FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T J ULY 31, 2009 T HOMAS K . KAHN CLERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 6- 16 59 1

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 4- 02 46 2- CV-WSD MIC HAEL BRYANT, JOHN DRAKE, BECKY KELLEY , HERBERT LOW E, Pl ai nt iff s- App el le es , ve rs us CEO DEKALB CO. V ERNON JONES, MARILYN BOYD DREW , MORR IS WILLIAMS, RICHAR D STOGNER, in the ir i nd iv idua l capa ci ti es an d i n t he ir o ffi ci al cap aci ti es Defen da nt s- App el la nt s, JOE STONE, Defen da nt .__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ernDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Jul y 31 , 20 09 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, AN DERSON an d C OX, Circ ui t J ud ge s. TJOFLAT, Cir cu itJu dg e: In20 01 , DeKalb Co un ty, Geo rg iaem ba rk edon a who le sa le pl anto rep la ce it s wh it e co un ty m an ag ers with Afr ic anAm eri can s. Th ree wh it e m an ag ers , Becky Kell ey , Mic ha el Bry an t, an d J oh n Dra ke , pro ceed in g u nd er 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 83 , su ed th e co un ty’ s C hi ef Ex ecu ti ve Offic er, Vern on Jo ne s, wh o d ev is edth e p lan and
m on it or edit s ex ecu ti on , andth ree s ub or di na te s wh o a ss is te d h im , Mari lyn Bo y d Drew, Mo rri s Will ia m s, an d R ic ha rdSto gn er, fo r di sc riminat in g a ga in stth em on acco un t o f th ei r rac e in vi ol at io n o f 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 1 an d t he Equ al Pro te ct io n 1 Cl au se of the Fo urte en th Am en dm en t. A fo urth m an ag er, Herb ertLowe, an Afri canAm eri can , als o jo in edth e su it , all eg in g t ha t the de fen da nt s re ta li at ed ag ai ns t h im

be cau se he refu se d t o a ss is t the m incarry in g o utJo ne s’s p la n o f rac ia l

We have he ld that § 1981 does not provide an implicit causeof ac tion ag ainst state 1 actor s; theref

ore, § 1983 c onstitut es the e x clusive fe dera l remedy for violation by

state ac tors of the rights gua

rante ed under

§ 1981. See B utts v. County of Volusia, 222 F .3d 891, 894–95 (11th Cir. 2000). 2di sc riminat io n.

All de fen da nt s cl ai m edas a n a ffi rm at iv e d efen se th atth ey were en ti tl edto qu al ifi edimm

un it y ; St og ne r ad di ti on al ly ass ert edth athe was e nt it le d t o le gi sl at iv e imm

un it y . The d efen da nt s m ov edth e d is tri ctco urt fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, b as in g t he ir m ot io ns on th es e imm un it y de fen se s. Th e co urt d en ie d t he de fen da nt s’ m ot io ns , andth ey ap pe al
. W e n ow af

firm th e d is tri ctco urt’s ru li ng s 2
on qu al ifi edimm

un it y bu t re ve rs e th e co urt’s d en ia l o f St og ne r’s de fen se of le gi sl at iv e imm

un it y . I.

A. 3 InNov em

be r 20 00 , Vern on Jo ne s was ele ct edDeKalb Co un ty’ s C hi ef Exe cu ti ve Offic er (“ CEO”). Jo ne s was bo th th e y ou ng es t p ers onele ct edas C EO 4 We have jurisdiction over this int erloc utory

appea l under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and the 2 collater al orde r doctrine . See Cohen v. B enef icial Indus. L oan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545–47, 69 S. Ct . 1221, 1225–26, 93 L . Ed. 1528 (1949) ( holding that interlocutory revie w of non-f

inal judgme nts is available whe re the order (1) c onclusively

deter mines the disputed question; (2) resolves a n important issue completely separ ate f

rom the merits of the a ction; and (3) is eff ectively unrevie wable on a

ppeal f rom a fina l judgment) ; Mitchell v. Forsy th, 472 U.S. 511, 528, 105 S. Ct . 2806, 2816, 86 L . Ed. 2d 411 (1985) ( findingthat district court’s orde r deny ing a defe ndant’s motion for summary judgme nt based on qua lified immunity is an immediately appea lable orde r). The fa cts provided he re la rg ely trac k those rec ited by

the district court in its 3 thoroughg oing opinion. See B ryant v. J ones, 464 F . Supp. 2d 1273 (N.D. Ga . 2006). In the appe ndix , we pr ovide an org anizational char t to assist i n understandingthe 4 hiera rchy of the De Kalb County

g overnme nt. 3of

th e co un ty andals o the fir stAfric anAm eri canele ct edto th e p os it io n. Aft er as su m in g o ffi ce o n J anua ry 1, 2 00 1, J on es publ ic ly ann ou nc edpl an s t o m ak e th e em pl oyees o f DeKal b C ou nt y “ lo okli ke DeKalb Co un ty.” Jon es lat er ex pl ai ne d th atth is m ean t b rin gi ng a “ da rk er ad m in is tra ti on ” to “ th e n ew DeKal b C ou nt y .” To ac co m pl is h t hi s g oa l, J on es an d h is adm in is tra ti on im pl em en te d a n a gg res si ve res tru ctur in g p ro gr am

of the co un ty’ s g ov ern m en t. One p artof t hi s 5
reo rg an iz at io n fo cu se d o n t he m an ag em en t o f th e co un ty’ s Park s an d R ecre at io n Dep artm en t (“ Park s Dep art m en t” ). Jo ne s’s p ol ic y

in it ia ti ve s, wh ic h h e sp eci fic al ly aim edat t he Park s Dep artm en t, were im

pl em en te d b y

m em be rs of t he co un ty’ s s en io r m an ag em en t who were p os it io ne d e it he r wit hi n DeKa lb Co un ty gen eral ly or th e Parks Dep artm en t s pe ci fic al ly. Thes e m an ag ers in cl ud edRic hardSto gn er, a wh it e m al e who serve d a s J on es ’s exe cu ti ve ass is ta nt ; M orris W il li am s, a b la ckm al e who
se rv edas a n As si st an t Co un ty A dm in is tra to r; a ndMari lyn Bo y d Dre w, a bl ack fem al e who in it ia ll y

serve d a s the Park s Dep art m en t’s Di rect or of R ecre at io n Serv ic es bu t was so on pro m ot edto th e p os it io n o f Act in g Di rect orof t he Park s

Under DeKa lb County ’s Org anizational Act, the CEO is vested with exclusive authority 5 to supervise a

nd direc t the administration of the county g overnme nt, including the pow er to set hiringpolicy

and abolish any

depar tment, ag ency , or off

ice. See http://www.c o.dekalb.g a.us/boc/pdf/ORGAN IZ ATI ONALACT.pdf (last visited J une 25, 2009). 4Dep artm en t an d l at er n am edpe rm an en t d ire ct orof t he de pa rtment.

At the ti m e Jo ne s as su m edoff ic e, Bec ky Kelle y , a whi te fem al e who ha d be enem pl oyed b y DeKalb Co un ty sin ce 1 97 6, was Dire ct orof t he Park s Dep artm en t— a p os it io n s he ha d h el d s in ce 1 99 2. Kel le y ex erci se d aut ho rit y

ov er th e d ep art m en t’s o pe rat io ns an d p ro gr am s. Mi ch ael Bry an t, a wh it e m al e, was Dep uty Dire ct orof R ev enue Man ag em en t an d S up po rt i n t he Park s Dep artm en t,
an d h e rep orte d t o Kel le y . Bry an t h adserve d i n t he po si ti on si nc e 2 00 0. J oh n Drak e, a whi te m al e who was fi rs t em pl oyed b y th e co un ty in 1 97 5, was servi ng as th e Ass is ta ntDire ct orof t he Purch as in g a ndCo ntract in g Dep art m en t. Herb ert Lowe, an Afric anAm eri canm al e, was hi redon Sep te m be r 16 , 20 02 , as t he Depu ty Dire ct orof S tra te gi c Ma na ge m en t an d Dev el op m en t o f th e Parks Depa rtment. Kell ey , Bry an t, an d Dra ke all eg e th at , as ares ul t o f Jo ne s’s p la n t o c reat e a

“ da rk er ad min is tra ti on ,” th ey were d is cri m in at edag ai ns t an d e xp os edto a ho st il e work e nv iro nm en t o n a cco un t o f th ei r race . Jo ne s’s g oa l, the y cla im , was t o fo rce th em to term in at e th ei r em

pl oym en t s o h e co ul d re pl ace t he m with Afr ic an Am eri canm an ag ers . Lowe, o n the ot he r ha nd , cla im s tha t h e ref us edto co op erat e in Jo ne s’s p la n t o fo rce o utwhi te m an ag ers , lea di ng Jo ne s an d h is adm in is tra ti on to eli m in at e h is job inret al ia ti on .

5B. 1. Dur in g h er n in e y ears of s erv ic e as Park s Dep art m en t Di rect or , Kell ey ha d pe rfo rm edhe r du ti es witho utco m pl ai nt . Kell ey

cla im s, h owe ve r, th atfro m th e in st an t J on es be cam e CEO he was o pe nl y ho st il e to ward s h er. Fo r in st an ce, du rin g aph on e cal l, J on es be cam e v ery an gry an d c on fro nt at io na l wi th he r. On a
se co ndoc cas io n, wh il e in a pr iv at e m eet in g i n J on es ’s off ic e, Jo ne s s crea m edat Kell ey an d app ro ach edhe r in a m en aci ng way , lea di ng he r to fearth athe was go in g t o s tri ke he r. Jo ne s al so be ga n i m

po si ng res tri ct io ns on Kell ey ’s job du ti es by pro hi bi ti ng he r fro m co m m un ic at in g wi th m em

be rs of t he pre ss an d DeKa lb Co un ty’ s B oa rd of Co m m is si on ers . Whe n Kel le y ex pr es se d c on cern ov er h er treat m en t t o S to gn er, he rep li edth at“ sh e d idn’t u nd ers ta ndth e g eo po li ti cal is su es inDeKalb Co un ty
an d t ha t s he co ul d n otrel at e to po werfu l b la ckm en .” 6 Kell ey ’s job res po ns ib il it ie s wer e fu rth er l im it edwhen Jo ne s p ro hi bi te d h er fro m in te rv ie win g e m

pl oym en t cand id at es un le ss W il li am s was pre se nt . Co ns is te ntwith t hi s n ew po li cy , Kell ey an d Wil li am s i nt erv ie wedcan di da te s fo r
As an e x ample of the g ener al ra cial hostility aimed at Ke lley

specific ally , and whites in 6 g ener al, in the DeK alb County g overnme nt, a County

Commi ssioner re veale d to a collea gue that he “w as not g oing to wor k with that litt le white woman [Kelley].”

6th e p os it io n o f Park s Dep art m en t Dep ut y Dire ct orof R ecre at io n S erv ic es . After
co nduc ti ng sev eral in te rv ie ws, Kel le y , bas edon he r y ears of e xp eri en ce i n the Park s Dep art m en t, d et erm in edth ata whi te m al e was th e to p c an di da te . W il li am s, ho wev er, t ol d Kel le y

th atth ey co ul d n otreco m

m en d t he can di da te to Jo ne s be cau se Jo ne s wo ul d n otacce pta whi te can di da te forth e p os it io n. St og ne r la te r di rect edKell ey

to reco m m en d Dre w, a les s qua li fie d Afr ic anAm eri cancan di da te , fo r th e p os it io n s o t ha t Kel le y co ul d “ ge t i n g oo d” with Wil li am s. Drew was hi red
on Apri l 3 0, 2 00 1. Afte r Drew was hi red , Jo ne s an d Wil li am s co nt in ue d t o n arro w th e sc op e o f Kell ey ’s res po ns ib il it ie s b y ex cl ud in g h er fro m

all di sc us si on s an d d eci si on s reg ard in g t he op erat io ns of t he Park s Dep art m en t. In st ead , Jo ne s an d Wil li am s be ga n t o c oo rd in at e wit h Dre w, who was Kel le y ’s subo rd in at e. Kell ey was a ls o ex cl ud edfro m

pa rti ci pa ti ng inth e Parks Depa rtment’s h iri ng pro ces s. Acco rd in g to Sto gn er, Kel le y

was s hu t o utof t he Park s Dep art m en t’s d eci si on m ak in g pr oc es s b ecau se Jo ne s wan te d “ to sh owc as e b la ckpa rk s an d s ho wcas e b la ck
em pl oyees.” W it ho utwarn in g o r ex pl an at io n, J on es is su edanex ecu ti ve ord er o n Feb ru ary 12 , 20 02 , whi chSto gn er draft ed , rem ov in g Kel le y as P ark s Dep art m en t

7Dire ct oran d re as si gn in g h er t o t he co un ty’ s Gre en sp ace P ro gr am . Jo ne s the n 7 ap po in te d Dre w to serve as Ac ti ng Dire ct orof t he Park s Dep art m en t. Alt ho ug h Kell ey ’s reas si gn m en t d idno t af fecthe r sa la ry

or b en efi ts , itdi d b rin g abo uta si gn ifi can t ch an ge inhe r du ti es an d aut ho rit y . For i ns ta nc e, Kell ey ha d n o t it le , an d s he rep orte d t o a n As si st an t Co un ty A dm in is tra to r rathe r th anth e CEO’s 8 of fic e. Drew al so att em

pt edto m ov e Kel le y

to a win do wles s o ffi ce tha t h ad pr ev io us ly beenus edas ast or ag e are a. Whi le inth e Green sp ace P ro gr am , Kell ey 9 fo un d tha t an y

inpu t s he off

eredco nc ern in g t he pro gr am was i gn or ed , cau si ng he r to co nc lu de th atsh e h adno au th or it y or r es po ns ib il it y

—i n fa ct , sh e d es cri be d h er job as “ co lo rin g m ap s.” On Sep te m be r 25 , 20 02 , sev enm on th s af te r he r 1 0
reas si gn m en t, Kel le y

subm it te d h er re si gn at io n, ef fect iv e Oct ob er 9 , 20 02
.

The De Kalb County

Gre enspac e Program is par t of a statew ide initiative to retain par ks, 7 natura l preser

ves, and r ecr eational c enter s for the pur pose of c urbingthe delete rious eff ects of urban spr awl in and a

round the Atlanta

reg ion. See https://dklbweb.deka lbga .org/Gree nspace /gr eenspa ce.a sp (last visited J une 12, 2009). It is unclear f

rom the re cord whether

Kelley continued to re port to Wi lliams or another 8 Assistant County

Administrator. Kelley objected to be ing move d into the new off ice spa ce a

nd was not moved. 9 Kelley stated that she f

ound the transf

er “persona lly

and prof essionally humiliating” 1 0 and conside red it a de motion. S he asse rted that she w as “taken fr om a position of gr eat stature and prominenc e and pla ced into a highly subordinate r ole wher e [she] m oved from personally manag ing a

$10 to $20 mill ion bond budge t to having no f inancial ove rsight, from [having responsibility

over 600 positions] t o havingquasi oversight over thre e people .” 82.

