F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Jan uary12 , 2 006 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 05- 1113 1 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D. C. Docket N o. 03-00055 -CV -H LM- 4 PAULETTE CHRISTIAN, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us CARTERSVILLE CITY SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION, STEVE GAMBILL, In div idu al ly

a nd i n hi s of

fi ci al c ap ac ity

a s P ri nc ipa l, MIKE B RYA

NS , in h is o ff ic ia l c ap ac ity

a s S upe ri nte nde nt, Defen da nt s- App el le es .

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the N orthern District of Ge orgia

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(J an ua ry 12, 200 6)
Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, BL A CK a nd P RY O R, Ci rc uit

Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:Plaintiff’s complaint included also a claim of reta liation unde r Title VI I , a state-law claim for 1 intentional in fl i ct i o n of emotional distress, and a claim of c onstructive discha rg e. Summary judgme nt was g rante d dismiss ing these claims. About the re taliation claim, Plaintiff failed to show that she eng ag ed in statutorily protec ted ac tivity , and P laintiff failed to show an adve rse e mploy ment act. About the state law-c laim, the mag istrate judge deter mined that no probative e vidence linked a c ts b y De fe nd ants to c la ime d ma la die s su ff e re d b y Pla int if f. B e c a us e Pla int if

f doe s not pur su e the se claims on appe al, they

are deeme d abandone d. See Dra per v. Rey

nolds, 369 F.3d 1270, 1277 n. 12 (11 Ci r.), cert. de nied, 125 S.Ct. 507 (2004). About the construc tive discharg e cla im, Pl aintiff th failed to a ddress constructive disc harg e in her brief in opposition to summary judgme nt before the mag istrate judge; the mag istrate judg e conc luded the construc tive discharg e cla im was aba ndoned. Pla int if f s ou g ht t o r e viv e the c on str uc tiv e dis c ha

rg e c la im in her ob

je c tio ns to the ma g istra

te re po rt , al th o u ghev en P l ai n t i ff co n ce d ed th at “s h e wa s n o t s p ec i fi c i n ad dre s s i n g th e co n s tru ct i v e d i s ch ar ge claim;” the d i s t ri ct cour t adopted expressly

the mag istrate judg e’s c onclusion that Plainti ff abandone d her c onstructive discha rg e cla im. W e agree .

2 Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant P au laCh ri sti an , a n A fr ic an -A m er ic an , appe al s th e district court’ s grant of summ ary j udgm ent in favor of her f orm er e m ploy er, Cart er svi lle Ci ty

S ch ool s B oard

of E duc at ion( the “ Bo ar d” ), the Ci ty S ch ool s Su p er i n t en d en tMi k e B ryan s , a n dPr i n ci p al St ep h en Ga m b i l l , o n Pl ai n t i ff

’s
co m pla int a lle gin g r ac ia l di sc ri m inatio n, r ai se d purs uant t o 42 U
. S. C. §§ 1981
an d 19 83, a nd T itl e V II of the Ci vil Ri ght s A ct

of 196 4 ( “ T itl e V II ”) , 42 U
. S. C. §§ 2 0 0 0 e , e ts e q . N o r e v e r s i b l e e rr o r h a s b e e n s h o w n ; w e a f

f i rm. 1 Pl ai nti ff w as e m plo y ed a s ate ac he r at

Cart er svi lle E le m en tary

S ch ool f ro m A ugus t 19 96 thr ough200 2. P la int if f re ce ive d satis fa ct or

y a nnua l e va luatio ns unti l 2000 , when Gam

bill becam e principal. Under G am bill, the Plaintiff r eceived
som e ne ga tiv e ev al ua tio ns. Whe n ate ac he r re ce ive s f ive “ ne ed s im

pr ove m en t”
sc or es on for m al ev al ua ti on s, t ha t t each er i s s ub jecte d t o a dd it io na l m on it or in g.O.C.G.A. § 20-2- 211(b) pr ovides, in r eleva nt pa rt: “[E] ach local g overning board shall, by not 2 late r tha n Apr il 15 of the c ur

re nt sc ho ol y e ar, te nd e r a ne w co ntr a c t for the e ns uin gsc ho ol ye ar t o eac h teac her....or shall notify in writing eac h such t eac her... of the i ntention of not rene wing ....When such notice of

intended ter

mination has not been give n by April 15, the employ ment of such tea cher

... s h al l be continued f

or the e nsuing sc hool y ear unless the teac her ... e lects not to acc ept such employ ment....” 3 Pl ai nti ff w as the sub

j ec t of m uc h a ddi tio na l ob se rv at ionby G am bil l and Cartw ri ght , the a ssi stant p ri nc ipa l. A lso , a n in de pe nde nt e duc at ion al c onsu lti ng gr oup known a s “ RE SA ” w as c ont ac te d; and a RE SAc onsu ltant w as a ssi gne d to
o b s er v e a n dev al u at e P l ai n t i ff . Th e R ES A c o n s u l t an tco n cl u d ed t h at Pl ai n t i ff ’s pe rf orm an ce w as una cc ep ta

