ( 4) tha tthe de f

e nda ntc ont i nue d t o appr ove l oa ns f orappl i c a nt s out s i de of

the4

pl a i nt i f f’ s pr ot e c t e d c l a s s w i th s i m i l a rqua l i f i c a t i ons . S e e C ool e yv. S t e r l i ng B a nk, N o. 03- 14727, m a nus c r i ptop. a t12 ( 11th C i r . J ul y16, 2004) ; s e e a l s o R ow e v. U ni on P l a nt e r s B a nk, 289 F . 3d 533, 535 ( 8th C i r . 2002) . “ I n or de rt o m e e tthe c o m p a r ab ilityr e q u ir e m e n t ap la in tif f is r e q u ir e d to s h o w th a t [ s h e ] is s im ila r ly s i tua t e d i n a l l r e l e va nta s pe c t s t o the non- m i nor i ty ” c om pa r a t or . S i l ve r av. O r a nge C ou nty S ch. B d. , 24 4 F . 3d 12 53 , 12 59 (11th C i r. 20 01 ) ( di sc ussi ng ra ci al e m pl oy m e ntdi s c r i m i na t i on) . C om pa r a t or s m us tbe “ ne a r l yi de nt i c a l t o pr e ve nt c o u rts f r o m s e c o n d - g u e s s in g ” r e a s o n ab le d e c is io n s a n d “c o n f u s in g ap p le s w ith oranges. ” I d. (quo t at i on m arks om i tt ed) ( di sc ussi ng the si m i l ar i ty of m i sc on du ct ne e de d f orac om pa r a t ori n di s c r i m i na t i on c l a i m ba s e d on a n a dve r s e di s c i pl i ne deci si on ). In “ the cr edi tdi sc ri m i nat i on cont ext , the P l ai nt i ff m ustpres entevi dence th a t [ s h e ] w a s ‘s im ila r lys itu a te d in a ll r e le v a n t a s p e c ts ’ to th e n o n - m in o r ity ap p li ca n ts w h o re ce iv ed lo an s f ro m [th e len d er ]. In o th erw o rd s, a c o m p ar ato r’s c r e d it q u a lif

ic a tio n s a n d lo a n d e ta ils m u s t b e ‘n e a r lyid e n tic a l’ to th e P la in tif f’s in or de rt o pr e ve ntthi s c ourtf r om s e c ond gue s s i ng the ba nk’ s bus i ne s s de c i s i on a nd c onf us i ng appl e s w i th or a nge s . ” C ool e yv. S t e r l i ng B a nk, 280 F . S upp. 2d 1331, 13 40 (M . D . A l a. 20 03 ) ( qu ot at i on m arks om i tt ed), af f’ d, N o. 03 -147 27 (11th C i r. Jul y 16, 20 04 ). If the pl ai nt i ff

es t abl i shes a pri m a f

ac i e c as e of di sc ri m i nat i on , the bu rden5

s h if ts to th e d e f

e n d a n t to p r o v id e a“le g itim a te , n o n d is c r im in a to ryr e a s o n f o rits ac t i on s. ” T url i ng t on v. A t l ant a G as L i gh tC o. , 13 5 F . 3d 14 28 , 14 32 (11th C i r. 1998) . I f the de f e nda nts a t i s f

i e s hi s bur de n, the pl a i nt i f f m us te s t abl i s h tha tthe e m p lo y e r ’s r e a s o n w a s a“p r e te x t to m a s ku n la w f u l d is c r im in a tio n .” I d . I n th is fi n al st ep , th e p l ai n t i ff carries th e “ u l t i m at e b u rd en o f est ab l i sh i n g b y a p rep o n d eran ce o f th e ev i d en ce th ata d i scri m i n at o ry i n t en tm o t i v at ed th e [l en d er’ s] a c tio n .” P e rry m a n v . J o h n s o n P r o d u c ts C o ., 6 9 8 F .2 d 1 1 3 8 , 1 1 4 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 3 ) . “[ T ]h e p la in tif