Afte r Drew b ecame Parks Depa rtment Di rect or , Bry an t al le ge d t ha t s he , at Jo ne s’s urg in g, b eg anm ak in g n um ero us ch an ge s wi th in th e d ep art m en t tha t adve rs el y affe ct edhi m . For

in st an ce, Drew b eg anass ig ni ng Bry an t, wh o s erv ed 1 1
as th e Dep ut y

Dire ct orof R ev enue Man ag em en t an d S up po rt, dut ie s o rd in ari ly pe rfo rm edby the Depu ty D ire ct orof R ecre at io n S erv ic es . Also , inMarc h 2 00 2, aft er Bry an t co m

pl ai ne d t o Dre w abo utwhathe co ns id eredto be ex ces si ve ex pe nd itur es m ad e b y

a bl ackco nt ract orwho ha d b eenhi redto pe rfo rm servi ces at th e co un ty gol f co ur se , Drew reas si gn edfis cal an d c on tra ct in g o ve rs ig htforgo lf
an d t en ni s co nt ract s fr om Bry an t t o Dra ke . Drew ass ig ne d o pe rat io na l
res po ns ib il it ie s fo r go lf a ndten ni s co nt ract s t o Det ric k S ta nf or d, a b la ckem

pl oyee who rep orte d t o Dre w. App ro xi m at el y

si xt y da y s af te r Drew ch an ge d B ry an t’s dut ie s, s he m ov ed hi m fro m th e Parks Depa rtment’s p rimary off ic e in Decaturto a sa te ll it e o ffi ce i n Tuc ke r, Geo rg ia . Bry an t cl ai m s tha t h e m ad e num ero us reque st s fo r pe rs on ne l an d equi pm en t t o a ss is t h im , bu t the se reque st s wer e d en ie d. Drew al so ex cl ud edhi m fro m m ak in g d eci si on s an d p art ic ip at in g i n m eet in gs co nc ern in g m at te rs forwhi ch

J ones had pr eviously

stated that B ryant was a

“white ba stard who’ s nothing more than 1 1 a ra cist and nee d[s] to go.” 9he was re sp on si bl e whi le sh e so ug htgre at er i np utfro m Afric anAm eri can m an ag ers . Drew als o re qu ire d B ry an t an d o th er wh it e m an ag ers to sch edul e ap po in tm en ts if the y

want edto m eetwith h er wh il e al lo win g Afr ic anAm eri can m an ag ers op enacce ss . Dur in g t hi s t im e, Drew rep eat ed ly thre at en edto term in at e o r su sp en d B ry an t
an d draft edlet te rs to th ateffe ct , whi chsh e le ft i n p la in si gh t fo r Bryantan d o th ers to see . She , ho wev er, n ev er s ub m it te d t he let te rs , andBry an t was ne ve r su sp en de d
ortermin at ed
. Bry an t co nt in ue s t o s erv e as Depu ty D ire ct or of R ev enue 1 2 Man ag em en t an d S up po rt S erv ic es bu t o nl y pe rfo rm s the li m it eddu ti es ass ig ne d to hi m by D rew. 1 3 3. Afte r Jo ne s re m ov edKell ey as P ark s Dep art m en t Di rect or , he h adDrak e,

Be fore this lawsuit was brought, Bryant filed a hostile work environme nt complaint 1 2 ag ainst Drew

with the DeKa lb County Human Resourc es De partment. B ryant there afte r sent sever al e- mails to the County EEO Mana g er, Curtis L eB lanc, inquiringabout the status of his complaint, but L eB lanc ne ver r esponded. L eB lanc inter viewed a ll the witnesses listed in the complaint, except L owe, who r efuse d to testify , appar ently out of fea

r of r etribution from the defe ndants. Nine months afte r B ryant filed the c omplaint, L eB lanc submitted his findings to Stone, Direc tor of Human Re source s. The report indicated some pr oblems with respec t to Drew and B ryant’s re lationship, but i t did not conclude that the pr oblems were rac ially based. B oth J oe Stone and Stogne r re viewed the repor t and conc luded that no discrimination occur red. The Human Resourc es De partment fa iled to contact B ryant to inform him of its decision. Marvin B illups, a black male, w as hired a s Deputy Direc tor of Rec reation Services in 1 3 October 2003. Howeve r, B ryant continues to per form the tasks include d within the Deputy Direc tor of Rec reation Services job desc ription that Drew a ssigne d him. 10who ha d b eenwith DeKa lb Co un ty for o ve r twe nt y -fi ve y ears , tra ns ferr edfro m th e Pu rch as in g a ndCo nt ract in g Dep art m en t, wh ere h e h adbe enth e Ass is ta nt Dire ct or , to th e Parks Depa rtment, wh ere h e was ag ai n t o s erv e as Ass is ta nt Dire ct or . Drake to ldSto gn er tha t h e was in te res te d i n b eco m in g t he ne w Park s Dep artm en t Di rect or , bu t St og ne r to ldhi m th at , altho ug h h e was qu al ifi edforth e po si ti on , Drew, a bl ackfem al e, wou ldbe gi ve n t he po si ti on be cau se Jo ne s h ad
m ad e “ to o m an y

po li ti cal co m

m it m en ts .” Jo ne s an d S to gn er n ev erthe le ss want ed

1 4 Drak e tr an sf

erre d t o t he Park s Dep art m en t t o “ pr op up ” Drew. 1 5 Afte r Drak e’s tr an sf

er t o t he Park s Dep art m en t, Drew el im in at edall of t he du ti es th athe wou ldtypic al ly perfo rm as As si st an t Di rect or , rel eg at in g h im to pe rfo rm in g t as ks us ua ll y

ass ig ne d t o l owe r-l ev el em pl oyees. Drew al so m od ifi ed th e o rg an iz at io na l h ie rarc hy by requi rin g Dep ut y

Dire ct or s t o re po rt d ire ct ly to h er rathe r th anDrak e. Drew al so rem ov edDrak e as th e Parks Department’s rep res en ta ti ve to th e co un ty bon d p ro gr am gro up , of wh ic h h e h adbe ena m em be r

In fac t, J ones pre vented Drake f rom competingfor the position of Dire ctor of the Parks 1 4 Depa rtment. J ones ac complished this by designatingthe position as an intra-departmenta l promotion, meaningonly Parks Depa

rtment employees c ould apply . And, bec ause F ebrua ry 25, 2002 to March 8, 2002 w as the de signated application period, J ones made Dra ke’s tra nsfer eff ective Ma rch 16, 2002; a s such, Dra ke, as a n employee of

the Purcha sing a

nd Contracting Depa rtment, could not apply

for the position until eight da y s after the application period had ended. Stogner

admitted that he did not car efully revie w Dre w’s qualific ations. He did not 1 5 call any of her ref ere nces, a nd he could not re call whe ther heso much as looked ove r her résumé. 11si nc e 1 98 6, an d e xc lu de d h im fro m di sc us si on s co nc ern in g t he de pa rtment’s op erat io ns . Drake co nt in ue s t o wo rkas As si st an t Di rect orof t he Park s Dep artm en t. 4. Lowe, an Afric anAm eri canm al e an d, aton e ti m e, a p ers on al fri en d o f Jo ne s, b eg anwork in g a s the Park s Dep art m en t’s Dep ut y Dire ct orof S tra te gi c Man ag em en t an d Dev el op m en t o n S ep te m be r 16 , 20 02 . Lowe cl ai m edth athe was to ldby Joe Sto ne , DeKalb Co un ty’ s Di rect orof Hu m anRes ou rces an d a n Afr ic an Am eri can , th atJo ne s was ag gr es si ve ly seek in g t o i nc reas e th e num be r of Afric an Am eri canm an ag ers inth e co un ty. Acco rd in g t o Lo we, Sto ne furth er re ve al ed 1 6 th at , pu rs ua ntto Jo ne s’s ed ic t, wh it e ap pl ic an ts wou ldne ve r be co ns id eredfor Lowe’s p os it io n a ndth at“whi te fol ks ” were g en eral ly ine li gi bl e fo r po si ti on s i n DeKal b C ou nt y . Lowe s ta te d t ha t J on es , alo ng with Dre w andW il li am s, i nf orm ed hi m of h is bro adpl anto eli m in at e whi te m an ag ers an d re pl ace t he m with Afr ic an Am eri can s. J on es to ldLowe tha t h e wan te d h im to be a “ te am

pl ay er.” Det ai li ng
Statist ically , J ones’s plan se emed to be suc cee ding. When Jones became CEO in 1 6 J anuar y 2001, there wer e 98 mana g eria l employees a t the county

pay grade 33, which we re positions over which the CEO ha d sole hiringauthority . At that time, of those 98 manag ers, 61 wer e Cauc asian a

nd 33 wer e Af

rica n Americ an. F our year s later, in August 2005, there we re 122 manag ers at pay

grade 33. Of those 122 manag ers, 58 we re Cauc asian a nd 60 wer e Af

rica n Americ an. Thus, the number of African Ame rica

n county manag ers a lmost doubl ed fr om 2001 to 2005, while the total number of Ca ucasia n manag ers de cre ased slightly duringthe same time period. 12hi s p la n, J on es rev eal edth at“ we do n’t fi re p eo pl e aro un d h ere; we eli m in at e th ei r

po si ti on .” Whe n Dre w welco m edLowe t o t he Park s Dep art m en t, s he rei te rat ed th atJo ne s wan te d wh it e m an ag ers for cedou t o f th e d ep art m en t an d re pl acedwith Afri canAm eri can s, an d s he ex pr es se d h er u ne qu iv oc al supp ort o f Jo ne s’s p ol ic ie s an d h er i nt en t t o c om

pl y with h is wis he s. Jo ne s al so so ug htLowe’s as si st an ce i n e xe cu ti ng hi s ag en dato crea te a

“ da rk er ad min is tra ti on .” Duri ng th ei r co nv ers at io ns , Lowe cl ai m edth atJo ne s refe rredto Bry an t as a “ whi te ba st ard ” an d e xp res se d h is wis h t o fo rce Kel le y , Bryant , andDrak e o utof t he Park s Dep art m en t. Si ng li ng Kell ey ou t, J on es st at ed th athe want edto eli m in at e h er fro m th e Parks Depa rtment b ecau se sh e h ad pr ev io us ly term in at edAfric anAm eri can s an d, i n h is vi ew, ha d a ll owe d wh it e as so ci at io ns to co nt ro l the pa rk s. To acco m pl is h J on es ’s go al of e li m in at in g wh it e m an ag ers , Drew in st ru ct edLowe t o “ di g up d irt ” o n a ll whi te em pl oyees wi th in th e d ep art m en t an d e ns ur e th atwhi te em pl oyees wer e n otpl acedinhi gh ly vis ib le po si ti on s. Inpa rti cu la r, Drew d ire ct edLowe n otto sp eakwith Drake ab ou t im po rta ntis su es , ho pi ng th at , by ke ep in g h im inth e d ark , Drak e wou ldbe co m e fru st rat edan d u lt im at el y

fai l i n h is po si ti on . Drew als o re ve al edto Lowe tha t s he ha d t ran sf

erre d B ry an t t o apo si ti on for whi chhe ha d n o e xp eri en ce i n t he ho pe s th atitwou ldcrea te th e ap pe aran ce tha t Bry an t was in cap ab le of p erfo rm in g h is 13job . Ano th er t act ic Drew em pl oyed t o fu rth er J on es ’s pl anwas t o a nt ag on iz e whi te m an ag ers du rin g m eet in gs ; thu s, the re were sev eral in st an ces wher e Drew
m etwith Lo we to di sc us s h ow s he co ul d fr am e is su es an d que st io ns to an no y an d
em barras s B ry an t an d Dra ke . In the en d, ac co rd in g t o Lo we, Jo ne s, Drew, an d W il li am s h op edth atby creat in g ane ga ti ve an d h os ti le worken vi ro nm en t fo r th e whi te m an ag ers , andli m it in g t he ir o pp ortu ni ti es forres po ns ib il it y an d adva nc em en t, the whi te m an ag ers wou ldres ig n. Lowe re fu se d t o p art ic ip at e in th e p la n andfai le d t o c arry outany ord ers de si gn edto di sc riminat e ag ai ns t wh it es . Jo ne s t ol d Lo we th atby refus in g t o a ss is t in ex ecu ti ng hi s p la n h e was no t b ei ng a “ te am pl ay er” anddi d n otful ly app reci at e an d u nd ers ta ndwhatJo ne s was trying to acco m pl is h. Lo we rei te rat edth athe di d
no t wan t t o b e a p artof J on es ’s sch em e, an d h e reque st eda tr an sf er o utof t he Park s Dep art m en t. Lowe st at edth atif h e was no t re as si gn ed , he wo ul d re si gn . So on aft er thi s ex ch an ge with J on es , Lowe was m ov edto anoff ic e in Jo ne s’s ex ecu ti ve su it e. Whi le Lowe co nt in ue d t o wo rkfor th e Parks Depa rtment, he als o b eg anwork in g o n s ev eral pro jects di rect ly ass ig ne d t o h im by Jon es . On Ju ly 23, 2 00 3, Dre w hi redMarv in Bil lups , an Afr ic anAm eri can , as t he Park s Dep artm en t Dep ut y

Dire ct orof S tra te gi c Mana ge m en t an d Dev el op m en t, the same po si ti onhe ldby L owe . Bil lups ’s em pl oym en t was ch arac te riz edas “ ti m e14li mit ed ,” m ean in g t ha t the ap po in tm en t was tem po rary. Bec au se itwas t im eli mit ed , th e p os it io n d idno t h av e to be publ ic ly adv ert is edan d was no t o pe n t o a co m pe ti ti ve hi rin g p ro ces s. Be fo re the po si ti on ex pi red , Bil lups was n am ed Dep uty Dire ct orof R ecre at io n S erv ic es . Desp it e th e ti tl e ch an ge , Bil lups co nt in ue d t o p erfo rm

th e sa m e ta sk s ty

pi cal ly ass ig ne d t o t he Depu ty D ire ct orof Strat eg ic Man ag em en t an d Dev el op m en t. Jo ne s l at er s ub m it te d t o t he Co un ty Boardof C omm is si on ers th e 2 00 4 pr op os edbu dg et , whi chSto gn er d ev el op edan d draft edwith Dre w’ s as si st an ce. A featur e o f th e p ro po se d b ud ge t was th e el im in at io n o f fu nd in g fo r Lowe’s Dep ut y Dire ct orpo si ti on . On Ja nu ary 27 , 20 04 , th e Bo ardof C omm is si on ers ap pr ov ed th e b ud ge t, an d Lo we’s po si ti on was d is so lv ed . Outof 6 00 po si ti on s l is te d o n t he bu dg et , Lowe’s was th e o nl y po si ti on eli m in at ed . Bil lups , who ha d b een tra ns ferr edou t o f th e ab ol is he d p os it io n, co nt in ue d wo rk in g fo r DeKal b C ou nt y pe rfo rm in g t he same tas ks pre vi ou sl y ass ig ne d t o the Depu ty D ire ct orof S tra te gi c Man ag em en t an d Dev el op m en t b utun de r th e n ew job ti tl e o f Dep ut y Dire ct orof Rec reat io n S erv ic es . Soo n t he reaf te r, Sto gn er o ffer edLowe the po si ti on of P ark s Mai nt en an ce Co or di na to r, a job th atcam e wit h l es s re sp on si bi li ty anda lo wer sa la ry . Lowe ref

us edth e o fferan d re si gn ed
. Lowe app eal edth e Bo ard ’s dec is io n t o e li m in at e h is po si ti onto th e DeKal b 15Co un ty Hum anRes ou rces Depa rtment. Al th ou gh he was p ro vi de d ahe ari ng ,