ble
. G am

bil l r ec ei ve d m an y

c om pla int s f ro m pare nts ab ou t Pl ai nt iff’s con du ctin he r cl as sr oo m . In ear ly 2002 , G am

bill tol d Plaintiff that the Board w ouldnot renew her
co ntr ac t f or the ne xt y ear. U nde r G eo rg iastate law , ate ac he r’ s c ontra ct is
au tom at ic al ly

r en ew ed if no wri tte n no tic e of

non -r en ew al is re ce ive d by Apr il 15
. See O. C.G .A . § 20-2-211. T he other teacher s -- none of w hom we re th 2 Af rican-A m erican -- all r eceived re newal c ontracts before April 15. U nlike her
co lle ag ue s, P la int if

f re ce ive d no r en ew al c ontra ct be fo re Apr il 15; but

it is undi sputed th at the Board f ailed also to send Plainti ff written notice of
non-renewa l by

15 April 2002. T he absence of written notice of non-renewa l op erat edas a m at te r of

law as an off

er t o re ne w Pla in ti ff’s co nt ract .4

In May 2002 , P laintiff w as provided a contract for the f ollowing y ear, which she r ef use d to sig n. P la int if

f cl ai m s th at

G am bil l t old he r that sh e co uld

w ork in the sc hool sy ste m

but that sh e w oul d be pla ce d a t anothe r sc hool
. I nst ea d of
acce pting the j ob at another school in the Carter sville City school sy stem , P laintiff inf orm ed Appe lle es that sh e w oul d a cc ep t a te ac hin g po sit ionin the Ci ty of A t l a n t as c h o o l s ys t e m. Pl ai nti ff a lle ge d th at

G am bil l’ s ne ga tiv e ev al ua tio ns and i nc re as ed sc ru tin y
we re har assing and without legitim ate re ason. Plaintiff claim ed that Gam bill acted be ca use of he r ra ce a nd b ec au se she ha d c om pla ine d a bout w ha t sh e be lie ve d to be
ra ci al ly dis cr im inator

y dis ci pli nary

tr eatm en t m et ed

out to stu de nts . P la int if

f al so contended th at the increa sed classroom observations to which she wa s subjected
an d th e de ci sio n no t t o r en ewhe r co ntr ac t w er e m oti va te d by r ac ia l anim

us and constitu ted a constructive discharge. A ccording to Plaintiff, the belate d contract of fe r she r ec ei ve d inMay

w as apr et ex t t o c ove r Appe lle es ’ s il le ga l m oti ve s. A pla int if f in a T itl e V II c as e al le gin g di sc ri m inator y tr eatm en t and r el y ing
on c ir cu m stanti al e vid en ce be ar s th e ini tia l burd enof e sta bli shi ng a pr im a fa ci e
cas e o f di sc riminat io n b y a pr ep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce. Tex as Dept . of C omm

un it y Affai rs v. Bu rd in e, 10 1 S .Ct. 1 08 9,1 09 3) (19 81 ). A pla int if f es ta bli she s apr im a fa ci e ca se of r ac ia l di sc ri m inatio n by

sho w ing that sh e5

w as ( i) am em

be r of apr ote ct ed

c la ss; ( ii) sub

j ec te d to a n a dve rs e em

plo ym en t a ct ; (ii i) q ua li fie d t o d o t he job ; an d (i v) rep la cedby, orot he rwis e lo st a po si ti on to , a pe rs on o uts ide the pr ote ct ed c la ss. C ha

pm anv. A I T ransp. , 229 F
. 3d 1 012, 102 4 (1 1 Ci r. 200 0)
. T he Re port and R ec om m en da tio n pr ep ar ed

by the m ag istrate th j udge c onc lud ed

that P la int if

f fa ile d to sho wa n a dve rs e em plo ym en t a ct . I n a
com prehensive opin ion adop ting th e Report and Re com m endation, the district
co urt c onc lud ed

sim ilarl y that P la int if

f fa ile d to e sta

bli sh a pr im a fa ci e ca se be ca use no a dve rs e em

plo ym en t a ct

ha d be ensho w n. A t i ssu e is whe the r state m en ts m ad e to P la int if f by Appe lle es in earl y

