FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT May 12, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 07- 1349 8 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 05-00845 -CV -O DE -1 EDITH N. ENW ONWU, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us THE FULT ON-DEKALB HOSPITAL AUTHORITY, d.b .a. Grad y

Heal th Sy st em , GEOFF BROWN, TOM LINDSEY, LINDA GARRETT, Defen da nt s- App el le es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (M ay 1 2, 200 8)2

Be fo re MA RC U S, W IL SO N and F A Y , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: E dith N . E nw onwu a

ppe al s pr o se the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of the F ult onDe kalb Hospital’ s (“ Hospital”) m otion for j udgm ent as a m atter of law ( “ JMOL ”), pur suant t o F ed . R. Ci v. P. 50( a) , on h er c la im s of r ac e, na tio na l or igi n, and disabili ty discrim ination , in violation o f the Fourteenth A m endm ent and 42 U.S .C. § 19 81 ( br ough t purs uant t o 42 U . S. C. § 19 83) , T itl e V II of the Ci vil Ri ght s A ct

of 1964 (“ Title V II”) , 42 U .S .C. § 2000 e-16, and the Am ericans with Disabilities Act (“ AD A” ), 42 U. S. C. § 121 01 et seq. E nwonwu ar gues on app eal that the district co ur t ab us edit s d is cret io n b y de nyin g “ pr act ic al ly all” of h er p ret ria l m ot io ns . E nw onwu a lso c la im s th at the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

in gr an tin g th e H ospi ta l’ s m oti on f o r J M O L . F o r

th e r e a s o n s s e tf

o rt h mo r e f

u l l y b e l o w , w e a f

f i rm. O n June 6, 200 5, E nw onwu, abla ck f em al e of N ige ri anna tio na l or igi n, filed an am ended pro se com plaint against her em

ploy er, the Hospital, H ospit al V ic e Pr es ide nt G eo ff

Br ow n, H ospi ta l D ir ec tor of P ro duc tio n S er

vic es T om L ind se y , and H ospi ta l H el p D es k S upe rv iso r L ind a G ar re tt, und er

the F ourte en th Am en dm en t, 4 2 U.S.C. § § 1 98 1 a nd19 83 , Titl e VII, an d t he ADA. Enwo nwu ch ar ge d th at : ( 1) the H ospi ta l su bj ec te d he r to w ork un de r co ndi tio ns i nj ur iou s to her health; (2) E nwonwu w as disparately denied the use of her ear ned sick leave;3

(3) the H ospit al disparately subjecte d Enw onwu to work in the Data Center when sim ilarl y sit ua te d e m plo y ee s c ont inu ed

to w ork inthe H el p D es k of fi ce ; ( 4) the Hospital subjected E nwonwu to a hostile work environm ent by solicitin g other em pl oyees t o fabr ic at e co m

pl ai nt s ab ou t h er; (5) th e Hos pi ta l re qu ire d En won wu to atte nd tra ini ng c la sse s ou tsi de of he r nor m al w ork sc he dul e w ith out pay ing ad equa te c om

pe nsatio n and, w iththe int en t t o di sc ri m inate , de nie d he r the oppo rtunity

to view the tra ining tapes at the H elp Desk off ice during her work shi ft ; ( 6) the H ospi ta l di sparate ly de nie d E nw onwu th e oppo rt uni ty to tr an sf er to H ar ry D al e’ s daytim e w ee ke nd s hif t; (7 ) the H ospi ta l de nie d E nw onwu th e oppo rt uni ty to tr an sf er to the ne w ly

c re at ed f ull -t im e nig ht- shi ft

pos iti on; and (8) the H ospit al, with the intent to di scrim inate, wrongfullyterm inated Enwo nwu ’s em

pl oym en t o n Dec em

be r 6, 2 00 4. Init s S ch ed

uli ng O rd er , the dis tr ic t c ourt or de re d th at : Upon reviewof the inform ation contain ed in the Join t Prelim inary Re port and D isc ove ry

P lan f orm c om ple te d and f

ile d by the part ie s, the c ourt or de rs that the ti m e lim its f or a ddi ng p ar

tie s, a m en din g th e ple ad ing s, f

ili ng m oti ons, c om

ple tin g di sc ove ry , and d isc uss ing se ttl em en t are a s se t ou t i n th e Fe de ra l R ule s of Ci vil P ro cure and the Loc al Ru le s o f th is Co ur t. E nw onwu se rv ed

m or e than 25 int er

ro ga tor ie s onthe H ospi ta l, but the H ospi ta l r ef

use d to r es pond

to int er ro ga tor y num be rs 26 e t. se q. E nw onwu f ile d a4

m oti on t o c om

pe l di sc ove ry

and f or sanc tio ns, and the H ospi ta l f ile d am oti on f

or a p ro te ct iv e o rd er an d fo r de ni al of En won wu’s m ot io n. At the April 13, 2006, hearing on the m otion s, the district court sustained the Hospital’ s objection that Enw onwu’ s request exceeded the 25-interrogatory lim it se t by

L oc al Ru le s. T he H ospi ta l m ove d to r eo pe n th e dis co ve ry pe ri od, but the c ourt de nie d th e re que st. I n it s w ri tte n or de r, the c ourt or de re d th e H ospi ta l t o pr oduc e doc um en ts tha t E nw onwu ha d r eque ste d, inc lud ing the “punc h audi t” f or D al e, af orm er H el p D es k part -t im e em

plo y ee , w hic h th e H ospi ta l pr oduc ed on May 10, 2 00 6. O n M ay 23, 200 6, E nw onwu m ove d f or part ia l sum

m ar y j udgm en t. T he dis tr ic t c ourt di sm iss ed

the m oti on b ut d ir ec te d th e part ie s “ to c onf er and t o pr ep ar e an d f

ile apr opos ed

c onso lid at ed

pr etri al or de r no l at er

than th irty

( 30) da y s fr om th e en try of t hi s Ord er.” Bo th pa rti es fil edsep arat e p ret ria l o rd ers . Enw onwu later f

iled a m otion for leave to renewher m otion for sum m ary j udgm ent and a m otion for contem pt and for sanctions b ecause E nwonwu claim ed that counsel for the Hospital wilfully and deliberately

disob ey ed the court’ s order by r ef usi ng t o st ipu la te to E nw onwu’ s e xhi bit s and f ac ts c ont ai ne d inhe r m oti on fo r part ia l sum

m ar y j udgm en t. T he c ourt de nie d E nw onwu’ s m oti ons. In light of the Hospital’s e ntry of an additional attorney , the district court5

granted the Hospital’ s m otion to supp lem ent its pretrial order, and the Hospital fi le d asup ple m en ta l pr etri al or de r. E nw onwu a lso f ile d tw o m oti ons to supp lem ent her pretr ial order, which the court granted. T he m inute text no ted that D ef en dants sha ll pr ovi de P la int if f w ithpho tos of

the are a w ith in 1 4 day s. T he Co urt w ill bif

ur cate the tr ia l. P la int if

f sha ll am en d w itn es s list 10 day s prior to trial. The P laintiff m ay take photos of the are a af te r re vie wof