Lowe d idno t at te ndbe cau se Sto ne co nv in cedhi m th atth ere was “ no us e” t o ap pe al
. C. On Au gu st24 , 20 04 , Kell ey , Bry an t, Drak e, an d Lo we fi le d asi x- co un t
co m pl ai ntag ai ns t J on es , Drew, Sto gn er, an d Wil li am s. Cou nt s I, II , andIV, each 1 7 br ou gh t u nd er 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 83 , pra y edforco m pe ns at ory an d p un it iv e d am ag es . Co un t I a ll eg edth atth e d efen da nt s d is cri m in at edag ai ns t Kel le y , Bry an t, an d Drak e o n a cco un t o f th ei r rac e in vi ol at io n o f th e Equ al Pro te ct io n C laus e o f th e Fo urte en th Am en dm en t b y subjec ti ng th em

to ho st il e work e nv iro nm en ts , and , in Kell ey ’s cas e, to a co ns tru ct iv e d is ch arg e. Co un t II all eg edth atth e d is cri m in at io n Kell ey , Bry an t, an d Dra ke su st ai ne d i n C ou ntI al so in fri ng edth ei r ri gh ts un de r 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 1. Co un t IV al le ge d t ha t the de fen da nt s re ta li at edag ai ns t Lo we, in vi ol at io n o f 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 1, fo r refu si ng to pa rti ci pa te inth e d efen dant s’ sch em e to di sc riminat e ag ai ns t wh it e m an ag ers . The de fen da nt s i nd iv idua ll y an swe redth e p la in ti ffs ’ co m pl ai ntby deny in g

The de fenda

nts were sued in both their offic ial and individual capa cities. This appea l 1 7 is lim ited to the claims brought ag ainst them in their individual capac ities. The c omplaint also named Stone as a

defe ndant. He ha s been dismissed from the c ase; he nce, in r efe rringto the defe ndants, we omit his name. 16li ab il it y

an d a ss ert in g a s an affi rm at iv e d efen se th atth ey were en ti tl edto qu al ifi ed imm un it y . Sto gn er, i n re sp on di ng to Co un t IV, al so ass ert edleg is la ti ve imm un it y as a de fen se . After d is co ve ry clo se d, the de fen da nt s s ep arat el y m ov edfor
su m m ary jud gm en t, re lying pri nc ip al ly on t he ir qua li fie d a ndleg is la ti ve imm un it y de fen se s. Inanord er en te redon Nov em be r 10 , 20 06 , th e d is tri ctco urt d en ie d t he de fen da nt s qua li fie d i m

m un it y , st at in g t ha t i t d id“no t b el ie ve th e la w all ows a publ ic off ic ia l d efen da ntto en ga ge incal cu la te d ra ci al di sc riminat io n c os tu m edin
a rac ia ll y ne ut ral ga rb of a dm in is tra ti ve act io ns so itcanm as qu erad e as a qu al ifi ed imm un it y de fen se .” The c ou rt a ls o re jecte d S to gn er’s d efen se of l eg is la ti ve imm un it y . W e n ow co ns id er the m eri ts of t he de fen da nt s’ app eal s.

1 8 II. W e rev ie w de n ov o adi st ric t co urt's rul in g g ran ti ng or d en y in g qua li fie d imm un it y , res ol vi ng all is su es of m at eri al factinfav orof t he no n- m ov in g p arty . See Lee v. Fe rrar o, 2 84 F.3d11 88 , 11 90 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). 1 9 The Nove mber 10 orde r also disposed of othe r issues not rele vant her e. 1 8 Plaintiffs argue that welack jurisdiction to consider the prese nt appea l beca use the 1 9 defe ndants have failed to off er a n appea lable issue of la

w; instead, ac cordingto the plaintiffs, the defe ndants mere ly

argue that the r ecor d provides insuffic ient evidenc e to support plaintiffs’ alleg ations. Plainti ffs’ a

rgument is incorre ct, as the de fenda nts advanc e an a

ppeala ble issue. The issue of whe ther a

defe ndant is entitled to qualified immunity is purely a leg al question; as such, an appe llate cour

t review ing a

defe ndant’s denia l of qualified immunity considers the fac ts as prese nted by

the plaintiff in the light most favorable to him, and jux taposes that set of f acts with rele vant ca se law to de termine whe ther those f acts support a

claim that def

endant violated a

right based on a

n earlier ar

ticulated rulingor cle arly established leg al principle, or a princ iple so 17A.

The do ctrin e o f qu al ifi edimm un ity sh el te rs go ve rn m en t o ffi ci al s pe rfo rm in g d is cret io na ry fun ct io ns “ fro m

li ab il ity forciv il da m ag es in so far a s th ei r co nduc t d oe s n otvi ol at e cl earl y est ab li sh edst atut ory

or c on st itut io na l ri gh ts of whi cha reas on ab le pe rs onwou ldhave kn own .” Harl ow v . Fit zg eral d, 4 57 U.S. 80 0, 8 18 , 10 2 S . Ct. 2 72 7, 2 73 8, 7 3 L. Ed. 2 d 3 96 (19 82 ); s ee al so And ers on v. Crei gh to n, 4 83 U.S. 63 5, 6 38 –6 39 , 10 7 S . Ct. 3 03 4, 3 03 8– 39 , 97 L. Ed. 2d52 3 (1 98 7) ; Woo d v . Kesl er, 3 23 F.3d87 2, 8 77 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). The d oc tri ne

“ba la nc es two im

po rta ntin te res ts —the ne edto ho ldpubl ic off ic ia ls acco un tabl e whe n the y

ex erci se po wer i rres po ns ib ly andth e n eedto sh ie ldoff ic ia ls fro m ha ras sm en t, d is tra ct io n, an d l iabi li ty whe n t he y pe rfo rm th ei r du ti es reas on ab ly." Pear so n v . Cal la ha n, 5 55 U.S. __ _, 1 29 S. Ct. 8 08 , 81 5, 1 72 L. Ed. 2d56 5 (2 00 9)
.

closely analog ous to an established leg al conc ept that we c an conc lude that the ema natingright was itself “ clea

rly established.” See Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 739, 122 S. Ct. 2508, 153 L
. Ed. 2d 666 (2002); Koc h v. Rugg , 221 F.3d 1283, 1296 n.28 ( 11th Cir. 2000) (“When we , like the district judge , view the f acts for summary judgme nt purposes most favora bly to the plaintiff, a pure issue of law is cr eate d.”) ( citation and quotations omitted). Whil e the Supre me Court in J ohnson v. J ones, 515 U.S. 304, 115 S. Ct. 2151, 132 L . Ed. 2d 238 (1995), he ld that appellate courts do not possess jurisdiction over e very interlocutory

appea l based on a

denial of qua lified immunity , it narrowly

define d the proscribed class of case s as those whe re a

defe ndant mere ly contests the merits of the plaintiff’s underlying a ction. I d. at 308, 115 S. Ct. at 2154. In other words, we do not have jurisdiction to enter tain such appe als when thedefe ndant’s argument is mere ly , “I didn’t do it.” We are not he re pr esente d with such a c ase. 18To re cei ve qu al ifi edimm un ity , th e p ub li c o ffi ci al m us t es tabl is h t ha t h e was en ga ge d i n a“ di sc ret io na ry fun ct io n” at t he ti m e h e co m m it te d t he all eg ed ly
un la wfu l ac t. Ho ll om anex . rel . Hol lo m anv. Harl an d, 3 70 F.3d12 52 , 12 63 –6 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 4) ; s ee 1 H. Hart & A. Sac ks , The Leg al Pro ces s: Bas ic Pro bl em s i n th e Ma ki ng an d Ap pl ic at io n o f Law 16 2 (Te nt . Ed. 19 58 ) (“ Dis cret io n” is “ th e po wer t o c ho os e b etweentwo or m or e co ur se s o f act io n e ach of wh ic h i s tho ug ht of as p erm is si bl e.”). If the off ic ia l d em on st rat es th athe was e ng ag edina di sc ret io na ry

fun ct io n, the bu rd ensh ift s t o t he pl ai nt iff to pro ve th atth e o ffi ci al is
no t en ti tl edto qu al ifi edimm un it y . Cot to ne v. J en ne , 32 6 F .3d13 52 , 13 58 (11 th Ci r. 20 03 ). Thi s re qu ire s p la in ti ff t o s at is fy th e two -p arttes t p res cri be d b y th e Supr em e Co urt i n S au ci er v . Katz, 5 33 U.S. 19 4, 1 21 S. Ct. 2 15 1, 1 50 L. Ed. 2d 27 2 (2 00 1) . Und er Sauc ie r, a p la in ti ff m us t fi rs t s ho w th atth e d efen da ntvi ol at ed
a co ns ti tu ti on al rig htan d t he n d em on strat e th atth e co ns ti tu ti on al rig htwas c le arl y es tabl is he d a t the ti m e o f th e al le ge d wro ng fu l ac t. 5 33 U.S. at 2 01 , 12 1 S . Ct. at 21 56 . If a co urt, af

te r vi ewin g a ll th e ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t favo rab le to th e pl ai nt iff an d drawi ng all in fere nc es inhi s fa vo r, de te rm in es th atth e p la in ti ff h as sa ti sf ie d t he se two requi rem en ts , th e d efen da ntm ay no t o bt ai n qua li fie d i m

m un it y . Hol lo m an , 37 0 F .3dat 1 26 4. Whi le Sau ci er m an da te d thi s two- pa rt o rd er o f ba tt le , th e Supr em e Co urt, 19up on real iz in g t he in effi ci en cy of s uc h a n i ne la st ic ap pr oa ch , recen tl y retreat ed fro m th is pro to co l, fi nd in g t ha t “ [t]he jud ge s o f th e d is tri ctco urts an d the co urts of ap pe al s s ho ul d b e p erm it te d t o e xe rci se th ei r so un d d is cret io n i n d eci di ng whi chof th e two pro ng s o f th e qua li fie d i m m un ity an al y si s s ho ul d b e ad dr es se d fi rs t i n l ig ht of th e ci rcu m st an ces inth e p art ic ul ar ca se at h an d.” Pears on , 55 5 U.S. _

__ , 12 9 S
. Ct . at 8 18 . The Supr em e Co urt n ot ed , ho wev er, tha t i ts “ de ci si on do es no t p rev en t th e lo wer co urts fro m

fol lo win g the Sau ci er p ro cedur e; itsi m pl y reco gn iz es th at th os e co urts sh ou ldha ve th e d is cret io n t o d eci de whet he r th atpro cedur e is
worth whi le inpa rti cu la r cas es .” Pear so n, 5 55 U.S. __ _, 1 29 S. Ct. at82 1. Inth is cas e, th e o ffi ci al s ar gu e—wi th res pe ctto each cla im th e p la in ti ffs
as se rte d—th at , as am at te r of law, (1 ) th ey

were en ga ge d i n adi sc ret io na ry func ti on when th ey

co m m it te d t he act s atis su e, (2 ) th e act s d idno t v io la te a st atut ory or c on st itut io na l ri gh t, an d (3 ) if th ei r act s d idvi ol at e a s ta tu to ry or co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht , th e ri gh t was no t cl earl y est ab li sh edat t he ti m e. 1. W e n eedno t t arry lon g i n re so lv in g t he fir stis su e—wh ethe r de fen da nt s Jo ne s, Will ia m s, Drew, an d S to gn er were en ga ge d i n adi sc ret io nary fun ct io n whe n the y

all eg ed ly vio la te d t he pl ai nt iff s’ con st itut io na l an d s ta tu to ry rig ht s— as we no te th atth e p la in ti ffs fai le d t o ra is e th e is su e b efo re the di st ric t co urt; 20th eref

or e, th e is su e is no t p ro pe rly befo re u s. See Jo hn so n v . Uni te d S ta te s, 3 40 F.3 d 1 21 9, 1 22 8 n . 8 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) (“ Arg um en ts no t ra is edinth e d is tri ctco urt are wai ve d.” ); Hu rle y

v. Mo or e, 23 3 F .3d12 95 , 12 97 –9 8 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 0) (sa m e). Res ol vi ng th e se co ndan d t hi rdis su es , onth e o th er h an d, re qu ire s ex te nd ed di sc us si on . Our t as k i s t o d et erm in e whe th er the de fen da nt s’ act io ns vi ol at ed Kell ey , Bry an t, an d Dra ke ’s fed eral rig ht s, an d, i f so , whet he r th os e ri gh ts were cl earl y est ab li sh ed . See Woodv. Kes le r, 32 3 F .3d87 2, 8 77 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). W e un de rs ta ndth e d efen da nt s t o a rg ue th atth ey are en ti tl edto qu al ifi edimm un it y be cau se , as am atte r of

law, Kel le y , Bry an t, an d Dra ke fai le d t o p res en t s uf fic ie nt
ev id en ce t o e st ab li sh th atth ei r fed eral rig ht s t o b e fre e fro m raci al di sc riminat io n in th ei r em

pl oym en t wer e v io la te d. Sp eci fic al ly, th e d efen da nt s av er tha t Kel le y , Bryant , andDrak e fai le d t o m ak e o uta ho st il e work e nv iro nm en t cl ai m an d t ha t Kell ey fai le d t o e st ab li sh he r co ns tru ct iv e d is ch arg e cl ai m . W e tu rnfir stto th e ho st il e work e nv iro nm en t cl ai m s. 2. To es tabl is h aho st il e work e nv iro nm en t cl ai m un de r th e Equ al Pro te ct io n Cl au se an d 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 81 , an e m pl oyee (o r fo rm er em

pl oyee) m

us t s ho w ha ras si ng be ha vi or“ su ffi ci en tl y sev ere o r pe rv as iv e to alt er the co nd it io ns of [ hi s orhe r] em

pl oym en t.” Pa . State Po li ce v . Sud ers , 54 2 U.S. 1 29 , 13 3, 1 24 S. Ct. 2123 42 , 23 47 , 15 9 L. Ed. 2 d 2 04 (20 04 ). Thi s re qu ire s tha t the em pl oyee pr ov e th e fo ll owi ng : (1 ) th athe [orsh e] bel on gs to a pr ot ect edgro up ; (2 ) th athe [orsh e] ha s b eensubjec t t o u nwe lc om e h aras sm en t; (3) th atth e h aras sm en t [was ] ba se d o n apro te ct edch arac te ris ti c o f th e em pl oyee, su chas na ti on al ori gi n; (4) th atth e h aras sm en t was su ffi ci en tl y sev ere o r pe rv as iv e to alt er the term s an d c on di ti on s o f em pl oym en t an d c reat e a d is cri m in at or il y

ab us iv e worki ng en vi ro nm en t; an d (5 ) th atth e em pl oyer is res po ns ib le for

su chen vi ro nm en t u nd er ei th er a the ory of vi cari ou s o r of

di rectli ab il it y . Mi ll er v . Kenwo rth of Do th an , Inc ., 27 7 F .3d12 69 , 12 75 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). 2 0 The de fen da nt s co nc ed e th e fi rs t el em en t an d fo cu s o n t he ne xtth ree, arg ui ng th atKell ey , Bry an t, an d Dra ke fai le d, as a m atte r of law, t o s ho w th atth e ha ras sm en t the y

ex pe rie nc ed , if an y , “was su ffi ci en tl y sev ere o r pe rv as iv e to alt er th e te rm s an d c on di ti on s o f em pl oym en t an d c reat e a d is cri m in at or il y ab us iv e worki ng en vi ro nm en t.” Id
. As we n ot edinMi ll er, thi s el em en t co nt ai ns bo thsubjec ti ve an d o bjec ti ve co m po ne nt s; th atis , “ to be act io nabl e, [the ha ras sm en t] m us t re su ltinbo th an We pause to note that discrimination claims, including hostile work e nvironment 2 0 claims, brought under the Equa l Protection Clause, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, or Title VI I of the Civil Rights Act of