f m u s t th e n p r e s e n t c o n c r e te e v id e n c e in th e f o rm o f s p e c if ic f a c ts w hi ch show thatthe defendant ’ s proff er ed re as on i s m er e pre t ext . M er e co n clu so ry alleg atio n s a n d as se rtio n s w il l n o t su ff ice.” E ar ley v . C h am p io n In t’ l C orp. , 907 F . 2d 1077, 1081 ( 11th C i r . 1990) . F e de r a l c ourt s do nots i ta s ac ourtof ap p e a l s th a tr e e x a m i n e s ab a n k ’ s b u s i n e s s d e c i s i o n s . S e e C h ap m a n v . AI T r a ns port , 229 F . 3d 1012, 1030 ( 11th C i r . 2000) ( a ddr e s s i ng a ge di s c r i m i na t i on c la im ) . A pl a i nt i f

f i s no ta l l ow e d t o r e c a s t[ al e nd e r ’ s ] pr offe re d no n d i scr i m i na t oryr e a s ons ors ubs t i tut e [ he r ] bus i ne s s j udgm e ntf or thatof the [l ender] . P rovi ded thatthe p ro ff er ed re as on i s one that m i gh tm ot i vat e are as o n ab le [l ender] , [al oan app l i cant ] m ustm ee t tha t r e a s on he a d on a nd r e buti t , a nd the [ appl i c a nt ] c a nnots uc c e e d by s im p lyq u a rr e lin g w ith th e w is d o m o f th a t r e a s o n . I d. A l though “ [ d] e pa rtur e s f r om norm a l pr oc e dur e s m a ybe s ugge s t i ve of di s c r i m i na t i on, ” M orr i s on v. B ooth, 763 F . 2d 1366, 1374 ( 11th C i r . 1985) , “ the6

m e r e f a c ttha t[ aba nk] f

a i l e d t o f ol l ow i t s ow n i nt e rna l pr oc e dur e s doe s not nece ss ar i l y s ug gestthat[the bank ] w as m ot i vat ed by i l l egal di sc ri m i nat ory i nt ent [, ] ” R andl e v. C i ty of A urora, 69 F . 3d 44 1, 45 4 (10 th C i r. 19 95 ). T he di s tr i c tc ourtappl i e d the c orr e c tpr i m af a c i e e l e m e nt s i n gr a nt i ng the B a n ks u m m a ryju d g m e n t. W h ile th e e le m e n ts o f ap r im af

a c ie c a s e a r e n o t r ig id and are app l i ed on a c as e- by-c as e bas i s, re qu i ri ng the pl ai nt i ff t o d em on stra t e that othe rs i m i l a r l ys i tua t e d non- m i nor i tyappl i c a nt s obt a i ne d l oa ns f r om the de f

e nda nt prov i des e ss ent i al cont extt o the defendant ’ s dec i si on s, and, abse ntdi re ctevi dence o f d is c r im in a tio n , th e r e is n o b a s is f o ratr ie ro f

f a c t to a s s u m e th a t ad e c is io n to d en y a l o an w as m o t i v at ed b y d i scri m i n at o ry an i m u s u n l ess th e p l ai n t i ff m ak es a s how i ng tha tapa tt e rn of l e ndi ng s ugge s t s the e xi s t e nc e of di s c r i m i na t i on. T he bank ’ s und erw ri t i ng gu i del i nes m aybe m ore s tri ng entthan the gu i del i nes that ge ne r a l l y“ qua l i f

y ” a n appl i c a nt , a nd the m e r e de ni a l of a n appl i c a t i on t o a “q u a lif ie d ” m in o r ityap p lic a n t d o e s n o t a lo n e r a is e a n in f e r e n c e o f d is c r im in a tio n . T h u s , o n e e le m e n t o f