the D ef en dants ’ pho tos if

she w ish es . Me an w hil e, E nw onwu f

ile d am oti on f

or c ont em pt and f or sanc tio ns al le gin g th at

c ouns el f or the H ospi ta l f

ai le d to e nsur e that E nw onwu w as able to ta ke ph ot og rap hs of t he Hos pi ta l’s el ev en th flo or . In it s J un e 2 0, 2 00 7, p ret ria l o rd er, t he di st ric t co ur t fo un d t ha t En won wu ha d f ile d he r am en de d c om

pla int a ga ins t B ro w n, L ind se y , and G ar re tt in the ir of fi ci al c ap ac iti es . I n ase parate or de r, on June 25, 200 7, the c ourt ge ne ra lly ap pr ove d of

the part ie s’ pr opos ed

sup ple m en ta l pr etri al or de rs and s ta te d th at it w oul d a ddr es s E nw onwu’ s ou tst an din g m oti on f or c ont em pt and f or sanc tio ns re la tin g to the pho tog ra

phs at tr ia l. H ow ev er , the c ourt st ru ck para gr ap h f

our of Enwo nwu ’s pre tri al ord er. A t tri al , the dis tr ic t c ourt a ske d E nw onwu w he the r she w an te d th e j ur y to he ar he r ev ide nc e, and E nw onwu st at ed , “ I gue ss i f y ou’ re not r uli ng o n th e su m m ary jud gm en t, I d on ’t kn ow wh atels e y ou ha ve to rul e o n.” Enwo nwu6

finally replied, “ I don’ t thinkI w ill waive m y right to a jur

y trial. ” Af ter the j ury

wa s selected, Enw onwu asked the district court to adjourn unt il the f oll ow ing day

be ca use she “ didn’ t kn owabout the c onstru ct ionw ork, so [s he ] w as r

ushi ng t o f

ind apark ing spa ce . W ith[ he r] br eathi ng p ro ble m [ she w as ] diz zy w he n [ she ] br eathe s to o hard . ” T he c ourt de nie d th e re que st. A ft er both p ar t i es g av e o p en i n g s t at emen t s , t h e c o u rt ad m i t t eds ev er al o f E n wo n wu ’s doc um en ts i nto e vid en ce . T he c ourt de fe rr ed r uli ng o n th e adm iss ionof tw o of E nw onwu’ s e xhi bit s, and i t su sta ine d th e H ospi ta l’ s ob j ec tio ns t o th e adm iss ionof several of E nwonwu’ s other docum ents. E nwonwu testified at tria l. T he Hospital m ov edforJM OL, andth e co ur t g ran te d t he m ot io n. As an initial m atter, we decline to consid er E nwonwu’ s argum ents that are pr es en te d f

or the f ir st t im e in h er

a m en de d r ep ly

br ie f. S ee L ove tt v. Ray , 327 F. 3d 1 181, 118 3 ( 11th C ir . 200 3) ( de cl ini ng t o c onsi de r ar gum en t r ai se d f or the fir stti m e in a pr o s e ap pe ll an t’s re pl y bri ef). I. A . 25 I nte rr ogator

y L im it A cc or din g to E nw onwu, both part ie s st at ed in the ir pr el im inary

r ep orts and dis co ve ry sc he dul es that the c as e w as c om ple x be ca use it c ont ai ne d an unusua lly large num

ber of cla im s and/or defenses. E nwonwu contends that, in her7

pr el im inary

r ep ort and d isc ove ry

sc he dul e, she r eque ste d e nlarg em en t of the num ber of interr ogatories to 60 question s, but she claim s that the court

“ disregarded the obvio us.” W e rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s d is co ve ry de ci si on s fo r an ab us e o f di sc ret io n. U nit ed S ta te s v. R& F Pr ope rt ie s of L ak e Co unty , I nc . , 433 F . 3d 1 349, 135 5 ( 11th Ci r. 200 5) . P ro se ple ad ing s are e nti tle d to li be ra l c onstru ct ion . B ro w n v. Cr aw fo rd , 906 F . 2d 6 67, 670 ( 11th C ir . 1990 ). U nde r anabuse -o f- dis cr et ion standard , w e w ill not

dis tur b th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de ci sio n a s lo ng a s it is w ith in a r a n g e o f r e a s o n ab l e c h o i c e s an di s n o ti n f l u e n c e db y an y m i s t a k e o f l a w . B e t t y K Age nc ie s, Lt d. v . M/V M ONADA, 432 F.3d13 33 , 13 37 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Ru le 33 pro vi de s, “ [u ]nle ss ot he rwis e st ip ul at edor o rd eredby the co ur t, a party m ay se rv e on any

oth er party no m or e than 25 w ri tte n in te rr ogator ie s, inc lud ing a ll dis cr et e subp ar ts. L eave to se rv e ad dit ion al int er ro ga tor ie s m ay

be gr an te d to the e xte nt c onsi ste nt w ithRu le 26( b) (2 ). ” F ed . R. Ci v. P. 33( a) . R ule 26 state s, “ [b ] y

or de r, the c ourt m ay

a lte r the li m its in the se r ule s onthe num

be r of deposit ions andinterrogatories or on the length o f depositio ns und er R ule 30. By order or local r

ule, the court m ay

also lim it the num

ber of r equests un der Rule 36.” Fed .R.Ci v.P . 26 (b )(2 )(A). T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse it s di sc re tio n by

li m iti ng the num

be r of8

int er ro ga tor ie s to 25. T he c ourt e xpl ic itl y state d init s S ch ed

uli ng O rd er

that the

“ tim e lim its f

or a ddi ng p ar

tie s, a m en din g th e ple ad ing s, f ili ng m oti ons, c om

ple tin g dis co ve ry , and d isc uss ing se ttl em en t are a s se t ou t i n th e Fe de ra l R ule s of Ci vil Pr oc ed ur e an d th e L oc al Ru le s of thi s C ourt, e xc ep t a s he re in m odi fi ed . ” T he or de r did not spe ci fy any m odi fi catio ns, and the re is no s ubse que nt o rd er in the re co rd a lte ri ng the li m its se t by