1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2, a re subjec t to the same standar ds of proof a nd employ the same a

naly tical fra mework. Ta demy

v. Union Pacific Corp., 520 F .3d 1149, 1170 (10th Cir. 2008) (c itations omi tted) (“ The e lements of a hostile wor k environment c laim under § 1981 a re the same a s those under Title VI I .”); Cross v. Alaba ma, 49 F.3d 1490, 1507–08 ( 11th Cir. 1995) (noting , in the context of evaluatingthe merits of a n equal protection claim, that “[w]hen section 1983 is used as a pa

rallel re medy

for [a] violation of . . . Titl e VI I. . ., the eleme nts of the two cause s of ac tion are the same.” ). 22en vi ro nm en t tha t a r eas on ab le pe rs on wou ldfin d h os ti le or abu si ve an d a n

en vi ro nm en t tha t the vi ct im subjec ti ve ly perce iv e[s ] to be ab us iv e.” Mi ll er, 2 77 F.3 d a t 1 27 6 (quo ti ng Harri s v . Forkl iftSy s., In c., 51 0 U.S. 1 7, 2 1– 22 , 11 4 S . Ct. 36 7, 3 70 –7 1, 1 26 L. Ed. 2d29 5 (1 99 3) ). Becaus e d efen da nt s ad va nc e n o arg um en t co nc ern in g wh ethe r Kel le y , Bry an t, an d Dra ke subjec ti ve ly bel ie ve d th ey were s uf feri ng ab us e o n a cco un t o f th ei r rac e, we fo cu s o n t he ob jecti ve co m po ne ntof t he in qu iry. Whi le itis tru e th atth e o bjec ti ve ele m en t i s n otsubjec t t o m athe m at ic al pr eci si on , we canin fer tha t an en vi ro nm en t i s “ ho st il e” o r “ ab us iv e” fr om th e ci rcu m st an ti al fact s v ie wedinth ei r pr op er co nt ex t. Harri s, 5 10 U.S. at 2 1– 22 , 11 4 S. Ct . at 3 70 –7 1. Th is requi res th atwe lo okto fact or s s uc h a s “ th e fre qu en cy of th e d is cri m in at ory

co nduc t; it s s ev eri ty; whethe r itis ph y si cal ly thre at en in g o r hu m il ia ti ng , or am ere o ffen si ve ut te ran ce; an d wh ethe r itun reas on ab ly int erfe res with a n e m

pl oyee’s workpe rfo rm an ce.” Id . at 2 3, 1 14 S. Ct. at37 1; see als o Al le n v. Ty so n F oo ds , 12 1 F .3d64 2, 6 47 (11 thCir . 19 97 ). The pl ai nt iff

s p res en te d e vi de nc e th atJo ne s, upo n t ak in g o ffi ce, b ol dl y im pl em en te d apl anto crea te a “ da rk er ad m in is tra ti on ” b y refu si ng to hi re wh it es fo r op enm an ag eri al po si ti on s, d em ot in g o r tr an sf erri ng alr eady

em pl oyed wh it e m an ag ers , andfil li ng th e p os it io ns th ey ha d b eenoc cupyin g wi th bl ack s. J on es , 23em

pl oyin g t he ass is ta nc e o f Drew, W il li am s, an d S to gn er, t arg et edKell ey , Bry an t,
an d Dra ke an d e nd eav or edto for ce the m ou t o f th ei r po si ti on s b y

adve rs el y al te rin g t he ir jo b re sp on si bi li ti es an d o th erwi se un de rm in in g t he ir aut ho rit y . The
reco rdco nt ai ns sev eral ex am pl es of t he tac ti cs Jo ne s an d h is subo rd in at es us ed
. On s ev eral oc cas io ns , Jo ne s an gr il y co nf ro nt edKell ey . On o ne oc cas io n, h e ap pr oa ch edhe r in a ph y si cal ly thre at en in g m an ne r. Fol lo win g t hi s i nc id en t, Kell ey was fo rb id de n t o s pe akto th e p res s o r to co m m un ic at e wit h the Bo ardof Co m m is si on ers , eve n t ho ug h t hi s was pa rt o f he r job as Di rect orof t he Park s Dep artm en t. J on es strip pe d Kel le y of h er h iri ng au th or it y , requi rin g h er t o in te rv ie w can di da te s fo r va can ci es with Wil li am s. Aft er s he an d Wil li am s co nduc te d i nt erv ie ws fo r th e p os it io n o f Dep ut y Dire ct orof R ecre at io n S erv ic es , W il li am s i gn or edhe r su gg es ti on th ata whi te m al e sh ou ldbe ch os enbe cau se Jo ne s wan te d a n Afr ic anAm eri caninth e p os it io n, i rres pe ct iv e o f qu al ifi cat io ns . After
co m pl ai ni ng ab ou t the m an ne r in whi chsh e was be in g t reat ed , Sto gn er t ol d Kel le y th atsh e fai le d t o c om

pr eh en d t he ov eral l p ol it ic al en vi ro nm en t an d c ou ldno t
un de rs ta ndor r el at e to “po werfu l b la ckm en .” Sig na li ng Jo ne s’s i nt en ti on to rep la ce h er wi tha bl ackm an ag er, St og ne r to ldKell ey th atJo ne s wan te d “ to sh owc as e b la ckpark s an d b la ck em pl oyees.” Even tu al ly, Kell ey was d em ot ed (an d s ub se qu en tl y

rep la cedby D rew) an d re as si gn edto th e co un ty’ s Gre en sp ace 24pr og ram , wher e h er re sp on si bi li ti es were fu rth er curta il ed . She ul ti m at el y

res ig ne d. Bryantsh owe d t ha t Dre w, afte r Jo ne s i ns ta ll edhe r as Dire ct orof t he Park s Dep artm en t, o pe nl y

tre at edhi m

di ffer en tl y

fro m bl ackem pl oyees. Drew’s ac ti on s were as su red ly in ac co rd an ce wi th Jo ne s’s d ikta t t o fo rce o utan d re pl ace wh it e m an ag ers with Afr ic anAm eri canm an ag ers . The rec or d i nd ic at es th atDrew (1 )
ex cl ud edBry an t fr om

m eet in gs an d d ecl in edto all ow h im inpu t i nt o m atte rs for whi chhe was re sp on si bl e, whi le see ki ng in crea se d i np utfro m Afric anAm eri can m an ag ers ; (2 ) fai le d t o p ro vi de hi m ad equa te supp ort s ta ff an d e qu ip m en t t o pe rfo rm hi s jo b; an d (3 ) requi redwhi te m an ag ers to m ak e ap po in tm en ts to sp eak with h er, wh il e m ai nt ai ni ng anop en -d oo r po li cy forAfric anAm eri canm an ag ers . Inad di ti on , onsev eral oc cas io ns , Drew dra fte d l ette rs st at in g t ha t Bry an t was be in g t erm in at edor s us pe nd edan d l eftth em inpl ai n v ie w so th atBry an t an d o th er em pl oyees c ou ldsee th em . Drew, ho wev er, n ev er s ub m it te d the let te rs to Hum an Res ou rces or d el iv eredth em to Bry an t. Jo ne s p recl ud edDrak e fro m ap pl y in g fo r th e p os it io n o f Dire ct orof t he Park s Dep art m en t b ecau se Jo ne s h adm ad e “ to o m an y po li ti cal co m

m itm en ts .” Pres um ab ly, th is m ean t tha t J on es ha d m ad e to o m an y co m m itm en ts to th e b la ck
co m m un ity to pe rm ita whi te pe rs on to oc cupy the po si ti on . Sto gn er t ol d Drake 25th athi s p rimary du ty whi le inth e Parks Depa rtment, was to “pr op up ” Drew. Als o, Dre w, inke ep in g wi th Jo ne s’s p ol ic y , rem ov edDrak e fro m hi s res po ns ib il it ie s as Ass is tantDire ct orof t he Park s Dep art m en t an d a ss ig ne d h im to pe rfo rm th e dut ie s o f a l owe r-l ev el de pu ty dire ct or . Drew als o (1 ) to ldde pa rtment de pu ty dire ct or s t o re po rt t o h er, rat he r th anDrak e; (2) rem ov edDrak e as th e Park Dep artm en t’s re pr es en ta ti ve to th e b on d p ro gr am , of wh ic h h e h adbe ena m em be r si nc e 1 98 6; (3) pre ve nt edhi m fro m sp eak in g t o t he m ed ia ; an d (4 ) ex cl ud edhi m fro m ha vi ng an y

inpu t i nt o t he Depa rtment’s o pe rat io ns . W e fi ndth atth es e fac ts est ab li sh a pa tt ernof h aras si ng be ha vi or

“ su ffi ci en tl y

sev ere o r pe rv as iv e to alt er the co nd it io ns of [ th e p la in ti ffs ’]
em pl oym en t.” Su de rs , 54 2 U.S. at13 3, 1 24 S. Ct. at23 47
. 3. W e li ke wis e fi nd , bas edon th e fac ts as s ta te d i n p artII.A.2, s up ra, tha t Kell ey ha s es tabl is he d h er co ns tru ct iv e d is ch arg e cl ai m ag ai ns t d efen dant s J on es , W il li am s, an d S to gn er. “ Co ns tru ct iv e d is ch arg e o ccu rs when anem pl oyer 2 1 de li be rat el y

m ak es anem

pl oyee’s work in g c on di ti on s i nt ol erab le an d t he reb y

The district cour

t gr anted Dr ew’ s motion for summary judgme nt with respec t to 2 1 Kelley ’s construc tive discharg e cla im on gr ounds that there w as an insuff icient ca usal nexus betwee n Dre w’s ac tions and Kelley ’s construc tive discharg e. See B ryant, 464 F. Supp. 2d at 1309. 26fo rces hi m

to qu ithi s jo b.” Mund ay v. Wast e Mg m

t. o f North Am eri ca, In c., 12 6 F.3 d 2 39 , 24 4 (4 th Cir . 19 97 ); a cco rdYou ng v. So uthwe st ernSav in gs an d Lo an Ass ’n, 50 9 F .2d14 0, 1 44 (5t h C ir. 1 97 5) (“ The ge ne ral rul e is th atif the em pl oyer de li be rat el y

m ak es anem

pl oyee’s work in g c on di ti on s s o i nt ol erab le th atth e em pl oyee is for cedin to anin vo lu nt ary res ig na ti on , th enth e em pl oyer ha s en co m pa ss eda co ns tru ct iv e d is ch arg e an d i s as li ab le foran y il le ga l co nduc t in vo lv edth erei n a s i f itha d fo rm al ly dis ch arg edth e ag gr ie ve d e m pl oyee.”). A

2 2 pl ai nt iff m us t s ho w “ th e work e nv iro nm en t an d c on di ti on s o f em pl oym en t wer e so unbe arab le th ata reas on ab le pe rs on inth atpe rs on ’s po si ti on wou ldbe co m pe ll ed to res ig n.” Virg o v . Riv ie ra Be ach Ass oc ., Ltd., 3 0 F .3d13 50 , 13 63 (11 th Cir
. 19 94 ); s ee al so Po ol e v . Cou nt ry Club o f Co lu m

bu s, In c., 12 9 F .3d55 1, 5 53 (11 th Ci r. 19 97 ); Ki lg or e v . Tho m ps on& Bro ckMg m

t., In c., 93 F.3d75 2, 7 54 (11 th Ci r. 19 96 ). Est ab li sh in g aco ns tru ct iv e d is ch arg e cl ai m is a m or e o ne ro us tas k th anest ab li sh in g aho st il e work e nv iro nm en t cl ai m . Land gr af v . USI Fil m Pro ds ., 96 8 F .2d42 7, 4 30 (5t h C ir. 1 99 2) (“ To p ro ve co ns tru ct iv e d is ch arg e, th e p la in ti ff
m us t d em on st rat e a g reat er s ev eri ty or pe rv as iv en es s o f ha ras sm en t tha n t he

In Bonne r v. City

of Prichar d, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir.1981) (en ba nc), this cour

t 2 2 adopted a s binding pre cede nt the decisions of the f ormer F ifth Circuit handed down prior to October 1, 1981. 27m in im

um requi redto pro ve a ho st il e worki ng en vi ro nm en t.”) , aff'd , 51 1 U.S. 2 44 , 11 4 S . Ct. 1 48 3, 1 28 L. Ed. 2d22 9 (1 99 4) ; s ee al so Ste el e v . Offsh or e Sh ip bu il di ng , Inc ., 86 7 F .2d13 11 , 13 16 –1 8 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 9) (affi rm in g d is tri ct
co urt’s fi nd in g t ha t p la in ti ffs est ab li sh edth atth ey were s ub jecte d t o aho st il e work
en vi ro nm en t b utwere n otco ns tru ct iv el y di sc ha rg ed ); Hu dd le st on v. Ro ge r Dean Ch ev ro le t, In c., 84 5 F .2d90 0, 9 05 –0 6 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 8) (sa m e).

“ An em pl oyer m ay

de fen d a ga in st[a co ns tru ct iv e d is ch arg e cl ai m ] by sh owi ng bo th (1) th atitha d i ns ta ll eda read il y acce ss ib le an d e ffec ti ve po li cy for rep orti ng an d re so lv in g c om pl ai nt s o f [d is cri m in at io n], and(2) th atth e p la in ti ff
un reas on ab ly fail edto av ai l h ers el f of th atem pl oyer-p ro vi de d p rev en ti ve or rem ed ia l ap pa ratus .” Su de rs , 54 2 U.S. at13 4, 1 24 S. Ct. at23 47 . A defe nd an t
can no t av ai l h im se lf o f th is de fen se , ho wev er, “ if t he pl ai nt iff qu it s i n re as on ab le
res po ns e to anem

pl oyer-s an ct io ne d a dv ers e act io n o ffi ci al ly chan gi ng he r em pl oym en t s ta tu s o r si tu at io n, fo r ex am pl e, a hum il ia ti ng de m ot io n, ex tre m e cu t in pa y , or t ran sf

er t o apo si ti oninwhi chsh e wou ldface unbe arab le work in g co nd it io ns .” Id . Sin ce Kel le y ha s i nt ro du cedco nv in ci ng ev id en ce o f a hu m il ia ti ng de m ot io n i n t hi s ca se , Defen da nt s m ay no t as se rt thi s d efen se . Altho ug h we a re ca refu l n otto gi ldth e li ly, Kell ey ha s i nt ro du cedsh oc ki ng ev id en ce o f anov ertan d u naba sh edpa tt ernof d is cri m in at io n. J on es was abu si ve 28to Kell ey

on nu m ero us oc cas io ns , in cl ud in g a n i nt erac ti on wher e h e ap pe ared read y to ass au ltKell ey

ph y si cal ly. Add it io na ll y , fro m W il li am s’s re fu sa l t o h ire a whi te can di da te , to Sto gn er’s co nd es cen di ng an d ra ci al ly charg edco m m en ts th at Kell ey co ul dn ’t rela te to bl ackm enor t ha t s he was t oo ig no ran t o r id eal is ti c to
un de rs ta ndraci al po li ti cs inDeKalb Co un ty, itwas c le ar tha t Kel le y was n ot welc om e to co nt in ue work in g fo r DeKal b C ou nt y onacco un t o f he r be in g wh it e, an d areas on ab le pe rs on inhe r po si ti onwou ldha ve ha d n o c ho ic e b utto res ig n. See Vi rg o, 3 0 F .3dat 1 36 3. Kel le y ha s, ac co rd in gl y , est ab li sh edhe r cl ai m . 4. Altho ug h Kel le y , Bry an t, an d Dra ke pro vi de d s uf fic ie ntev id en ce t o s at is fy th e “ se ve re an d p erv as iv e” el em en t o f th e h os ti le worken vi ro nm en t cl ai m , and Kell ey ha s s uc ces sf

ul ly m ad e o uta cas e o f co ns tru ct iv e d is ch arg e, Jo ne s ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredinco nc lu di ng th athe co ul d b e h el d a cco un tabl e in hi s supe rv is ory