th e p r im af

a c ie c a s e m u s t b e th a t th e le n d e rc o n tin u e d to ap p ro v e l o an s t o si m i l arl y si tu at ed n o n -m i n o ri ty ap p l i can t s. B oy ki n f a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h apr i m af a c i e c a s e of

di s c r i m i na t i on be c aus e s he d id n o t d e m o n s tr a te th a t s im ila r lys itu a te d ap p lic a n ts w e r e tr e a te d d if f e r e n tly . B o y k in ’s e v id e n c e o f

s im ila r lys itu a te d ap p lic a n ts in c lu d e d th r e e w h ite ap p lic a n ts7

w ho se l oans w er e app roved for prop erty w i thi n the sam e geographi c are a a s her pr ope rty . H ow e ve r , the e vi de nc e pr ovi de d no de t a i l s r e ga r di ng the r e l e va nt fi nanci al st atus of the appl i cant s and show ed that(1) tw o o f the appl i cant s app l i ed f orf i r s tm ort ga ge s , notr e f

i na nc i ngs , a nd ( 2) one of the appl i c a nt s appl i e d w i th a c o - ap p lic a n t. T h e s e c o m p a r a to r s a r e n o t “n e a r lyid e n tic a l” to B o y k in , a s n o th in g is k n o w n ab o u t th e irr e le v a n t f in a n c ia l b a c k g r o u n d s o rth e c o s ts o ra m o u n ts o f th e ir lo a n s . N o o th e re v id e n c e in th e r e c o r d r e v e a ls a n ys im ila r lys itu a te d ap p lic a n ts . E ve n i f w e w e r e t o a s s um e tha tB oy ki n e s t abl i s he d apr i m af a c i e c a s e , the B a n kp r o f

f e r e d ale g itim a te n o n d is c r im in a to ryr e a s o n f o rits d e c is io n , a n d B o y k in ha s notde m ons tr a t e d tha tthe r e a s on w a s m e r e l yapr e t e xtf ordi s c r i m i na t i on. T he B a n kd e n ie d B o y k in ’s lo a n b e c au s e it d e te rm in e d th a t th e lo a n w a s “h ig h - c o s t” un der N ew Y ork l aw and w ou l d b e i n v i ol at i on of i t s w ri tt en po l i cyagai nstsuch lo a n s . B o y k in c o n te n d s th a t th e r e a s o n w a s p r e te x tu a l b e c au s e ( 1 ) th e “h ig h - c o s t” r e gul a t i ons di d notappl yt o he rpr ope rtybe c aus e i tw a s notow ne r - oc c upi e d, a nd ( 2 ) th e B a n kf

a ile d to f o llo w its in te rn a l p r o c e d u r e s r e g a r d in g “h ig h - c o s t” de t e rm i na t i ons e a r l yi n the appl i c a t i on pr oc e s s . T he s e a r gum e nt s a r e una va i l i ng: ( 1) w e do notr e e xa m i ne the B a nk’ s bus i ne s s de c i s i ons , a nd, be c aus e the “h ig h - c o s t” lo a n d e c is io n w a s o n e th a t w o u ld m o tiv a te ar e a s o n ab le le n d e r , B o y k in c a n n o t s im p lyc o n te s t th e w is d o m o f th e d e c is io n , a n d ( 2 ) th e B a n k ’s f a ilu r e to8

fo l l o w i n t ern al p ro ced u res al o n e i s n o tev i d en ce o f p ret ex t . T h erefo re, b ecau se B oy ki n f a i l e d t o m a ke outapr i m af a c i e c a s e of

di s c r i m i na t i on ors how tha tthe B ank’ s l egi t i m at e non -di sc ri m i nat ory r ea son w as pret extual , the di stri ctcourt c o m m itte d n o e rr o rin g r a n tin g th e B a n ks u m m a ryju d g m e n t. AF F I RME D.