Ru le 33( a) , nor

is the re anythi ng i n th e re co rd to in di cat e th ateit he r pa rty requ es te d l eav e to ser ve ad di ti on al in te rro ga to rie s. Significantly , E nwonwu never e xplained to the court why she needed the extra in te rro ga to rie s, o r ho w sh e wou ldbe pre jud ic edby the co ur t’s ru li ng . A cc or din gly , the c ourt’ s de ci sio n to li m it the part ie s to se rv ing no m or e than 25 w ri tte n in te rr ogator ie s w as w ith in a r an ge of r ea sona ble c hoi ce s and w as not in flu en cedby any

m is ta ke of l aw. B. E nw onwu’ s P re tr ia l M oti on t o C om pe l D isc ove ry

and M oti ons fo r Sanc tio ns Enw onwu argues that the district court abused its discretion by deny ing her m otion to com

pel discovery

and her m otion for sanctions because, am ong o ther thing s, the H ospit al w as required to supplem ent its By laws. E nwonwu claim s that the c ourt sh oul d have gr an te d th e m oti on f or c ont em pt and f or sanc tio ns b ec au se counsel for the Hospital “ deliberately ref used” to com

ply with the court’ s order,9

which directe d the parties to “ confer and to p repare a proposed conso lidated pr etri al or de r, ” whe n c ouns el inf orm ed E nw onwu th at

the H ospi ta l c oul d no t stipu late to the accura cy

and authenticityof E nwonwu’ s exhibit s and m aterial facts attac hed to the m otion for partial summ ary j udgm ent. E nwonwu claim s that the c ourt f

ai le d to r ule on h er

sub se que nt m oti on f

or c ont em pt a ft er it e xpl ic itl y state d th at

it w oul d r ule on the m oti on at tri al . W e re view a district court’ s denial of a m otion to com pel discovery

for an abuse of discretion. H ollom an v. Ma il-W ell Corp., 443 F.3d 832, 837 (11t h Cir. 2006 ). O ur

r ev ie wof

adis tr ic t c ourt’ s R

ule 37 d ec isi on r eg ar din g sanc tio ns i s

“ sharp ly li m ite d to ase ar chf

or an a buse of dis cr et ionand a

de te rm inatio n th at

the finding s of the trial court ar e fully suppo rted by

the rec ord.” Serr a Chevrolet, Inc. v. Gen eral Mo to rs Co rp ., 44 6 F .3d11 37 , 11 46 -4 7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) . Under F ederal R

ule of Civil Procedure 37, “ [i] f a par ty . . . fails to obey

an or de r to p ro vid e or

pe rm it dis co ve ry

. . . , the c ourt i n w hic h th e ac tio n is pe ndi ng m ay m ake such orders in regard to the fa ilure as ar e j ust.” Fe d.R. Civ.P. 37 (b )(2 )(A). In iti al ly , c ontrary

to E nw onwu’ s a sse rt ionthat sh e m ak es in he r br ie f, the district court did n ot vio late the dictates of Rule 16 by failing to enter an order af te r the pr etri al c onf

er en ce , be ca

use that r ule pr ovi de s on ly

that “ the c ourt sh oul dEnwonwu a ctually makes this arg

ument ag ain later in her brief. He r subseque nt argument 1 is without m erit for

the same r eason. 10 issue an order rec iting the action taken.” Fed. R.C iv.P. 16(d) (em phasis add ed). 1 T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse it s di sc re tio n by

r ef usi ng t o c om

pe l the H ospi ta l t o pr oduc e an“ ac curate c opy ” of it s B y law s. T he H ospi ta l ha d a lr ea dy pr oduc ed adoc um en t tha t i t purp orte d w as ac opy of it s B y law s. A lth oughthe court did no t specifically address Enw onwu’ s subs equent request to produce “ an accu rat e co py” of t he By la ws at th e Apr il 13 , 20 06 , hea rin g, i t d idaskEnwo nwu near the c onclusi on of the hearing if there w as “ anything else for today ?” E nw onwu r ep lie d, “ I can’ t thin k of anythi ng. ” S ign if

ic an tly , E nw onwu di d no t m en tio n th e By law s a t a ll dur ing the he ar ing . T hus, the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de ci sio n not to co m pe l the H ospi ta l t o pr oduc e a dif fe re nt c opy

of it s B y law s w as w ith in a ran ge of r eas on ab le ch oi ces an d was no t i nf lu en cedby any

m is ta ke of l aw. Th e d i s t ri ct co u rt d i dn o tab u s e i t s d i s cr et i o n b y fa i l i n g t o g ra n tEn wo n wu ’s m oti on f or sanc tio ns b ec au se c ouns el r ef use d to sti pul at e to the a cc ur ac y and authenticityof E nwonwu’ s exhibit s and m aterial f acts that we re attached to her m otion for partial summ ary j udgm ent. T he court directed the parties “ to confer an d to pr ep ar e an d f

ile apr opos ed

c onso lid at ed

pr etri al or de r no l at er

than th irty (3 0) day s f

ro m [ D ec em be r 19, 200 6] . ” T he c ourt di d no t or de r co unse l f or the11

Hospital to stip ulate to Enw onwu’ s docum ents and exhib its. T hus, sanctions were no t ap pr op ria te . See Fed .R.Ci v.P . 37 (b )(2 )(A). Fu rt h er , a l t h o u g h i ti n i t i al l y d ef erre du n t i l tri al i t s d ec i s i o n o n En wo n wu ’s out standi ng m oti on f

or c ont em pt tha t so ught

sanc tio ns i n c onne ct ionw ith E nw onwu’ s be ing de nie d a cc es s to the e le ve nthf loo r to t ak e phot ogr ap hs, the co urt r ule d onthe m oti on b y

the e ntr y of af ina l j udgm en t. S ee Ch al w es t (H oldin gs) Ltd. v. E llis, 924 F.2d 1011 , 1012 (11th Cir. 1991) (holdin g that ap pe llant’ s r eque st f

or an e vid en tiary

he ar ing w as de nie d su

b si le nti o by

the district court’ s order of dism issal). E nwonwu never r easserted her argum ent that she w as una

ble to take pho tog ra

phs of the e le ve nthf

loo r, and s he did

not a tte m pt to i ntr oduc e phot ogr ap hs o f the e le ve nthf loo r at tr ia l. T hus, the c ourt di d no t ab us e it s d is cret io n b y

de nyin g t he m ot io n fo r co nt em pt . C. Motion for P artial Sum m ary Judgm ent and Motion for L eave to File a Re ne w ed Mo tio n f or S um m ar y Jud gm en t E nw onwu arg ue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

by de ny ing he r m oti on f

or part ia l sum

m ar y j udgm en t and h er

m oti on f or le av e to f

ile ar en ew ed

m oti on f or sum m ar y j udgm en t. D istri ct c ourts “ en

j oy br oa d di sc re tio n inde ci din g ho wbe st t o m an ag e the ca se s be fo re the m , ” Chuda sam a v. Ma zd a Mot or Co rp . , 123 F . 3d 1 353, 136 612