cap aci ty for the all eg eddi sc riminat io n. In ot he r wor ds , he c la im s tha t th e co urt erredinfin di ng th athi s ac ti on s wer e a p ro xi m at e cau se of the ho st il e work e nv iro nm en t al le ge d b y Kell ey , Bry an t, an d Dra ke , andof Ke ll ey ’s
co ns tru ct iv e d is ch arg e. W e d is ag ree. It i s wel l es tabl is he d t ha t l iabi li ty in § 19 83 cas es can no t b e p rem is edso le ly up on a th eo ry

of r es po nd eatsupe rio r. Crawf or d v . Carro ll , 52 9 F .3d96 1, 9 78 29(1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) ; Br ad dy v. Flo rid a Dep 't o f Lab or& Em pl oym en t Se cu rit y , 13 3 F.3 d 7 97 , 80 1 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 8) . In Br own v. Cr awfo rd , 90 6 F .2d66 7 (1 1th C ir. 19 90 ), we ob se rv edth atsupe rv is ory li ab il it y oc cu rs eit he r whe n the supe rv is orpe rs on al ly part ic ip at es inth e al le ge d c on st itut io na l v io la ti onor wh enth ere i s a c au sa l co nn ect io n be twee n a ct io ns of t he supe rv is in g o ffi ci al an d t he all eg ed co ns ti tu ti on al de pr iv at io n. Th e cau sa l co nn ect io n c anbe est ab li sh ed whe n ahi st ory

of wi de sp readab us e p ut s the res po ns ib le supe rv is or on no ti ce o f th e n eedto co rrec t the all eg edde pr iv at io n, an d h e fai ls to do so . The d ep riv at io ns th atco ns ti tu te wid es pr eadab us e su ffi ci en t t o no ti fy th e supe rv is in g o ffi ci al m us t b e o bv io us , fla gr an t, ra m pant , and of co nt in ue d dur at io n, ra th er tha n i so la te d o ccu rren ces . Id . at 6 71 . Add it io na ll y , a “ supe rv is or ” is no t m erel y a pe rs onwho po ss es se s au th or it y to ov ers ee p la in ti ff’s job pe rfo rm an ce b uta pe rs on with t he po wer di rect ly to af

fectth e te rm s an d c on di ti on s o f th e p la in ti ff's em pl oym en t. See And on is sa m

y v. Hewl et t-P ack ardCo ., 54 7 F .3d84 1, 8 48 (7t h C ir. 2 00 8)
. The ev id en ce b efo re the di st ric t co urt es tabl is he d t ha t J on es co nt riv eda br oa d p la n t o e li m in at e whi te m an ag ers an d re pl ace t he m with b la ckm an ag ers so as to crea te a “ da rk er ad min is tra ti on .” As a m ean s o f im pl em en ti ng th is sch em e, Jo ne s an d h is adm in is tra ti on wou ld“ el im in at e” the whi te m an ag ers ’ po si ti on s rathe r th ansi m

pl y fir in g t he whi te m an ag ers . His d is cri m in at ory in te ntwas furth er m ad e p la in by his op enex pr es si on s o f raci al an im us , cal li ng Bry an t a

“ whi te ba st ard ” an d d ecl ari ng th athe want edto term in at e Kel le y be cau se he fel t 30sh e le t “ whi te s” co ntro l the park s. Fu rth erm or e, hi s as se rti on th athi s ac ti on s wer e

un co nn ect edto Kell ey ’s con stru ct iv e d is ch arg e cl ai m , con si de rin g t ha t h e is su ed th e ex ecu ti ve ord er tha t s tri pp edhe r of he r po si ti onas Di rect orof t he Park s Dep artm en t, i s es pe ci al ly farcic al . In s um , th is ev id en ce s ho wedcom pe ll in gl y th atJo ne s, as th e CEO, was t he arch it ectof araci al ly dis cri m in at ory sch em e, a sc he m e th atwas d es ig ne d t o p ro du ce the ov ertdi sc riminat io n t he pl ai nt iff s su ffer ed . Unque st io nabl y , he s pa wne d t he cla im s the pl ai nt iff s h av e b ro ug ht ag ai ns t h im
. B. Hav in g fo un d t ha t Kel le y , Bry an t, an d Drake pre se nt edev id en ce s uf fic ie nt to su st ai n t he ir s ev eral cla im s, we t ak e th e n ex t s te p i n t he qu al ifi edimm un it y an al y si s an d d et erm in e whe th er the ir r ig ht s t o b e fre e o f th e so rt o f di sc riminat io n th ey en du redwere cl earl y

est ab li sh edat t he ti m e o f th e d efen da nt s’ di sc riminat ory act s. See W oo d, 3 23 F.3dat 8 77 –7 8. We hav e o fte n n ot edth e “pa te nt ly obv io us il le ga li ty of raci al di sc riminat io n i n p ub li c em pl oym en t.” Sm it h v . Lom ax , 45 F.3 d 4 02 , 40 7 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 5) ; s ee al so Yeld el l v . Coo pe r GreenHos p., In c., 95 6 F.2 d 1 05 6, 1 06 4 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 2) (fi nd in g i t b ey on d que st io n t ha t l aws pro sc rib in g in te nt io na l ra ce d is cri m in at io n i n t he workpl ace we re cl earl y est ab li sh ed ); B ro wn v. Ci ty of Fo rt Lau de rd al e, 92 3 F .2d14 74 , 14 78 (11 th Cir . 19 91 ) (s am e). The 31de fen da nt s ar gu e, ho wev er, tha t s in ce s pe ci fic pl ai nt iff s fa il edto fil e co m

pl ai nt s co nc ern in g t he sp eci fic di sc riminat ory act s tha t o ccu rred , th ey

were n otaffo rd ed ad equa te no ti ce tha t the ir b eh av io r was un la wfu l. Thi s ar gu m en t i s m eri tl es s. InHarl ow v . Fit zg eral d, 4 57 U.S. 80 0, 1 02 S. Ct. 2 72 7, 7 3 L. Ed. 2 d 3 96 (1 98 2) , th e Supr em e Co urt el im in at edan y subjec ti ve featur e o f it s t es t fo r qu al ifi edimm

un it y , fin di ng th atco ns id erat io ns of t he off ic ia l’s s ta te of m in d wh il e co m m it ti ng th e al le ge dl y

un la wfu l ac ts have pro ve n i nc om pa ti bl e wit h i ts

“ adm on it io n . . . th atin subs ta nt ia l cl ai m s s ho ul d n otpro ceedto tri al .” Id . at 81 5– 16 , 10 2 S . Ct. at27 37 . This is so be cau se in di vi du al iz edqu es ti on s co nc ern in g a n o ffi ci al ’s st at e o f m in d a re i nh eren tl y fact -b as edan d a re thu s in ap pr op ria te forres ol ut io n o n s umm ary jud gm en t. See id . at 8 16 , 10 2 S . Ct. at 27 37 . Accor di ng ly, th e que st io n i s n otwhet he r th e d efen da nt s ac tu al ly kne w, or sh ou ldha ve kn own , th atth ei r act io ns were u nl awfu l, b ut , rathe r, whe th er reas on ab le off

ic ia ls oc cupyin g t he ir p os it io ns wou ldha ve kn own th atth ei r act io ns were u nl awfu l. Id . at 8 18 , 10 2 S . Ct. at27 38 . Becau se a reas on ab le off ic ia l wo ul d ha ve kn own th atdi sc riminat in g a ga in stco un ty man ag ers on acco un t o f th ei r rac e was un la wfu l, the di stric t co urt ru le d c orrect ly in d en y in g t he de fen dant s qua li fie d imm un it y .

32III.

W e tu rnno w to Lowe’s cl ai m th atSto gn er an d Dre w ret al ia te d a ga in sthi m fo r refu si ng to pa rti ci pa te inth e ach ie ve m en t o f Jo ne s’s d is cri m in at ory go al
. Lowe c on te nd s tha t h e was di sc riminat edag ai ns t o n a cco un t o f hi s ra ce b ecau se , as anAfric anAm eri can , he r efu se d t o g o a lo ng with J on es ’s pl an . As a s ta rti ng 2 3 po in t, d efen da nt s ar gu e th atLowe’s cl ai m fai ls be cau se 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 1( a) d oe s no t p ro vi de a pr iv at e ri gh t o f act io n fo r ret al ia ti on . The Supr em e Co urt re cen tl y di sp en se d wi th th is arg um en t i n C BOCS West , Inc . v. Hu m ph rie s, _

__U.S. __

_, 12 8 S . Ct. 1 95 1, 1 96 1, 1 70 L. Ed. 2d86 4 (2 00 8) , fin di ng th at“ 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 1
en co m pa ss es cla im s o f ret al ia ti on .” Reco gn iz in g t ha t Lo we ha s a p riv at e ri gh t o f 2 4 act io n, we co ns id er the m eri ts of d efen da nt s’ othe r affi rm at iv e d efen se s. A. St og ne r an d Dre w firs t as se rt t ha t the di st ric t co urt erredby con cl ud in g t ha t Lowe’s re ta li at io n c la im

was n otpre cl ud edby the earl ie r adm in is tra ti ve ad jud ic at io n o f hi s cl ai m . They st res s tha t Lo we was affo rd edanadm in is tra ti ve

L owe a lso brought his retaliation claim ag ainst J ones, but the district court dismissed 2 3 the claim as to Jones on leg islative immuni ty grounds. Moreove r, and a s the Court observe d in CBOCS W est, Inc. v. Humphrie s, sever al 2 4 courts of a

ppeals, includingthis court in Andrew s v. L akeshor e Reha bilitation Hosp., 140 F.3d 1405, 1411–13 (11th Cir. 1998), had r eac hed the same conc lusion—that § 1981 encompa sses claims of re taliation. Humphries, ___ U.S. at ___, 128 S. Ct. at 1957. 33he ari ng to all ow h im to ch al le ng e th e el im in at io n o f hi s p os it io n, an d, b ecau se th e he ari ng off

ic er i ss ue d arul in g a dv ers e to hi m , Lowe i s b arre d fr om rel it ig at in g t he is su e. Lowe’s re sp on se is two -fo ld . Firs t, h e arg ue s the pre cl us io n i ss ue can no t be rai se d h ere b ecau se th e d is tri ctco urt d en ie d t he de fen da nt s’ m ot io n t o c ert ify th e is su e fo r ap pe ll at e rev ie w pu rs ua ntto 28 U.S.C. § 1 29 2( b) . Seco nd , eve n i f th e is su e is pro pe rly befo re thi s co urt, the di st ric t co urt was co rrec t i n h ol di ng th atit
was no t b ou ndby the adm in is tra ti ve de ci si on be cau se th e ret al ia ti on is su e was no t be fo re the he ari ng off

ic er. Afte r th e d is tri ctco urt re

jecte d t he ir qua li fie d i m

m un it y de fen se s, St og ne r an d Dre w m ov edth e co urt, p ur su an t t o 2 8 U.S.C. § 12 92 (b ), to en te r anord er 2 5 cert ifyin g fo r ap pe ll at e rev ie w th e is su e o f whe th er Lo we’s ret al ia ti on cla im was ba rredby the admin is tra ti ve ad jud ic at io n. Th e d is tri ctco urt d en ie d t he m ot io n. Altho ug h t he di stric t co urt d ecl in edto cert ify the is su e, we m ay ne ve rth el es s ex erci se pe nd en t ap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on an d c on si de r itso lo ng as t he is su e is
28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) provides: 2 5 When a district judge , in making in a civil action an or der not other wise appea lable under

this section, shall be of the opinion that such orde r involves a controllingquestion of law a s to which there is substantial ground f or diffe renc e of opinion and that an immediate appea l from the orde r may materia lly

advanc e the ultimate termination of the litigation, he shall so state in writing in suc h order
.
34“ in ex tri cab ly int ertwin edwith a n app eal ab le de ci si on or wh enrev ie w of t he

fo rm er d eci si on is ne ces sa ry to en sure m ean in gf

ul rev ie w of t he lat te r.” Tam ia m i Part ne rs , Ltd . v. Mi cco su ke e Trib e o f In di an s, 1 77 F.3d12 12 , 12 21 (11 th Cir
. 19 99 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o mit te d) . Exerc is in g p en de ntjuri sd ic ti on ov er the pr ecl us io n i ss ue is warran te d i n t hi s ca se . The i ss ue is “ in ex tri cab ly int ertwin ed ” with t he qu al ifi edimm

un it y is su es be cau se res ol ut io n o f th e p recl us io n i ss ue in fav orof t he de fen da nt s wi ll ne ces sa ril y di sp en se of a ny needto pa ss on th e imm un it y is su es . Also , if we d ecl in e to de ci de th e p recl us io n i ss ue an d l at er fi nd th atth e d efen dant s ar e n oten ti tl edto qu al ifi edimm un it y , Lowe’s ret al ia ti on cla im wil l p ro ceedto tri al . If a jury find s i n fa vo r of Lowe an d, o n app eal fro m fin al jud gm en t, we h ol d t ha t Lo we was pro cedur al ly barre d fr om bri ng in g h is cla im , ou r in te rlo cu to ry

rev ie w of t he qu al ifi edimm un it y is su e wil l b e ren de rednu ga to ry , th ereb y fru st rat in g t he in te res ts of ju di ci al eco no m y . See Sch m el z v . Mo nr oe Co un ty, 95 4 F .2d15 40 , 15 43 (11 th Cir . 19 92 ) (p er cu riam) (ex erci si ng pe nd en t ap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on ov er m eri ts of c as e al on g wi th qu al ifi edimm un it y qu es ti on so as t o d is pe ns e wit h a ll fed eral is su es ). Sat is fie d t ha t the pre cl us io n i ss ue is pro pe rly befo re u s, we p ro ceedto th e qu es ti on of wh ethe r Lowe’s c la im is ba rredby the de ci si on of t he DeKalb Co un ty adm in is tra ti ve ad

jud ic at io n. In Trav ers v. J on es , 32 3 F .3d12 94 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ), 35we en co un te redth is ve ry is su e. InTrav ers , th e p la in ti ff ap pe al edhi s thi rty-day
su sp en si on fro m

th e fi re d ep art m en t fo r in subo rd in at io n a ndunbe co m in g c on du ct du rin g ade m on st rat io n i n wh ic h h e en ga ge d h is supe rio rs ina he at edve rb al
ex ch an ge . A hear in g o ffi cer uph el d t he su sp en si on aft er fi nd in g tha t the fact s su rro un di ng th e ev en ts “ di d n otin di cat e an y no n- job -rel at edfact oror a ny error s o f fact ” warrant in g re ve rs al of t he su sp en si on . Id. at12 96 . The p la in ti ff the n br ou gh t s ui t i n fe de ral co urt cl ai m in g h e h adbe endi sc ip li ne d fo r en ga gi ng in pr ot ect edun io n a ct iv it y

an d tha t h is Fir stan d F ou rte en thAm en dm en t ri gh ts were vi ol at ed . On ap pe al , we fou ndth atth e p la in ti ff was bo un d b y th e h eari ng off

ic er’s fin di ng s. We con cl ud edth atth e fi nd in gs were b in di ng be cau se “ th e em pl oyee rece iv eda fu ll an d fa ir o pp ortu ni ty to p res en t h is cas e inth e adm in is tra ti ve he ari ng .” Id . W e wen t o n t o e xp la in th at“ [w]hena st at e ag en cy , act in g i n a jud ic ia l capa ci ty, res ol ve s d is pu te d i ss ue s o f fac t p ro pe rly befo re i t tha t the pa rti es ha ve ha d a n a de qu at e o pp ortu ni ty to l it ig at e, fed eral co urts m us t g iv e th e ag en cy ’s factfin di ng th e sa m e p recl us iv e eff ectto whi chitwou ldbe en ti tl edinth e St at e’s
co urt.” Id
. The fact s o f th is cas e, ho wev er, d is ti ng ui sh itfro m Trav ers . The rec or d sh ows th at , un de r DeKal b C ou nt y ’s adm in is tra ti ve pro cedur es , Lowe co ul d o nl y ap pe al th e d eci si on of t he Bo ardof C omm is si on ers to eli m in at e h is job by argu in g 36th atth e Co m m is si on ers co ul d n otest ab li sh a la ckof f un di ng or l ackof wo rkto jus ti fy th ei r de ci si on . Lowe co ul d n otch al le ng e th e und erl y in g d is cri m in at ory 2 6
co nduc t h e co nt en ds was t he fou nt ai nh eadof h is term in at io n b ecau se th e h eari ng of fic er l ack edth e au th or it y to co ns id er tha t i ss ue . Mor eo ve r, th e h eari ng off ic er m ad e v ery na rro w andpe rfu nc to ry factua l fi nd in gs tai lo redso le ly arou ndhi s li mit edjuri sd ic ti on . His f in di ng s wer e as fol lo ws: The un de rs ig ne d fi nd s, i n t he in st an t ca se , th at , infact , th e DeKal b Co un ty Boardof C omm is si on ers vo te d n otto ap pr op ria te fun di ng for th e p os it io n o f Dep ut y