200 2 that no c ontra ct

r en ew al w oul d be f

orthc om ing e sta

bli she s th e re qui sit e adve rs e
em plo ym en t a ct . C iti ng M ax w el l F ed er al Cr ed it U nio n v. N an ce , 186 F
. 3d 1 338 (1 1 Ci r. 1 9 9 9 ), Pl ai n t i ff

ar g u es t h at t h e o ra l n o t i ce i n ea rl y 2 0 0 2 o f t h e B o ar d ’s th intent no t to renewher contrac t constitu ted an adverse em ploym ent act. In Ma xw el l, thi s C ourt c onc lud ed that an e m

plo y er ’ s de ci sio n c om

m uni cate d to the
em plo y ee that the e m

plo y ee w oul d be r equir ed to ta ke ade m oti on o r re sig n
co nst itu te d an a dve rs e em plo ym en t a ct

e ve n th oughthe e m

plo y er r ev er se d th e decision before the em

ploy ee w as required to acc ept a dem otion or resign. Id. at 1341
. Maxwe ll concluded th at Chardon v. F ernandez, 102 S.Ct. 28 (1981 ),6

fo re cl ose d tr eatin g th e co nse que nc es of the e m plo y er ’ s de ci sio n - - the de m oti on o f
re sig na tio n - - as the a dve rs e em plo ym en t a ct . Ma xw el l, 186 F
. 3d at 13 41. InCh ar don, the S upr em e Co urt de te rm ine d th at the statut e of

li m itatio ns begins to run for em

ploym ent discrim ination actions on th e date an e m ploy er not if ie s an e m plo y ee of ate rm inatio n de ci sio n and n ot whe n th e em plo y ee a ct

ua lly is t er m inate d. C hard on, 102 S
. Ct
. a t 29
. E xtr ap olatin g f ro m the Ch ar don decision, we in Maxwell, concluded that th e discrim inatory violatio n occurred
w he n th e em

plo y er m ad e the de ci sio n to de m ote or dis ch ar ge on an im

pe rm iss ibl e basis and no tified the em ploy ee of the dec ision : that the em ploy er late r changed its m ind did not r em edy the vio la tio n. Ma xw el l, 186 F
. 3d at 13 41. The operative decision in Maxwe ll (the decision to d em ote or discharge) and the operative decision in Chardon (the decision to term inate on a specified da te in the f

uture ) re qui re d no f

urthe r ac t by

the e m plo y er to ef fe ct a n a dve rs e ch an ge in th e co m

pl ai na nt ’s em

pl oym en t. The in st an t ap pe al , is di ffer en t. An earlier decision to term inate when no wr itten not ice of ter m ination wa s delivered to Plaintiff by

15 April 2002 was incapable -- as a m atter of law - - of ef fecting an ad ve rs e ch an ge in Pla in ti ff’s em pl oym en t. An d a s re qu ire d u nd er Geo rg ia law, Pl ai nti ff w as of fe re d ac ontra ct

r en ew al - - w hic h sh e de cl ine d - - be fo re she c oul dWhil e Na nc e su pp or ts Pla int if f’ s ar gume nt that a dec isi on to te rm inate e sta bli sh e s a n a dv e rs e 3 e mpl oy me nt a c t be fo re an a c t of

a c tua l te rm inatio n tr ans pires , th is C ourt a lso ha s o bs e rv e d th at a decision to r eprimand, to tra nsfer or not to promote an e mploy ee is no a dverse employ ment act if the decision is resc inded befor e the employ ee suf fer s a tang ible harm. Penning ton v. City of Huntsville, 261 F.3d 1262, 1267 (11 Cir. 2001)
. Be cause we conclude that Geor g ia sta t u t o ry l aw renders th Nanc e inapplica

ble to Plaintiff’s contentions, we n ee d n o t addre ss any seemingtension betwee n Nanc e and Penning ton. Ev e n if we we re to a ssume argue nd o that Pla int if f e sta bli sh e d a pr ima fa c ie case , De fendants 4 proff ere d a leg itimate non-discriminatory rea son for i t s acts: complaints and c oncer ns about Plaintiff’s teac hing pe rfor mance , including the opinion of an indepe ndent observe r that Plaintiff’s te a c hin g pe rf

or manc e and c la ssr oo m c ontr ol w e re un a c c e pta ble . Wh ile Pla int if

f a rgue s th at th e se e xpre sse d p e r f o r m a n c e - b a s e d r e a s o n s w e re pr e te xtua l, v ie wi ngthe e vid e nc e in a light m os t f

avo ra ble to P la int if

f, Pla int if f f a ile d to c ome fo rw ard

wi th e vid e nc e “ su ff

ic ien t to permit

a re a so na ble fac tfinder to conc lude that the re asons given by the employ er w ere not the rea l rea sons” for the employ ment action. Chapma n v . AITransp., 229 F .3d at 1024 (interna l quotation and citation omitted). In short, Plaintiff failed to “prof fer sufficie nt evidenc e to create a g enuine issue of materia l fac t re garding whe ther e ach of the def endant e mploy er’ s articulate d rea sons is pretextural.” I d. at 1024-25. 7 suffer a tangible harm
. T he undis puted facts show, a s a m atter of law, that 3 Plaintiff fa iled to establis h a prim a fa cie ca se: no adverse em ploym ent act w as shown. 4 Pl ai nt iff fai ls to sh ow re ve rs ib le erro r. AFFIR MED.