(1 1thCi r. 199 7) , and tha t di sc re tio n e xte nds to whe the r to c onsi de r unt im el y m oti ons fo r sum

m ar y j udgm en t, se e Matia

v. Carp et T ranspo rt , I nc . , 888 F . 2d 11 8, 1 19 (11 th Cir . 19 89 ). Purs uant t o L oc al Ru le 56. 1( D ), “ [m ] oti ons fo r sum m ar y j udgm en t sh al l be filed as soon as pos sible, but, unless otherwise ordere d by the court, not later than tw en ty ( 20) day s a ft er

the c los e of

dis co ve ry , a s e sta

bli she d by

the e xpi ratio n of the original or extended d iscovery period or by

wr itten not ice of a ll counsel, filed with the court, indicating that discovery wa s com pleted earlier .” N .D . G a. L. R. 56.1(D) . Pursuant to Local Rule 37. 1(B), U nle ss o the rw ise or de re d by the c ourt, am oti on t o c om pe l a dis cl osur e or

dis co ve ry

m ust be f ile d w ith in the ti m e re m ai nin g pr ior to the close of discov ery

or, if longer, w ithin ten (10) day s after se rv ic e of the dis cl osur e or

dis co ve ry

r es pons e uponw hic h th e obj ec tio n is ba se d. T he c los e of dis co ve ry

is es ta bli she d by

the expiration of the origin al or extended discovery period or by

wr itten notice of all counsel, filed w ith the court, indicating th at discovery wa s com pleted earlier . N. D. Ga . L .R. 37.1(B). A s an in iti al m atte r, E nw onwu do es not dis put e that the dis co ve ry pe ri od ended in Septem

ber 2005. H er m ain contentio n is that the dis covery period was extended byLoca l Rule 37.1(B) “by necessary

im plication,” and for the lim ited13

pur pose of a cc om m odatin g th e H ospi ta l’ s c om pli an ce w iththe c ourt’ s or de r on the m oti on t o c om

pe l. E nw onwu arg ue s th at dis co ve ry

e nde d w he n th e H ospi ta l f ull y com plied with the court’ s order on May 8, 2006, by

providin g her w ith the pu nch audit for Harry

Da le. How ever, Enw onwu’ s argum ent lacks m erit because Local Ru le 37. 1 c le ar ly

state s th at

“ [t ] he c los e of

dis co ve ry

is es ta bli she d by

the expir at ionof

the or igi na l or

e xte nde d di sc ove ry

pe ri od o r by

w ri tte n no tic e of

a ll counsel, filed w ith the court, indicating th at discovery wa s com pleted earlier .” N. D. Ga . L .R. 37.1(B). T here is no wr itten not ice on rec ord that the discov ery period was extended. Ac cordingly , E nwonwu’ s May 23, 2006, m otion for partial sum m ar y j udgm en t w as unt im el y

be ca use it w as f ile d m or e than 20 day s a ft er the undi sputed clos e of discovery . In deny ing Enwonwu’ s m otion for partial summ ary j udgm en t, the c ourt a lso not ed that i t c oul d a ch ie ve gr eate r ef fi ci en cy by ad j udi catin g th e ca se . T he c ourt’ s de ci sio n to de ny E nw onwu’ s m oti ons, be ca use the m otion s wer e untim ely and because adj udication wa s m ore ef ficient, wa s w ith in a r an ge of r ea sona ble c hoi ce s and w as not

inf lue nc ed by any m ist ak e of la w. D . D istri ct

Co urt’ s E xc lus ionof

E xhi bit s and F ai lur e to A ddr es s th e Adm issib ility

of E nwonwu’ s Evidence P rior to Tr ial E nw onwu arg ue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt a

buse d it s di sc re tio n by

de fe rr ing14

un ti l t ria l a d eci si on on th e Hos pi ta l’s o bjec ti on s t o En won wu’s ev id en ce. E nw onwu a lso c ont en ds tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt a buse d it s di sc re tio n by

f ai lin g to rule on the adm issio n of som e of her exhibit s and by excluding som e other ex hi bi ts . W e re vie we vid en tiary

r uli ngs fo r an

abuse of dis cr et ion . A nde rs on v . W BMG -42, 253 F.3d 561, 563 (11th Cir. 2001). Purs uant t o R

ule 103 (a ), e vid en tiary

“ [e ] rr or [s ] m ay

not be pr ed ic at ed

upo n a ru lin g w hic h a dm its or

e xc lud es e vid en ce unl es s asub stanti al r igh t of the party is a ff ec te d. ” F ed . R. E vid . 103 (a ). S im ilarl y , F ed . R. Ci v. P. 61 s tate s: U nle ss j ust ic e re qui re s othe rw ise , no e rr or in adm itt ing or

e xc lud ing ev ide nc e- -o r an y

oth er e rr or by the c ourt or

aparty -- is g ro und fo r gr an tin g ane wtr ia l, f

or se tti ng a sid e a ve rd ic t, or f or va catin g, m odify ing, or otherwise distu rbing a judgm ent or order. At e very sta ge of the pr oc ee din g, the c ourt m ust dis re gard

a ll er ro rs and de fe ct s th at

do n ot a ff

ec t any party ’ s su

bst an tia l r igh ts.

“ T he party

a sse rt ing e rr or

ha s th e bur de n of

pr ovi ng tha t the e rr or

pr ej udi ce d a subs tanti al r igh t of

that party . ” U nit ed

S ta te s v. K ill ough , 848 F . 2d 1 523, 152 7 (11th Cir. 1988).

“ ‘ H ears ay ’ is a state m en t, oth er than on e m ad e by

the de cl ar an t whil e testify ing at the trial or hearing, offer ed in evidence to prove the truth o f the m atter as se rt ed . ” F ed . R. Ci v. P. 801 (c ). “ H ears ay is not a dm iss ibl e ex ce pt a s pr ovi de d by15

these rules or by

other rules prescr ibed by the Suprem e Court pursuant to statu tory au tho ri ty or by A ct of Co ngr es s. ” F ed . R. Ci v. P. 802 . T he re are se ve ra l e xc ep tio ns to the hearsay

rule. See Fed. R.C iv.P. 803(1)-(23). E nw onwu in te nde d to intro duc e se ve ra l do cum en ts r el at ing to the oth er j ob candi da te s’ pr ev iou s e m

plo y er s and e duc at ion , inf orm at ionr el at ing to se le ct ing inf orm at ionte ch nol ogy

( “ IT ”) e m

plo y ee s, and m or e than 25 0 e m ai ls f ro m em plo y ee s a t E nw onwu’ s othe r fu ll- tim e w orkpl ac e. H ow ev er , tho se doc um en ts w er e he ar say , and n one of the e xc ep tio ns a

ppl y . T hus, the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t ab use it s di sc re tio n by

e xc lud ing tho se doc um en ts. E ve n a ssum ing the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed by e xc lud ing or

f ai lin g to r ule on the adm iss ibi lity

of som e of E nw onwu’ s othe r ev ide nc e, any e rr or is harm le ss b ec au se E nw onwu f

ai ls t o a lle ge howthe de nia l of a dm iss ionof

any of tho se doc um en ts pr ejud ic eda su bs ta nt ia l ri gh t. E. Gr ant of Hospital’ s Le ave to Supplem ent its Pretrial O rder Enw onwu argues that the district court abused its discretion and vio lated her due process rights b y

granting the ho spital’s m otion to supp lem ent its pretrial order.