Dire ct or , Stra te gi c Ma na ge m en t, Pa rk [s ] an d Rec reat io n Dep art m en t. Pl ai nl y , th e is su e b efo re the he ari ng off ic er was di st in ctfro m

th e is su e pr es en te d t o t he di st ric t co urt, wh ic h was no t wh ethe r Lowe’s jo b was eli m in at ed be cau se of atru e sh orta ge of f un di ng bu t wh ethe r Lowe’s jo b was ab ol is he d i n ret al ia ti on forhi s re fu sa l t o p art ic ip at e in a sc he m e to di sc riminat e ag ai ns t wh it e m an ag ers . Furt he rm or e, as id e fro m th e adm in is tra ti ve ad

jud ic at io n b ar, trad it io na l
co nc ep ts of c ol la te ral est op pe l, o r is su e p recl us io n, d o n otbi ndth is co urt. Co ll at eral est op pe l’s o pe rat io n re qu ire s tha t (1 ) anid en ti cal is su e was pre se nt edin th e p rio r pr oc eed in g; (2) th e is su e was a cri ti cal an d n eces sa ry pa rt o f th e p rio r
Under Personnel Code of D eKa lb County § 20-195, a he aringoffice r’s a uthority is 2 6 limit ed to dec iding “ whether the dismissal was in fac t due to lack of work, lac k of funds, lac k of appropriation of funds, abolishment of the position or for other mate rial cha

ng es in the duties of the position or the org anization of the depa rtment.” 37pr oc eed in g; (3) th e is su e was ful ly andfai rly lit ig at edinth e p rev io us pro ceed in g;

(4 ) th e p art ie s i n the two pro ceed in gs were i de nt ic al ; an d (5 ) a fi na l d eci si on was ren de redby a cou rt o f co m pe te ntjuri sd ic ti on . See Wing ardv. Em eral d Ven tu re Fl a. LLC, 43 8 F .3d12 88 , 12 93 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ); s ee g en eral ly Brownv. R.J
. Reynol ds Tob acco Co ., 57 6 F . Sup p. 2 d 1 32 8, 1 34 0– 41 (M.D. Fl a. 20 08 ). On th ei r fac e, th e h eari ng off ic er’s fi nd in gs rel at e so le ly to the is su e o f whe th er the Bo ardof C ommis si on ers vo te d t o abo li sh Lowe’s job . There fo re, Lowe ’s ret al ia ti on cla im

is no t b arre d, as th e adm in is tra ti ve ad jud ic at io n d idno t d is po se of th e al le ga ti on s an d a rg um en ts un de rp in ni ng Lowe’s re ta li at io n c la im
. B. Fo r hi s p art , Sto gn er ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredinfai li ng to gra nt hi m ab so lu te leg is la ti ve imm un it y forde ve lo pi ng th e 2 00 4 b ud ge t, wh ic h p ro vi de d fo r th e el im in at io n o f Lowe’s p os it io n a s Dep ut y Dire ct orof S tra te gi c Man ag em en t an d Dev el op m en t o f th e Parks Depa rtment. Lowe, i n re sp on se , 2 7 arg ue s tha t St og ne r was no t en ga gi ng inleg it im at e le gi sl at iv e act iv it ie s wh en craf ti ng th e 2 00 4 b ud ge t wi th res pe ctto Lowe’s p os it io n. In st ead , acco rd in g t o Lowe, St og ne r us edth e p ro po se d b ud ge t as anart ifi ce fo r wha t was infacta

Denials of le g islative immuni ty are subject to de novo re view. Ye ldell v. Cooper Gre en 2 7 Hosp., Inc., 956 F .2d 1056, 1060 (11th Cir. 1992). 38ret al ia to ry

pe rs on ne l d eci si on . In re so lv in g thi s m at te r, we bi fu rcat e o uran al y si s 2 8 by firs t ex am in in g t he bro adpri nc ip le s u nd erl y in g l eg is la ti ve imm un it y an d t he n co ns id eri ng th ei r ap pl ic at io n t o t he cas e b efo re u s. 1. The Sp eech or De ba te Claus e o f ou r Co ns ti tu ti on pro vi de s tha t, “ fo r an y Sp eech or De ba te ineit he r Hou se , [Sen at or s an d R ep res en ta ti ve s] sh al l n otbe qu es ti on edinan y

ot he r pl ace.” U.S. Con st . art . I, § 6 , cl. 1 . By it s t erm s, the Cl au se is li m it edto m em

be rs of C on gr es s. See Lake Co un try Estat es v. Tah oe Reg io na l Pl an ni ng Agen cy , 44 0 U.S. 3 91 , 40 4, 9 9 S . Ct. 1 17 1, 1 17 9, 5 9 L. Ed. 2 d 40 1 (1 97 9) . Neverth el es s, s ta te an d l oc al leg is la to rs , andth ei r su rro ga te s, en joy a pa ral le l i m

m un it y fro m civ il li ab il it y

forth ei r le gi sl at iv e act s. See Grav el v. Uni te d S ta te s, 4 08 U.S. 60 6, 6 18 , 92 S. Ct. 2 61 4, 2 62 3, 3 3 L. Ed. 2 d 5 83 (19 72 ). 2 9 We possess jurisdiction to review the district cour t's r ejec tion of Stogner ’s claim of 2 8 leg islative immuni ty

under the “collate ral orde r” doc trine of Cohen v. B enef icial Indus. L oan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S. C t. 1221, 93 L . Ed. 1528 (1949). N ix on v. Fitzge rald, 457 U.S. 731, 102 S. Ct . 2690, 73 L . Ed. 2d 349 (1982) ( authorizing immediate a ppellate r eview of

a denia l of leg islative immuni ty); see supr a note 2; see also Har ris v. Deve aux, 780 F.2d 911, 913 (11th Cir. 1986) (“ Absolute immunity is meant to protect not only from liability , but from g oing to tria l at all.”). We have r ecognized that “eff icient oper ation of conte mporary g overnme nt nece ssitates 2 9 adjuncts per formingresponsibilities traditionally executed by

the leg islators.” Ellis v. Coffee County Bd. of Reg istrars, 981 F .2d 1185, 1194 (11th Cir. 1993); see a lso Grave l, 408 U.S. at 616–17, 92 S. Ct . at 2623 (“ [I ]tis lit era lly impossibl e, in view of

the complexiti es of the mode rn leg islative proce ss, with . . . matters of leg islative conce rn constantly prolifer ating , for Me mbers of Congress to per form their le g islative tasks without the help of aides a nd assistants; that the day-to-day

work of suc h aides is so critica l to the Members' perf ormanc e that they

must be 39Doc tri na ll y , leg is la ti ve imm un it y em an at es fro m

th e wel l-s pr in g o f th e fed eral co m

m on law; ne ve rth el es s, i t i s s im il ar i n s co pe an d o bjec t t o t he imm un it y pr ov id edfed eral leg is la to rs un de r th e Sp eech or De ba te Claus e. In de ed , when th e Supr em e Co urt i ni ti al ly recog ni zedst at e le gi sl at iv e imm un it y as aco ns ti tu en t o f th e fed eral co m

m on law, i t l oo ke d t o i ts Sp eech or De ba te Claus e juri sp ru de nc e fo r gu id an ce an en t the co nt ou rs of t he do ctrin e. See Ten ne y v. Br an dh ov e, 34 1 U.S. 36 7, 3 76 –7 9, 7 1 S . Ct. 7 83 , 78 8– 90 , 95 L. Ed. 10 19 (19 51 ). In l at er de ci si on s, the Co urt ac kn owl ed ge d t ha t the leg is la ti ve imm un it y fed eral an d s ta te le gi sl at or s en

joy are es se nt ia ll y

co te rm in ou s. See Supr em e Co urt o f Va. v. Co ns um ers Uni onof t he U.S., Inc., 4 46 U.S. 71 9, 7 32 –3 3, 1 00 S. Ct. 1 96 7, 19 74 –7 5, 6 4 L. Ed. 2 d 6 41 (19 80 ). By an al og y , th es e p rin ci pl es affo rdleg is la to rs atth e reg io na l l ev el si mil ar p ro te ct io n t o t he ex te ntth ey actina cap aci ty
co m pa rab le to th atof s ta te leg is la to rs . See Lak e Co un try Estat es , Inc ., 44 0 U.S. at 40 4, 9 9 S . Ct. at11 79 ; El li s, 9 81 F.2dat 1 19 4. Fu rth erm or e, inth is cir cu it , we ha ve ex te nd edth is imm

un it y to lo cal leg is la to rs , W oo ds v. Gam el , 13 2 F .3d14 17 , 14 19 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ) (ci ti ng Hern an de z v . Cit y of Laf ay et te , 64 3 F .2d11 88 , 11 93 (5 th Cir . Uni t A May

19 81 ), an d t he ir a dju nc ts , see Ell is , 98 1 F .2dat 1 19 2.

treated as the latter' s alter e g os . . . .”). 40Hen ce, o urco ns id erat io n o f Sto gn er’s l eg is la ti ve im m un it y cla im be gi ns with a di st il la ti on of p rin ci pl es ex tra ct edfro m fed eral co ns ti tu ti on al juri sp ru de nc e. The Sp eech or De ba te Claus e fi nd s i ts ori gi n i n asi m il ar p ro vi si on of t he Eng li sh Bil l o f Ri gh ts of 1 68 9. See Ten ne y , 34 1 U.S. at37 2, 7 1 S . Ct. at78 6; 3 0 Uni te d S ta te s v . Jo hn so n, 3 83 U.S. 16 9, 1 77 –7 8, 8 6 S . Ct. 7 49 , 75 3– 54 , 15 L. Ed. 2d68 1 (1 96 6) . The Cl au se is de si gn edto rei nf or ce the in de pe nd en ce o f th e le gi sl at iv e b ran chan d e ns ur e th atitwil l b e ab le to pe rfo rm th e who le of t he le gi sl at iv e fu nc ti on ced edto itby the Co ns ti tu ti on free of u ndue in te rfer en ce. See East la ndv. U.S. Serv ic em en ’s Fun d, 4 21 U.S. 49 1, 5 02 , 95 S. Ct. 1 81 3, 1 82 0, 4 4 L. Ed. 2d32 4 (1 97 5) . To th aten d, the Claus e p ro te ct s o ffi ci al s “ fro m in qu iry int o le gi sl at iv e act s o r th e m ot iv at io n fo r actua l p erfo rm an ce o f le gi sl at iv e act s,” Uni te d S ta te s v . Brews te r, 40 8 U.S. 5 01 , 50 9, 9 2 S . Ct. 2 53 1, 2 53 6, 3 3 L. Ed. 2 d 50 7 (1 97 2) , “ fro m

th e b ur de n o f de fen di ng ” certa in su it s, Do m br ows ki v. East la nd , 38 7 U.S. 8 2, 8 5, 8 7 S . Ct. 1 42 5, 1 42 7, 1 8 L. Ed. 2 d 5 77 (19 67 ) (p er cu ria m), an d “ fro m

th e co ns eque nc es of l it ig at io n’s re su lt s,” i d.; see ge ne ral ly
The Eng lish version provides: “That the Fr eedom of Speech, a

nd Debates or 3 0 Procee dings in Parliame nt, ought not to be impea ched or questioned in any

Court or Place out of Parliament.” 1 Wm. & Ma ry , Sess. 2, ch. I I

(1689) ( quoted in Tenne y , 341 U.S. at 373, 71 S. Ct
. at 786). F or thorough exposi tions on the historical antec edents of the Clause, see J ustice Fr ankfur ter’s ma jority opinion in Tenney , 341 U.S. at 372–75, 71 S. Ct . at 786–87, and Justi ce Harlan’s opinion for the Court in Johnson, 383 U.S . at 177–83, 86 S. Ct. at 753–57. 41Co ns um ers Uni on , 44 6 U.S. at73 1– 32 ,10 0 S . Ct. at19 74 , East land , 42 1 U.S. at

50 2– 03 , 95 S. Ct. at18 20 –2 1; Jo hn so n, 3 83 U.S. at 1 79 , 86 S. Ct. at75 5. Whi le th e Co urt h as gi ve n t he Claus e b ro adap pl ic at io n, i ts pro te ct io ns are care fu ll y tai lo redto it s p ur

po se s. See East la nd , 42 1 U.S. at50 1– 02 , 95 S. Ct. at 18 20 –2 1. Offi ci al s cl ai m in g p ro te ct io n “ m us t s ho w th atsu chimm

un it y is jus ti fie d fo r th e g ov ern m en ta l fu nc ti on at i ss ue .” Hafer v . Mel o, 5 02 U.S. 21 , 28 –2 9, 1 12 S. Ct . 35 8, 3 63 , 11 6 L. Ed. 2 d 3 01 (19 91 ). Acco rd in gl y , th e p riv il eg e enur es on ly to leg is la to rs en ga gi ng inact io ns co ns id ered“ anin te gr al pa rt o f th e d el ib erat iv e an d c omm

un ic at iv e p ro ces se s b y

whi ch[le gi sl at or s] parti ci pa te in
. . . pr oc eed in gs with re sp ectto th e co ns id erat io n a ndpa ss ag e o r reject io n o f pr op os edleg is la ti on .” Sm ith v . Lom ax , 45 F.3d40 2, 4 05 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ) (quo ti ng Grav el , 40 8 U.S. at 62 5, 9 2 S . Ct. at26 27 ) (al te rat io n i n o rig in al ). The C laus e d oe s n otco nf er ab so lu te imm

un ity “ si m pl y forth e p ers on al or p riv at e b en efi t o f Mem be rs of Co ng res s, b utto pro te ctth e in te gr it y of t he leg is la ti ve pro ces s b y in su rin g t he in de pe nd en ce o f in di vi du al leg is la to rs .” Brews te r, 40 8 U.S. at50 7, 9 2 S . Ct. at 25 35
. 2. Turn in g t o t he m at te r he re, St og ne r in it ia ll y ass ert s tha t the di stric t co urt’s
an al y si s i s fl awedbe cau se itim pr op erl y foc us edon hi s p os it io n a s Ex ecu ti ve 42Ass is ta ntto th e Ch ie f Exe cu ti ve Offic er (J on es ). W e ag ree. In ba si ng it s d en ia l 3 1 of leg is la ti ve imm

un it y to Sto gn er o n t he factth athe “ is no t an off ic er o r em pl oyee of a le gi sl at iv e b od y ” b ut , rathe r, “ anex ecu ti ve ass is ta ntof s om eo ne who is servi ng inanex ecu ti ve po si ti on ,” th e d is tri ctco urt erredby gro un di ng it s de ci si on on Sto gn er’s t it le rathe r th anup onth e func ti on inwhi chhe was e ng ag ed th atga ve ris e to Lowe’s cl ai m . Becau se th e ap pl ic ab il it y of l eg is la ti ve imm

un it y ne ces sa ril y

foc us es onpa rti cu la r act s o r func ti on s, n oton pa rti cu la r act or s o r func ti on ari es , im

m un it y als o e xt en ds to leg is la ti ve act s p erfo rm edby execu ti ve of fic ia ls an d o th er n on -le gi sl at or s. See East la nd , 42 1 U.S. at50 7, 9 5 S . Ct. at 18 23 (de cl in in g t o draw a d is ti nc ti onbe twee n t he m em be rs of aco ng res si on al
subc omm it te e an d t he subc ommit te e’s co un se l wh enth e la tt er’s act io ns were withi n t he sp he re o f le gi ti m at e le gi sl at iv e act iv it y ); Grave l, 4 08 U.S. at 6 18 , 92 S. Ct . at 2 62 3 (h ol di ng th at“ th e Sp eech or De ba te Claus e ap pl ie s n oton ly to a Mem be r bu t al so to hi s ai de s i ns of ar as th e co nduc t o f th e la tt er wo ul d b e a pr ot ect edleg is la ti ve actif p erfo rm edby the Mem be r hi m se lf.” ). To b e su re, wh en de te rm in in g e nt it le m en t t o t he imm un it y , th e p os it io n h el d b y th e o ffi ci al see ki ng imm un it y is no t d is po si ti ve , as t he “ imm un it y is jus ti fie d a ndde fin edby the