“ A district court has ‘ broad discretion’ to construe its own pretria l orders an d w e af fo rd sub stanti al de fe re nc e to a tr ia l c ourt’ s de ci sio n to a llo w( or16

dis al low ) am en dm en ts t o pr etri al or de rs . ” T ransam er ic a L ea sin g, I nc . v. I nst . of London Underwr iters, 430 F.3d 132 6, 1334 (11th Cir. 2005 ). Enw onwu’ s argum ent is without m erit. While it is true that the dist rict court granted the Hospital’ s m otion to supp lem ent, the court a lso su bsequent ly granted Enw onwu’ s two m otion s to sup plem ent. Mor eover, there is nothing on the record to i ndi cate that E nw onwu op pose d th e H ospi ta l’ s r eque st t o su ppl em en t. T hus, the co urt’ s de ci sio n to gr an t the part ie s’ m oti ons w as w ith in a r an ge of r ea sona ble ch oi ces an d was no t i nf

lu en cedby any

m is ta ke of l aw. F. E nw onwu’ s C la im s A ga ins t the O the r D ef en dants /S uppl em en tin g Co m pla int Enw onwu argues that the district court erre d in dis m issin g her personal ca pa ci ty c la im s a ga ins t B ro w n, L ind se y , and G ar re tt. E nw onwu a lso c la im s th at it wa s error for the court to strike paragra ph four of her pretr ial order. Adis tr ic t c ourt’ s de ci sio n to gr an t or de ny le av e to am en d aple ad ing is re vie w ed f or abuse of dis cr et ion . Je nni ngs v. BI C C or p. , 181 F . 3d 1 250, 125 4 (1 1thCi r. 199 9) . A s m en tio ne d a bove , “ [a ] dis tr ic t c ourt ha s ‘ br oa d di sc re tio n’ to co ns tru e it s o wn p ret ria l o rd ers .” Tran sa m eri ca Leas in g, In c., 43 0 F .3dat 1 33 4.

“ Aple ad ing that st at es ac la im f or r el ie f m ust c ont ai n . . . asho rt

and p la in state m en t of

the gr ound s f

or the c ourt’ s j ur isd ic tio n . . . , asho rt and p la in17

st at em en t o f th e cl ai m

sh owi ng th atth e p le ad er i s en ti tl edto rel ie f; a nd. . . a de m an d f or the r el ie f soug ht. ” F ed . R. Ci v. P. 8( a) . B ef or e tr ia l, aparty

m ay a m en d its pleading once as a m atter of c ourse. F ed.R. Civ.P. 15(a). “ In all other cases [b ef o re tri al ], a p ar t y m ay amen di t s p l ea d i n g o n l y wi t h th e o p p o s i n g p ar t y’ s wr itten consent o r the court’ s leave. T he court shoul d free ly give leave w hen j ustice so requires.” Fed. R.C iv.P. 15(a)(2).

“ A lth oughthe F ed er al Ru le s of Ci vil P ro ce dur e do n ot r equir e a cl ai m an t t o se t f orth an in tr ic at el y

de ta ile d de sc ri pti on o f the a sse rt ed ba sis f or r el ie f, the y

do re qu i re th at th e p l ea d i n g s ‘gi v e t h e d ef en d an tfa i r n o t i ce o f w h at th e p l ai n t i ff ’s cl ai m is an d th e gr ound s up on whic h it r es ts. ’ ” Co on v . G eo rg iaP ac . Co rp . , 829 F. 2d 1 563, 156 9 ( 11th C ir . 198 7) ( ci ta tio n om itt ed ). “ Pr oc ed ur al r equir em en ts es ta bli she d by

Co ngr es s f

or ga ini ng a cc es s to the f

ed er al c ourts are not

to be dis re gard ed

by c ourts o ut o f va gue sy

m pa thy f or part ic ular lit igants . ” I d. In iti al ly , E nw onwu r el ie s onour state m en t tha t “ iss ue s no t r ai se d inthe ple ad ing s m ay

be tr eate d a s if

the y w er e pr ope rl y

r ai se d w he n th ey

are ‘ tr ie d by express or im

plied consen t of the parties, ’ Feder al Rule of Civil Pr ocedure 15(b), or are inc lud ed

in a pr etri al or de r. ” S te ge r v. G en . E le c. Co . , 318 F . 3d 1 066, 107 7 (1 1thCi r. 200 3) ( em

pha sis a dde d) ( ci tin g D ri ll So uth , I nc . v. I nt’ l F ide lity I ns. Co., 234 F.3d 1232 , 1239 (11th Cir. 2000) (“ [W ] e do not believe that th e district18

co urt a buse d it s di sc re tio n init s de ci sio n to aw ar d D ri ll So uthf ee s de spi te it s ap pare nt f

ai lur e to p le ad

it s e nti tle m en t t o f

ee s init s c ro ss- cl ai m

a ga ins t In t ern at i o n al Fi d el i t y. Th e p re -t ri al o rd eri n th i s ac t i o n cl ea rl y s t at edDr i l l So u t h ’s intent to rec over attorney s’ fee s from International Fidelity .” )). In this case, however, the parties did not file a j oint p retrial or der, and, there fore, the Hospital did no t consent to th e am endm ent. S ee F ed.R. Civ.P. 15(a)(2). Th e d i s t ri ct co u rt d i dn o tab u s e i t s d i s cr et i o n b y fi n d i n g th at En wo n wu ’s cl ai m s ag ai ns t Br own , Lin ds ey , andGarret t, were in th ei r of fic ia l capa ci ti es . L ibe ra lly c onstru ing E nw onwu’ s pr o se c om pla int , E nw onwu e xpl ic itl y state s in he r co m pla int that “ [a ] t a ll tim es m at er ia l t o th is c om pla int [ Br ow n, L ind se y , and Ga rr et t ] ac t edi n th ei r o ff i ci al cap ac i t i es .” Th u s , b as edup o n En wo n wu ’s com plaint, the court’ s decision was within a range of reasonable choices and wa s no t i nf lu en cedby any

m is ta ke of l aw. Ina ddi tio n, the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse it s di sc re tio n instr iki ng para gr ap h f

our of E nw onwu’ s pr etri al or de r. T he c ourt stru ck the para gr ap h be ca use E nw onwu ha d, f

or the f ir st t im e in the pr etri al or de r, ple d ac la im of reckless endangerm ent, pursuant to 29 U.S .C. § 654(a)(1), Enw onwu had not p led violatio ns of Georgia L awin her am ended com plaint, and the parties had agreed th atjuri sd ic ti on was p ro pe r pu rs ua nt to th e co ur t’s fe de ral qu es ti on juri sd ic ti on .19

E nw onwu c oul d no t am en d he r ple ad ing a ga in b ef or e tr ia l w ith out

the opp osi ng party ’ s w ri tte n c onse nt o r the c ourt’ s le av e. T hus, the c ourt’ s de ci sio n w as w ith in a ran ge of r eas on ab le ch oi ces an d was no t i nf lu en cedby any

m is ta ke of l aw. G : D istri ct

Co urt’ s F ai lur e to R

ule on the I ssu e of

L ia bil ity E nw onwu arg ue s th at

the c ourt a

buse d it s di sc re tio n w he n it r ef use d to r ule on the que sti on o f lia

bil ity . S he c la im s th at

the “ sol e pur

pose of goi ng thr oughthe m otion s of em

paneling a jury

wa s to rej ect E nwonwu’ s vital exhib its that un equi vo cal ly m ad e o ut he r cas e ag ai ns t [t he Hos pi ta l].” T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse it s di sc re tio n by

pr oc ee din g to e m

pane l the j ur y be ca use , a lth oughE nw onwu in iti al ly r eque ste d th e co urt t o r es olv e the iss ue of li ab ili ty , she ult im at el y

de ci de d th at

she w an te d aj ur

y tr ia l and d id n ot w an t t o w ai ve he r ri ght

to a j ur y . T hus, thi s is sue is w ith out m er it. H. Tr ial Date/Request for Continuance E nw onwu arg ue s th at

the c ourt a

buse d it s di sc re tio n by

se tti ng a tr ia l date of June 25, 200 7, be ca

use “ the de ci sio n to pr oc ee d to tr ia l w as m ad e w iththe int en t to p la ce E nw onwu, apr o se li tig an t, a t a tot al dis advanta ge by

e nsur ing that sh e wa s denied necessary

tim e w ithin which to adequately prepare for tria l.” E nw onwu a lso arg ue s th at the dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d he r re que st f or c ont inu an ce “ in re ck le ss d isr eg ar d f

or he r he al th. ” E nw onwu ne ed ed the c ont inu an ce in or de r to20

“ en ab le he r to r ec ove r fr om the e ff ec t of the dus t pa

rt ic le s sh e ha d inha le d a s sh e navigated her way

through the rec onstructio n work then ongo ing at the U. S. District Courthouse.” W e re vie wadis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of am oti on f

or tr ia l c ont inu an ce f

or abuse of discretion. U nited States v. Baker, 432 F.3d 1189 , 1248 (11th Cir. 2005); se e al so C hr

y sle r In t’ l C or

p. v. Ch em al y , 280 F . 3d 1 358, 136 0 ( 11th C ir . 200 2) (s tr es sin g th e br oa d di sc re tio n di str ic t c ourts h av e in m an ag ing the ir c as es ). “ T he de nia l of ar eque st f

or ac ont inu an ce doe s no t c onst itu te an a buse of dis cr et ion unl es s it ‘ se ve re ly pr ej udi ce s’ the m ovi ng p ar ty . ” Ri nk v . Ch em ino va , I nc . , 400 F. 3d 12 86, 1296 (11t h Cir. 2005 ) (bra ckets om itted). W e consider the following four factors in re viewing a district court’ s denial of ar eque st f

or ac ont inu an ce : “ (1 ) the m ovi ng p ar ty ’ s di lig en ce in its e ff

orts t o ready its case prior to the date set f or hearing; (2) the likelihoodthat the need for a co nti nuanc e w oul d have be enr em ed ie d ha d th e co nti nuanc e be engr an te d; ( 3) the extent to which granting th e continuance would have inconv enienced the court an d th e oppo sin g party ; and ( 4) the e xte nt t o w hic h th e m ovi ng p ar ty m igh t have suf fe re d harm

a s ar es ult

of the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l. ” I d. Pursuant to Local Rule 16. 4(A) , “ [a] case shall be presum ed rea dy for tria l on the f ir st c al en dar af

te r the pr etri al or de r is f

ile d un le ss anothe r tim e is21

sp eci fic al ly set b y

th e co ur t.” N.D. Ga. L.R. 16 .4(A) . T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse it s di sc re tio n inse tti ng the tr ia l date . T he parties filed their initial pretrial order s in January 2007 . Enw onwu filed her supp lem ental pretrial order s on May 14, 2007. O n April 13, 2007, the court set t h e tr i a l d a t e t o J u n e 2 5 , 2 0 0 7 , mo r e th a n tw o mo n t h s l a t e r . S i g n i f i c a n t l y, Enw onwu never re quested an extensio n and there is no ind ication that she op posed th e tr ia l d at e se t b y

th e co ur t. Ina ddi tio n, the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse it s di sc re tio n inde ny ing Enw onwu’ s m otion for a continu ance. E nwonwu had been at the courthouse for at least two hours when she re quested a contin uance. The court specifically noted that it was concer

ned that “ this sam e thing will happen to m orrow. ” T hus, it was u n cl ea r w h et h era g ra n to f c o n t i n u an ce wo u l dh av e r emed i edEn wo n wu ’s conditi on. T he court also noted th at the “ j urors [had] com e here for j ury service. ” The refo re, t he gra nt in g o f th e co nt in ua nc e wou ldha ve in co nv en ie nc edth e co ur t. Finally , the c ourt noted th at the lunch break wa s near, and Enw onwu could get som e re st at that tim e. T hus, the extent to which Enw onwu m ight h ave suffer ed ha rm as a res ul t o f th e co ur t’s d en ia l was li m it ed . Fi na lly , E nw onwu ha s no t sh ow n th at e ith er the de nia l of

he r m oti on f

or co nt in ua nc e o r th e d is tri ctco ur t’s s et ti ng of a tri al da te sev erel y pre jud ic edhe r.22

T he re fo re , the c ourt’ s de ci sio ns w er e w ith in a r an ge of r ea sona ble c hoi ce s and were n ot in flu en cedby any m is ta ke of l aw.

II. E nw onwu arg ue s th at

she m et he r bur de n of

pr ovi ng a

pr im a fa ci e ca se on al l of he r cl ai m s. T hus, she c la im s th at the bur de n sh if

te d to the H ospi ta l t o ad duc e ev ide nc e of

the le ga lly

suf fi ci en t r ea sons f

or it s a ct ion s. W e re vie wadis tr ic t c ourt’ s r uli ng o n am oti on unde r Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 50 d e novo and apply

the sam e standard as the district court. Ne bula Glass Intern. , I nc. v . R ei ch h o l d , I n c. , 4 5 4 F. 3 d1 2 0 3 , 1 2 1 0 (1 1 t h Ci r. 2 0 0 6 ). Ho we v er , “ [i ]f j udgm en t a s am atte r of

laww as due to be gr an te d, it m atte rs not

w he the r the di st ric t co ur t g ot th e rea so ns fordo in g s o ri gh t.” Co ll ad o v . Uni te d P arce l Se rv ., 419 F. 3d 1 143, 115 1 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) . T he e vid en ce is vie w ed in the li ght

m ost fav or ab le to th e n on -m ov in g p art y an d a ll in fere nc es are d rawn in it s fa vo r. Ru ss el l v . N. Browar d Ho sp ., 34 6 F .3d13 35 , 13 43 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). Ru le 50 a llo w s ac ourt t o take ac as e aw ay f ro m the j ur y and e nte r j udgm en t as a m atter of law ( “ JMOL ”). Fed. R.C iv.P. 50(a). Specif ically , R ule 50(a) pr ovi de s: If aparty ha s be enf

ull y he ar d onan is sue dur ing aj ur y tr ia l and the co urt f ind s th at ar ea sona

ble j ur y w oul d no t have ale ga lly suf fi ci en t ev ide nti ar

y ba sis to fi nd f

or the party on tha t i ssu e, the c ourt m ay :23

(A ) re sol ve the iss ue a ga ins t the party ; and ( B) gr an t a m oti on f or j udgm en t a s am atte r of

lawa ga ins t the party

on a c la im or de fe nse that, und er

the c ontro lli ng l aw , c anbe m ai nta ine d or de fe at ed onl y with a f avorable finding on that issue. Fed .R.Ci v.P 50 (a)( 1) . T itl e V II m ak es it

an un law fu l e m

plo ym en t pr ac tic e fo r ane m plo y er “ to f ai l or r ef use to hir e or

to dis ch ar ge any

ind ivi dua l, or

oth er w ise dis cr im inate a ga ins t any ind ivi dua l w ithr es pe ct

to his c om

pe nsatio n, te rm s, c ondi tio ns, or pr ivi le ge s of em ploym ent, beca

use of such ind ividu al’ s race , c olor, re ligio n, sex, or national or igi n, ” or