The district cour

t found that J ones wa s entitled to leg islative immuni ty beca use he 3 1 introduced the 2004 budg et proposal to the B oard of Commi ssioners. 43func ti on s i t p ro te ct s an d s erv es , no t b y th e p ers on to who m

itatt ach es .” Fo rres te r v. Whi te , 48 4 U.S. 2 19 , 22 7, 1 08 S. Ct. 5 38 , 54 4, 9 8 L. Ed. 2 d 5 55 (19 88 ) (em ph as is inori gi na l); see Yeld el l, 9 56 F.2dat 1 06 2 (“ It i s the na tu re o f th e act whi chde te rm in es whet he r le gi sl at iv e imm un it y sh ie ld s the in di vi du al fro m su it .”). By pre pa rin g t he 20 04 bu dg etpro po sa l, wh ic h J on es ap pr ov edan d
subm it te d t o t he Bo ardof C omm is si on ers , Sto gn er ar gu es th athe ne ces saril y act ed in a le gi sl at iv e cap aci ty andis de se rv in g o f ab so lu te imm un it y . As part o f hi s arg um en t, St og ne r se ek s t o h av e u s ad op t a p er s e ru le th atwou ldpro vi de an ex ecu ti ve off

ic ia l i m m un it y an y ti m e h e draft s a p ro po sa l tha t i s l at er s ub m it te d t o a le gi sl at iv e b od y . W e d ecl in e to ad op t s uc h arul e as itcu ts to o b ro ad ly andis in ap po si te to th e p rin ci pl e th atour in qu iry is n otbo un d b y off ic ia ls ’ ti tl es an d t he ch arac te riz at io ns off

ic ia ls pl ace o n t he ir o wn ac ti vi ti es . Ins te ad , we exa min e th e fact s o f eac h c as e to de te rm in e “ whe th er the [of fic ia l] inth e in st an t ca se [was ]
en ga gi ng inleg is la ti ve act iv it y .” Esp an ol a Way Co rp . v. Me y ers on , 69 0 F .2d82 7, 82 9 (1 1th C ir. 1 98 2) , cert . den ie d, 4 60 U.S. 10 39 , 10 3 S . Ct. 1 43 1, 7 5 L. Ed. 2 d 79 1 (1 98 3)
. W e n ow ev al ua te whet he r St og ne r was en ga gi ng inleg it im at e le gi sl at iv e act iv ity when he de ve lo pe d a nddra fte d t he 20 04 bu dg et , whi cheli m in at edLowe’s po si ti on . In d oi ng so , we are ca refu l t o l im itou r de ci si onto th is na rro w is su e an d 44de ci de “ on ly wha t i s n eces sa ry to th e d is po si ti onof t he imm ed ia te cas e.” Whi te ho us e v . Ill . Cen t. R.R. C o., 3 49 U.S. 36 6, 3 73 , 75 S. Ct. 8 45 , 85 0, 9 9 L. Ed. 11 55 (19 55 ). Gene ral ly, ab so lu te imm un it y ap pl ie s t o “ pr os pe ct iv e, le gi sl at iv etype ru le s” th atha ve ge ne ral ap pl ic at io n. Se e Ale xa nd er v . Hol de n, 6 6 F .3d62 , 67 (4t h C ir. 1 99 5) . “ Em

pl oym en t d eci si on s g en eral ly are adm in is tra ti ve ex cep t whe n the y

are ac co m

pl is he d thr ou gh tra di ti on al leg is la ti ve fun ct io ns su chas po li cym ak in g a ndbu dg et ary res tru ctur in g t ha t s tri ke at t he he artof t he leg is la ti ve pr oc es s.” Ace ve do -Garc iav. Vera -Mo nr oi g, 2 04 F.3d1, 8 (1s t Ci r. 20 00 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io ns om it te d)
. Rel y in g o n B og anv. Sc ot t-Ha rri s, 5 23 U.S. 44 , 11 8 S . Ct. 9 66 , 14 0 L. Ed. 2d79 (19 98 ), Sto gn er ch arac te riz es hi s b eh av io r as a le gi ti m at e le gi sl at iv e actby vi rtu e o f hi s d ev el op in g a nddra fti ng th e b ud ge t p ro po sa l tha t was lat er ad op te d b y th e Bo ardof C omm is si on ers . Im pl ic itwithi n t hi s ch arac te riz at io n i s the ass ert io n th atth e el im in at io n o f Lowe’s p os it io n (De pu ty D ire ct orof S tra te gi c Ma na ge m en t
an d Dev el op m en t Pa rk s an d R ecre at io n Dep art m en t) aro se ou t o f br oa d p ol ic y an d bu dg etco ns id erat io ns an d d idno t s te m fro m sp eci fic fact s as th ey

rel at edto Lowe. W e ag ree. InBo ga n, the pl ai nt iff

all eg edth athe r di sc ha rg e, whi chwas a cco m pl is he d th ro ug h a n o rd in an ce el im in at in g acit y de partment ( of

whi chsh e was th e so le 45em

pl oyee), was m ot iv at edby racia l an im us an d was inret al ia ti on forfil in g a co m pl ai ntag ai ns t an ot he r em pl oyee who ha d u se d ra ci al an d e th ni c sl ur s. 5 23 U.S. at 4 6– 47 , 11 8 S . Ct. at96 9. Th e Supr em e Co urt fo un d t ha t ab so lu te imm un it y sh ou ldap pl y

be cau se th e o rd in an ce “bo re al l the ha ll m ark s o f tr ad it io na l le gi sl at io n.” Id. at55 , 11 8 S . Ct. at97 3. Acco rd in g t o t he Co urt, the ord in an ce

“ refl ect eda di sc ret io na ry , po li cym ak in g d eci si on im pl ic at in g t he bu dg et ary pr io rit ie s o f th e ci ty,” anditha d p ro sp ect iv e im pa ctbe cau se iteli m in at eda de pa rtment r athe r th ana si ng le em pl oyee. Id. at55 –5 6, 1 18 S. Ct. at97 3. Pu t di ffer en tl y , th e al le ge d re ta li at io n h ada subs tant ia l n ex us to th e le gi sl at iv e pr oc es s. Lowe, h owe ve r, at te m

pt s t o c as t thi s ca se as m erel y anem pl oym en t ac ti on m as ke d b y

th e le gi sl at iv e p ro ces s. He arg ue s tha t l eg is la ti ve imm un it y is
un av ai labl e whe re, as he re, the leg is la ti on adve rs el y im pa ct eda si ng le in di vi du al
. The arg um en t i s una va il in g. Ord in ari ly, th e d eci si on to term in at e anin di vi du al 's
em pl oym en t i s ch arac te riz edas a n a dm in is tra ti ve act io n, s ee In re Mo nt go m ery Co un ty, 21 5 F .3d36 7, 3 76 (3dCir . 20 00 ) (fi nd in g t he de ci si on to eli m in at e a pa rti cu la r em

pl oyee rathe r th anem

pl oyee's p os it io n c on st itut es anadmin is tra ti ve , rathe r th anleg is la ti ve act ); Ac ev ed o- Garci a, 20 4 F .3dat 8 (ho ld in g t ha t s el ect iv e la y of fs of p art ic ul ar em

pl oyees d o n otco ns ti tu te leg is la ti ve act s) ; Ca na ry v. 46Osb orn, 2 11 F.3d32 4, 3 30 –3 1 (6 th Cir . 20 00 ) (s am e), b utLowe’s em pl oym en t
was no t t erm in at edinth is cas e. The B oa rdof C omm is si on ers ch os e to ad op t the 20 04 bu dg et , whi chab ol is he d the po si ti onof De pu ty D ire ct orof S tra te gi c Man ag em en t an d Dev el op m en t, Pa rk s an d R ecre at io n Dep art m en t. Thi s di st in ct io n p ro ve s d is po si ti ve . Unl ik e em

pl oyee pe rs on ne l d eci si on s, the eli m in at io n o f a p ub li c em pl oym en t p os it io n d oe s co ns ti tu te a le gi sl at iv e act . In Bo ga n, the Supr em e Co urt n ot edth atth e el im in at io n o f a p ub li c em pl oym en t p os it io n— as co m pa redto th e fi rin g o f a s in gl e in di vi du al —i s a qui nt es se nt ia l l eg is la ti ve act . See Bo ga n, 5 23 U.S. at 5 5– 56 , 11 8 S . Ct. at97 3. Un li ke th e te rm in at io n o f anin di vi du al
em pl oyee, th e el im in at io n o f a p ub li c em pl oym en t p os it io n “ m ay

ha ve pro sp ect iv e im pl ic at io ns th atreac h wel l b ey on d t he pa rti cu lar oc cupantof t he off ic e.” Id . at 56 , 11 8 S . Ct. at97 3. Here , th e d eci si on to ab ol is h t he po si ti on—an d S to gn er’s in vo lv em en t i n p rep ari ng th e b ud ge t p ro po sa l— is pro pe rly con st ru edas em bo dyin g apo li cy

de ci si on with p ro sp ect iv e im pl ic at io ns . Lowe fu rth er ar gu es th atleg is la ti ve imm un it y do es no t at ta chto Sto gn er be cau se Sto gn er d ev el op edth e 2 00 4 b ud ge t as a co nt in ua ti onof J on es ’s raci al ly di sc riminat ory

po li cy to eli m in at e m an ag ers th ro ug h re or ga ni zat io ns rathe r th an fir in gs . Lowe n ot es th atpri or to hi s d ev el op in g anddra fti ng th e 2 00 4 b ud ge t

47pr op os al , Drew ha d h ire d B il lups in to th e ex actpo si ti onLowe h el d. An d fo r

ap pr ox im at el y

fiv e m on th s, Bi ll up s p erfo rm edth e sa m e job fun ct io ns . Then , by sl ei gh t o f ha nd , Bil lups was g iv enan ot he r job ti tl e whi le st il l p erfo rm in g t he same func ti on s as Lowe, the reb y ren de rin g Lo we’s po si ti on an d t it le un ne ces sa ry . Lowe a ls o p oi nt s o utth at , of 6 00 po si ti on s i n t he Park s Dep art m en t, h is po si ti on was th e o nl y

on e el im in at ed . This , acco rd in g t o Lo we, de m on st rat edth at St og ne r’s act io ns were n otdi rect edat l eg it im at e le gi sl at iv e g oa ls bu t, ra th er, were ai m edat p un is hi ng hi m

forrefu si ng to parti ci pa te inJo ne s’s s ch em e to eli m in at e whi te m an ag ers . Whi le th es e fac ts ob vi ou sl y su gg es t an im

pr op er m ot iv e, “ [t]he cla im of a n un worth y pu rp os e d oe s n otde st ro y th e p riv il eg e.” Ten ne y , 34 1 U.S. at37 7, 7 1 S
. Ct . at 7 88 . Sure ly, th e p riv il eg e “ wou ldbe of l it tl e v al ue if [l eg is la to rs ] co ul d b e subjec te d t o t he co stan d i nc on ve ni en ce an d d is tra ct io ns of atri al up on a co nc lu si on of t he pl ead er, o r to th e h azar d o f a jud gm en t ag ai ns t the m ba se d upo n a jury's sp ecu la ti on as t o m ot iv es .” Id . Mor eo ve r, itsi m pl y is “ no t co ns on an t wi th
ou r sc he m e o f go ve rn m en t fo r a co urt t o i nqui re i nt o t he m ot iv es of l eg is la to rs .” Id . There fo re, we n eedno t ex am in e St og ne r’s m ot iv es indra fti ng th e 2 00 4 bu dg et , as t he in qu iry is s im pl y “ whe th er, s tri pp edof a ll co ns id erat io ns of i nt en t
an d m ot iv e, [St og ne r’s] acti on s wer e le gi sl at iv e.” Bo gan, 5 23 U.S. at 5 5, 1 18 S. 48Ct . at 9 73
.