“ to l im it, se gr eg at e, or

c la ssi fy his e m plo y ee s or

appl ic an ts f

or em ploym ent . . . because of such indivi dual’ s race , c olor, re ligio n, sex, or national o r i g i n . ” 4 2 U. S . C . § 2 0 0 0 e - 2 ( a ) ; B a s s v . B d . o f C o u n t y C o m’rs , Or a n g e C o u n t y, Fl a. , 256 F . 3d 1 095, 110 3 ( 11th C ir . 200 1) . P la int if fs be ar the bur de n of

pr ovi ng that the em

ploy er discrim inated against th em unlawfully . Hinson v. Clinch County , G a. Bd. of

Educ. , 231 F. 3d 82 1, 827 (11th Cir. 2000). Aplaintiff m ay es ta bli sh a T itl e V II vio la tio n th ro ugh the intro duc tio n of : ( I) dir ec t e vid en ce of dis cr im inatio n; o r (i i) c ir cum stanti al e vid en ce that c re at es an in fe re nc e of di sc riminat io n. Id . In review ing Title VI I claim s that are supported by circum stantial evidence, w e use the thr ee -s te p burd en -s hif tin g f ram ew ork e sta

bli she d inMc D onne ll-24

D ougl as Co rp . v. G re en , 411 U . S. 792 , 93 S . Ct . 181 7, 36 L . E d. 2d 6 68 ( 1973 ), and T ex as D ep ’ t of

Cm ty . A ff ai rs v. Burd ine , 450 U . S. 248 , 253 , 101 S . Ct . 108 9, 1093 , 67 L . E d. 2d 2 07 ( 1981 ). S ee E . E . O . C. v. Joe ’ s S ton e Cr ab s, I nc . , 296 F . 3d 1265 , 127 2 ( 11th C ir . 200 2) . I f a pla int if f suc ce ssf ull y e sta bli she s apr im a fa ci e ca se of dis cr im inatio n, the pla int if f es ta bli she s ar eb utt ab le pr es um pti on tha t the em plo y er ha s di sc ri m inate d a ga ins t hi m or he r. I d. T he bur de n th enshi ft s to the em plo y er , w hic h c anr eb ut the pr es um pti on o f dis cr im inatio n by pr of fe ri ng a le git im at e, non dis cr im inator y r ea son fo r its e m

plo ym en t de ci sio n a ga ins t the plaintiff. I d. I f the em

ploy er succe ssfully

m eets this burden o f production, then the bur de n sh if

ts b ac k to the pla int if

f to s howthat the e m

plo y er ’ s pr of

fe re d r ea son wa s a pretext for discrim ination . Id. at 1273 . The ultim ate burden of proving th at the e m plo y er int en tio na lly

dis cr im inate d a ga ins t the pla int if f on an un law fu l ba sis rem ai ns at a ll ti m es wit h t he pl ai nt iff . Id. D isc ri m inatio n c la im s br ough t purs uant t o th e equa l pr ote ct ionc lause , T itl e V I I , § 1 9 8 1 , an dth e A D A , h a v e th e s a me r e qu i r e me n t s o f p r o o f an du s e th e s a me an al ytic al f

ram ew ork. S ee S tandard v. A . B. E . L . S er

vs. , 161 F . 3d 1 318, 133 0 ( 11th Ci r. 199 8) ( T itl e V II and § 198 1) ; C ro ss v . S ta te of A la ba m a, 49 F . 3d 1 490, 150 7- 08 ( 11th C ir . 199 5) ( not ing , f or an e qua l pr ote ct ionc la im , that “ [w ] he n se ct ion 1983 is use d a s apara lle l r em edy f or vio la tio n of

se ct ionof

T itl e V II . . . , the25

el em en ts of t he two cau se s o f act io n a re t he same.”) (cit at io ns om it te d) . As an initial m atter, Enw onwu claim ed in her E EO C charge that she had be en di sc riminat edag ai ns t b y th e Hos pi ta l o nl y

on acco un t o f he r di sabi li ty. E nw onwu arg ue s inhe r am en de d r ep ly br ie f that the H ospi ta l c onc ed ed that sh e is bl ackan d o f Nig eri an ori gi n, t he refo re, “ th atren de redm ut e th e fac t t ha t t he EEOC com plaint di d not sp ecify

this un dispu ted fact. ” H owever , E nwonwu’ s Title V II ch ar ge s ba se d onr ac e an d natio na l or igi n w er e ap pr opr ia te ly barr ed be ca use tho se ch ar ge s c oul d no t “ re as ona bly be e xpe ct ed

to gr owout

of the E E O C d isa

bil ity ch ar ge . S ee Mu lha ll v. A dvanc e Se c. , I nc . , 19 F . 3d 5 86, 589 n. 8 ( 11th C ir . 1994 ) (th e p la in ti ff's jud ic ia l co m pl ai nt is li m it edto “ th e sc op e o f th e EEOC inv es tig at ionw hic h c anr ea sona bly be e xpe ct ed

to gr owout

of the c harg e of discrim ination ”). A . E n w o n wu ’s D i s p a r a t e T r e a t me n tC l a i ms T o e sta bli sh a pr im a fa ci e ca se of

dis parate tr eatm en t, apla int if f m ust sho w that ( 1) she is a m em

be r of agr oup pr ote ct ed

by T itl e V II , ( 2) she w as qua lif ie d f or the posit ion or benefit sou ght, (3) she suffe red an adverse effe ct on her em plo ym en t, and ( 4) she suf fe re d f ro m adif fe re nti al appl ic at ionof

w ork or discipli nary

rules. Spivey

v. Be verly

Enter s., Inc. , 196 F. 3d 13 09, 1312 (11t h Cir. 1999 ). A n a dve rs e em

plo ym en t a ct ionm

ust e ff ec t “ a se ri ous an d m at er ia l c hange26

in the te rm s, c ondi tio ns, or pr ivi le ge s of

e m plo ym en t. ” D av is v . T ow n of L ak e Park , F lor ida , 245 F . 3d 1 232, 123 9 ( 11th C ir . 200 1) . F urthe r, r eg ar dle ss o f the em ploy ee’ s subjective view , “ the em ploym ent action m

ust be m aterially

adverse as viewed by

a re asonable person in the circum stances.” Id. Notably , a transfer can co nst itu te an a dve rs e em