Infin e, we fi ndth atSto gn er i s en ti tl edto ab so lu te leg is la ti ve imm un it y ag ai ns t an y

cla im s, i nc lu di ng Lowe’s re ta li at io n c la im , ari si ng fro m act io ns di rect ly relat edto hi s p rep ari ng an d draft in g the 20 04 bu dg etpro po sa l. C. Hav in g fo un d t ha t St og ne r po ss es se s l eg is la ti ve imm un it y with re sp ectto Lowe’s re ta li at io n c la im , we nex t co ns id er wh ethe r Drew is en ti tl edto qu al ifi ed imm un it y reg ard in g t ha t cl ai m . W e b eg in by not in g t ha t, s in ce Lo we fai le d t o rai se inth e d is tri ctco urt the is su e o f whe th er Drew was pe rfo rm in g adi sc ret io na ry func ti on when co m

m it ti ng th e d is cri m in at ory act s, the is su e is no t b efo re u s. See Jo hn so n, 3 40 F.3dat 1 22 8 n .8. Turni ng to th e qua li fie d i m m un it y qu es ti on , we fir stlo okto whet he r Lowe h as est ab li sh eda vi ol at io n o f hi s s ta tu to ry or co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s. Ab se ntdi rectev id en ce o f di sc riminat io n, wh enan al y zi ng cl ai m s fo r rac e-b as edret al ia ti on bro ug htun de r § 1 98 1, we emplo y th e tr ip art it e an al yti cal fram ewo rkde ve lo pe d b y th e Supr em e Co urt i n M cDo nn el l Do ug la s Co rp . v. Gree n, 4 11 U.S. 79 2, 9 3 S . Ct. 1 81 7, 3 6 L. Ed. 2 d 6 68 (19 73 ), an d
subs eque nt ly m od ifi edinTexa s Dep ’t of Cmty . Affai rs v. Bu rd in e, 45 0 U.S. 2 48 , 10 1 S . Ct. 1 08 9, 6 7 L. Ed. 2 d 2 07 (19 81 ). See Pa tt ers onv. Mc LeanCred itUni on , 49 1 U.S. 1 64 , 18 6, 1 09 S. Ct. 2 36 3, 2 37 7– 78 , 10 5 L. Ed. 2 d 1 32 (19 89 ) 49supe rced edinpa rt b y Civ il Rig ht s Actof 1 99 1, Pub. L. No. 1 02 -1 66 , § 1 01 , 10 5 St at . 10 71 , 10 71 –7 2 (c od ifi edat 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 81 ); S ta nd ardv. A.B.E.L. Serv s., In c., 16 1 F .3d13 18 , 13 30 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ) (s ta ti ng th atTit le VII an d § 19 81 “ ha ve th e sa m e requi rem en ts of p ro of an d u se th e sa m e [Mc Don ne ll Dou gl as /B ur di ne ]
an al yti cal fram ewo rk ” ). Und er thi s fr am ewo rk , a pl ai nt iff all eg in g re ta li at io n m us t fi rs t es tabl is h apri m a fac ie cas e b y sh owi ng th at : (1 ) he en ga ge d i n a st atut or il y

pro te ct edact iv it y ; (2 ) he su ffer edanadve rs e em pl oym en t ac ti on ; an d (3 ) he est ab li sh eda cau sa l l in k b etweenth e p ro te ct edact iv it y an d t he adve rs e act io n. Rane y

v. Vi ns on Guar d S erv . Inc ., 12 0 F .3d11 92 , 11 96 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ); Gol ds m it h v . Cit y

of At m or e, 99 6 F .2d11 55 , 11 63 (11 th Cir . 19 93 ). Thes e th ree el em en ts crea te a pr es um pt io n t ha t the adve rs e act io n was th e p ro du ctof a n i nt en t to ret al ia te . Once apl ai nt iff est ab li sh es a pr im a fac ie cas e o f ret al ia ti on , th e bu rd enof p ro du ct io n s hi fts to th e d efen dantto reb utth e p res um pt io n b y art ic ul at in g aleg it im at e, no n- di sc riminat ory reas on forth e adve rs e em pl oym en t act io n. Se e Gol ds m it h, 9 96 F.2dat 1 16 3. “ If the de fen da ntcarr ie s thi s b ur de n o f pr oduc ti on , th e p res um

pt io n ra is edby the pri m a fac ie cas e is reb ut te d,” Burd in e, 45 0 U.S. at25 5, 1 01 S. Ct. at10 94 –9 5, an d “ dr op s fr om th e cas e,” i d. at25 5 n .10 , 10 1 S . Ct. at10 95 n.1 0. Aft er the de fen dantm ak es th is sh owi ng , th e p la in ti ff h as a fu ll an d fa ir o pp ortuni ty to d em on st rat e th atth e d efen da nt ’s pro ffer edreas on 50was m erel y

a pr et ex t t o m as k d is cri m in at ory act io ns . See Ra ne y , 12 0 F .3dat 11 96
. In it ia ll y , Drew arg ue s tha t the di st ric t co urt erredby find in g s he waiv edan y arg um en t o n s umm ary jud gm en t tha t Lo we fai le d t o e st ab li sh a pr im a fac ie cas e o f ret al ia ti on be cau se sh e fai le d t o d ev el op th e arg um en t i n h er m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t u nt il fil in g h er re pl y bri ef. Drew as se rts th at , by st at in g t he ele m en ts of th e requi redpri m a fac ie sh owi ng inhe r in it ia l s umm ary jud gm en t p le ad in g, s he pr es erv edth e arg um en t. We dis ag ree. Itis well est ab li sh edinth is cir cu itth at , ab se ntex tra or di na ry

cir cu m st an ces , leg al th eo rie s an d a rg um en ts no t ra is ed squa rel y be fo re the di st ric t co urt ca nn otbe bro ach edforth e fi rs t t im e o n app eal
. See, e.g ., Mil le nn iu m

Part ne rs , L.P. v. Co lm er St or ag e, LLC, 49 4 F .3d12 93 , 13 04 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7) ; So la nt ic , LLC v. Ci ty of Nep tu ne Beac h, 4 10 F.3d12 50 , 12 56 n.6 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). An i ns ig ni fic an t re ci ta ti on of b la cklet te r law is no t ta nt am ou ntto rai si ng anis su e fo r ad jud ic at io n. Gree nb riar, Ltd . v. Ci ty of Alab as te r, 88 1 F .2d15 70 , 15 73 n.6 (11 th Cir . 19 89 ) (fi nd in g t ha t a p arty waiv es anis su e b y

fai li ng to m ak e an y

subs ta nt iv e arg um en ts with re sp ectto th atis su e). Thu s, Drew i s p ro cedur al ly barre d fr om rai si ng th e is su e o n app eal an d h as co nc ed edan y

arg um en t tha t Lo we fai le d t o e st ab li sha pr im a fac ie cas e o f ret al ia ti on . 51Drew al so arg ue s tha t Lo we fai le d t o p res en t ev id en ce capabl e o f

es tabl is hi ng th athe r no n- di sc riminat ory expl an at io n fo r rec omm en di ng th e ab ol is hm en t o f Lowe’s p os it io n was pre te xtua l. Bef or e th e d is tri ctco urt, Drew
ex pl ai ne d t ha t s he reco m m en de d t ha t Lo we’s po si ti on be eli m in at edbe cau se it
was no lo ng er n eed edan d o th er em pl oyees wer e p erfo rm in g dut ie s o rig in al ly
as si gn edto it . To es tabl is h t ha t Dre w’ s ex pl an at io n was m erel y a pr et ex t fo r di sc riminat io n, Lo we ha d t o “pr es en t co nc ret e ev id en ce i n the form of s pe ci fic fact s wh ic h s ho w[ed ] th atth e d efen da nt ’s pro ffer edreas on [was ] m ere p ret ex t. Mer e co nc lu so ry

all eg at io ns an d a ss ert io ns w[ou ld ] no t s uf fic e.” Earl ey

v. Ch am pi on Int ’l Cor

p., 9 07 F.2d10 77 , 10 81 (11 th Cir . 19 90 ). As the di st ric t co urt n ot ed , th e “ co m pl ic at edass ig nm en t p ro ces s” su gg es te d th atDrew’s ex pl an at io n was pre te xtua l. Aft er Lo we refu se d t o b e a “ te am pl ay er,” Drew m ov edhi s o ffi ce t o t he same flo oras J on es ’s off ic e, pr es um ab ly so tha t Jo ne s co ul d m on it orLowe’s ac ti vi ti es . Jo ne s ag ai n t ol d Lo we th atif h e wan te d t o work fo r DeKal b C ou nt y , he wo ul d h av e to be co m e a “ te am pl ay er.” Be cau se Lowe c on ti nu edto refu se to pa rti ci pa te inJo ne s’s p la n, Dre w hi redBil lups in to th e sa m e p os it io n a s Lo we’s an d g av e h im du ti es on ce as si gn edto Lowe. Altho ug h Lo we an d B il lups co nt in ue d t o p erfo rm th e sa m e dut ie s, Drew c hang ed Bi ll up s’s job ti tl e to Depu ty D ire ct orof R ecre at io n S erv ic es . Drew th en 52reco m

m en de d t o S to gn er tha t Lo we’s po si ti onbe ab ol is he d, an d t he 20 04 bu dg et pr ov id edforit s ab ol it io n. Th es e fac ts su gg es t tha t Dre w parti ci pa te d i n asch em e to m ak e Lowe ’s po si ti onredun da ntan d e ffec ti ve ly term in at e h im be cau se he refu se d t o p art ic ip at e in Jo ne s’s p la n t o e li min at e whi te m an ag ers . Drew n ex t ar gu es th athe r al le ge d a ct s o f ret al ia ti on di d n otvi ol at e cl earl y es tabl is he d l aw be cau se th e av ai labi li ty of a cl ai m forret al ia ti on bro ug htun de r 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 1 was no t wel l-e st ab li sh ed . Drew con te nd s tha t the di st ric t co urt’s
erro r li es init s fi nd in g t ha t the rig htto be free fro m di sc riminat ory

ret al ia ti on was cl earl y est ab li sh edun de r Tit le VII an d i ts fai li ng to co ns id er wh ethe r th e ri gh t al so was cle arl y

est ab li sh edun de r § 1 98 1. Th eref or e, acc or di ng to Drew, be cau se Lowe’s cl ai m

is gro un de d i n § 19 81 , any reli an ce the di st ric t co urt p la cedon Tit le VII cas es forth e p ro po si ti on th ata di sc riminat ory ret al ia ti on cau se of a ct io n was cl earl y est ab li sh edun de r § 1 98 1 was erro r. Thi s ar gu m en t s tra in s cr edul it y . The Supr em e Co urt h as ex pl ai ne d t ha t a c on st itut io na l ri gh t i s “ cl earl y es tabl is he d” when th e “ co nt ou rs of t he rig ht[are ] su ffi ci en tl y cle ar [s uc h] th ata reas on ab le off

ic ia l wo ul d u nd ers ta ndth atwhathe is do in g v io la te s tha t ri gh t.” And ers onv. Cr ei gh to n, 4 83 U.S. 63 5, 6 40 , 10 7 S . Ct. 3 03 4, 3 03 9, 9 7 L. Ed. 2 d 52 3 (1 98 7) . Und er thi s s ta nd ard , a pl ai nt iff ne edno t s ho w th atth e g ov ern m en t of fic ia l’s co nduc t s pe ci fic al ly has be enhe ldun la wfu l, b utrathe r th at“ in th e li gh t 53of

pre -ex is ti ng law the un lawfu ln es s [wa s] app aren t.” Id . Am pl ifyin g t hi s pr in ci pl e, th e Co urt n ot edth at“ ‘gen eral st at em en ts of the law ar e n otin he ren tl y in cap ab le of g iv in g fa ir a ndcle ar warn in g, an d i n o th er i ns ta nc es a ge ne ral
co ns ti tu ti on al rul e al ready id en ti fie d i n t he de ci si on al law m ay ap pl y with o bv io us cl ari ty to the sp eci fic co nduc t i n que st io n, ev enth ou gh th e v ery act io n i n que st io n ha s [n ot ] pr ev io us ly beenhe ldun la wfu l.’” Hop e v . Pel zer, 5 36 U.S. 73 0, 7 41 , 12 2 S. Ct . 25 08 , 25 16 , 15 3 L. Ed. 2 d 6 66 (20 02 ) (quo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Lani er, 5 20 U.S. 25 9, 2 71 , 11 7 S . Ct. 1 21 9, 1 22 7, 1 37 L. Ed. 2d43 2 (1 99 7) ) (i nt ern al cit at io n om it te d; alt erat io n i n o rig in al ). Thi s p rece de ntm ak es cle ar tha t a r ig htm ay be cl earl y est ab li sh edirr es pe ct iv e o f whe th er co urts ha ve sp eci fic al ly deem edth e cau se of a ct io n a s b ei ng av ai labl e und er a p art ic ul ar l eg al th eo ry . Accor di ng ly, th e qu es ti on is no t wh ethe r a rea so nabl e o ffi cer wo ul d kno w th ata di sc riminat ory ret al ia ti on cla im

was a va il ab le un de r Tit le VII or § 1 98 1; rathe r, th e sa li en t qu es ti on is whet he r th e st at e o f th e la w at the ti m e p ro vi de d o ffi ci al s fa ir wa rn in g th atth ei r di sc riminat ory

ret al ia to ry

co nduc t was un lawfu l. See Hop e, 53 6 U.S. at 74 1, 1 22 S. Ct. at25 16
. Fu rth erm or e, ev enif Dre w’ s m is gu id edin te rp ret at io n o f th e “ cl earl y es tabl is he d” pro ng of t he qu al ifi edimm un it y tes t was co rrec t, i t i s wel l-e st ab li sh ed in th is cir cu itth atcla im s fo r ret al ia ti on are co gn iz ab le pu rs ua ntto § 1 98 1. Se e 54Bu tl er v . Ala. Dep ’t of Tran sp ., 53 6 F .3d12 09 , 12 12 –1 3 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) ;

Gol ds m it h v . Bag by Eleva to r Co ., 51 3 F .3d12 61 , 12 77 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ); J ack so n v. Al a. St at e Tenur e Co m m ’n, 40 5 F .3d12 76 , 12 79 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ); An dr ews v. Lak es ho re Re hab. Ho sp ., 14 0 F .3d14 05 , 14 11 –1 3 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 8) ; J ack so n v . Mo te l 6 Mu lt ip ur

po se , Inc ., 13 0 F .3d99 9, 1 00 7 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 7)
. Con se qu en tl y , 3 2 Drew m ay

no t fi ndsh el te r un de r th e d oc tri ne of qua li fie d i m m un it y . 3 3 IV. Fo r th e rea so ns st at edab ov e, th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ctco urt i s REVERSED, to th e ex te ntitde ni edSto gn er l eg is la ti ve im m un it y . The jud gm en t of th e d is tri ctco urt i s AFF IRM ED inall ot he r res pe ct s. Th e cas e is REMANDED

We further

reje ct Dre w’s conte ntion that, since the Supreme Court ha d not addre ssed 3 2 the issue bef

ore the alleg ed discrimination occ urre d, we c annot find that the right had bee n clea rly established at that time. We have said that, in the absenc e of Supre me Court authority , we may look to the decisions of this court whe n decidingwhether the contours of

a right have been c learly

established. Mar sh v. Butler County , Ala., 268 F .3d 1014, 1032 n.10 (11th Cir. 2001) (e n banc) (findingthat, when c ourts in this C ircuit must look to case law in orde r to discern whether

a right has bee n clea

rly established, welook to decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court of Appea ls for the Eleve nth Circuit, and the highest court of the per tinent state). As the ca ses in the text reveal, the right to be f ree from ra cially

motivated reta liation under § 1981 had bee n clea

rly established in this circuit when L owe’ s discriminatory reta liation claim arose . Dre w also argues that she c annot be he ld individually liable bec ause she did not make 3 3 the ultimate decision to eliminate L owe’ s position. Thi s argument misses the point. L owe is not bring ing a

Title VI Iclaim for disc riminatory discharg e in which he is attempting to impute Dre w’s ra cial animus to her e mployer, D eKa lb County , see Stimpson v. Ci ty of Tusca loosa, 186 F.3d 1328, 1331–32 ( 11th Cir. 1999) (per curiam); rather , he is bring ing a § 1981 claim for reta liation, arguing that Drewactively participated in a sche me to reta liate ag ainst him due to his ref usal to be a “ team player” and assist in discriminating a g ainst white manag ers. 55fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs no t i nc on si st en t wi thth is op in io n.

SO ORDERED.

56Appen di x DeKa lb Coun tyGo ve rnment Hi era rchy
DeK alb Coun ty Chief Executive Of fi cer (“CEO”) Ver non J ones

Executive Assistant to t he

CEO Richard Stogner

DeK alb Coun ty Dire ctor of H um an Resource s J oe Stone Assistant County Adm inis trat or Morris Will iams

Direc tor of P arks Departm ent Be cky Kelly (1992-2002) Marily n Boyd Dre w (2002- )

57Assistant Direc tor of P arks Depart m ent J ohn Drake

Deputy Dire ctorof Strate gic Managem ent and Developm ent (position abolished J anuar y 27, 2004) Her bert L owe Marvin B illups Deputy Dire ctorof Rec reat ion Service s Marily n Boyd Dre w (2001-2002) Marvin B illups (2004- ) Deputy Dire ctorof Reve nue Managem ent and S upp ort Michae l Bryant

58