plo ym en t a ct ionf

or T itl e V II pur

pose s, but

onl y if it invo lves a reduction in pay , pre stige or responsi bility . See Hinson, 231 F.3d at 829. T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr by gr an tin g th e H ospi ta l’ s m oti on f or JM O L on E nw onwu’ s di sparate tr eatm en t c la im s. B y he r ow n a dm iss ion s, a ll H el p D es k em plo y ee s w er e re qui re d to w ork inthe D at a Ce nte r; thu s, E nw onwu ha s no t shown that she suffered fr om a diffe rential application of work or disciplinary ru le s. T o th e ex te nt tha t E nw onwu c la im s th at the pol ic y

to w ork inthe D at a Ce nte r w as , non ethe le ss, appl ie d di sparate ly , she ha s f ai le d to sho wthat sh e suffere d any

adverse em

ploym ent because E nwonwu has not establish ed that (1 ) the pol ic y

is “ a se ri ous an d m at er ia l c hange in the te rm s, c ondi tio ns, or privileges of em

ploym ent”; and (2) that the “ transfer” to the Data Center involved a re duc tio n inpay , pr es tig e or r es pons ibi lity . F urthe r, E nw onwu a dm itt ed that the H ospi ta l’ s si ck

le av e pol ic y

appl ie d to a ll em

plo y ee s, and, the re fo re , she c an not show that she suffered f

rom a diffe rential application of work or disciplinary rules27

w ithr es pe ct

to that c la im . E nw onwu a lso ha s f ai le d to sho w , nor

is the re any ev ide nc e in the r ec or d, that the H ospi ta l tre at ed he r dif fe re ntl y than othe r nig ht sh ift em pl oyees wi th res pe ctto it s re qu ire m en ts fortra in in g. B. E nw onwu’ s R ef

usa l t o H ir e an d D isc harg e Cl ai m Inhe r re ply

br ie f, E nw onwu arg ue s th at she e sta bli she d th at

she be lon ge d to a pr ote ct ed

c la ss b as ed

upo n he r ra ce and n at ion al or igi n, and the H ospi ta l di d no t p r o v e th a tth e o t h e r

e mp l o ye e s w h o w e r e g i v e n D a l e ’s h o ur s f o r th e d a yt i me we ekend shift belon ged to her protected class. Ac cording to Enwonwu, her request to be transferr ed to the daytim e shift m et the requirem ent of apply ing for a va cant p osi tio n, e ve n th oughthe H ospi ta l ne ve r post ed aj ob v ac an cy , and b ec au se the H ospi ta l di str ibu te d D al e’ s ho ur s to e xis tin g f ull ti m e em

plo y ee s, the pos iti on rem ai ne d v acan t. Inge ne ra l, to es ta

bli sh a pr im a fa ci e ca se of

r ef usa l t o hi re , apla int if

f m ust showthat: (1 ) [s ] he is a m em be r of apr ote ct ed

c la ss; ( 2) [ s] he w as qua lif ie d f or and applied for a j ob for which the em ploy er w as seeking applicants ; (3) [s] he wa s re j ec te d inspi te of

he r qua lif

ic at ion s; and ( 4) a ft er

he r re j ec tio n, the pos iti on rem ained open or was filled by a person outsid e E nwonwu’ s protected class. See Joe’ s Stone Crabs, 296 F.3d at 1273. Where the plaintiff alleges discrim inatory discharge, she can establish a prim a fa cie ca se of discrim ination by showing that28

she : ( 1) w as am em

be r of apr ote ct ed

c la ss, ( 2) w as qua lif

ie d f or the j ob, ( 3) suf fe re d an a dve rs e em

plo ym en t a ct ion , and ( 4) w as r ep la ce d by som eo ne out sid e the pr ote ct ed

c la ss. C udde ba ck

v. F lor ida

Bd . of E duc . , 381 F . 3d 1 230, 123 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 4) . E nw onwu f

ai le d to e sta

bli sh a pr im a fa ci e ca se dis cr im inatio n ba se d up on he r ra ce or

na tio na l or igi n w ithr es pe ct to he r cl ai m

that the H ospi ta l i nte nti ona lly de pr ive d he r of

D al e’ s daytim e H el p D es k po sit ion . B y he r ow n a dm iss ion s, the H ospi ta l di str ibu te d th e hour s th at D al e ha d w orke d to oth er e m plo y ee s, and, therefore , E nwonwu fa iled to sho w that “ [s] he wa s qualified for and applied for a j ob f or w hic h th e em

plo y er w as se ek ing appl ic an ts. ” S ee Joe ’ s S ton e Cr ab s, 296 F . 3 da t1 2 7 3 . E n w o n wu ’s c l a i m th a th e r r e qu e s tt o b e tr a n s f

e rr e dt o th e d a yt i me shi ft m et the r equir em en t of

appl y ing f

or ava cant p osi tio n, e ve n th oughthe H ospi ta l ne ve r post ed

aj ob v ac an cy , is w ith out m er it. E nw onwu f

ai le d to e sta

bli sh a pr im a fa ci e ca se of

r ef usa l t o hi re ba se d up on he r ra ce , na tio na l or igi n, or dis ab ili ty

w ithr es pe ct

to the ne w ly -c re at ed

40- hour nig ht s hif t H el p D es k po sit ion . E nw onwu a ppl ie d f or and w as int er

vie w ed f or the posit ion. H owever , a ccording to th e trial e vidence, E nwonwu scored lowe r than tw o othe r j ob c an did at es on h er appl ic an t e va luatio n f

orm . Mo re ove r, a cc or din g to h er r es um e, H el enWhit e, abla ck f em al e w hom

the H ospi ta l se le ct ed

f or the29

posi tio n, ha d 17 y ears ’ e xpe ri en ce in the he al thc ar e ind ustry and 1 2 y ears ’ of inf orm at ionsy ste m s e xpe ri en ce . N ota bly , 9 of Whit e’ s 12 y ears ’ of

inf orm at ion sy ste m s e xpe ri en ce w as a s th e H ospi ta l’ s H el p D es k C oor din at or . T hus, the district court did n ot err by finding th at E nwonwu fa iled to sho w that the H ospit al rej ected her for the position in spite of her qualifications and th at the H ospit al had le gi ti m at e, no nd is cri m in at ory reas on s fo r it s emplo ym en t d eci si on . E nw onwu a lso f

ai le d to e sta

bli sh a pr im a fa ci e ca se of

dis ch ar ge ba se d up on he r ra ce , na tio na l or igi n, and d isa bil ity . A cc or din g to the tr ia l e vid en ce , the H ospi ta l e lim inate d E nw onwu’ s part -t im e w ee ke nd- nig ht p osi tio n, but tol d Enw onwu that she was eligible to apply for any positi on at the Hospital for w hich she was intere sted. T hus, because the positio n was e lim inated altogether, Enw onwu failed to show that she wa s replaced by som eone outsid e the protected cl as s. C. E nw onwu’ s H ost ile W ork E nvi ro nm en t C la im Ahos til e w ork e nvi ro nm en t c la im und er T itl e V II is es ta

bli she d up on p ro of that “ the w orkpl ac e is p er m eate d w ithdis cr im inator y int im idatio n, r idi cu le , and i n s u l t , t h at i s s u ff

i ci en t l y s ev er e o r p er v as i v e t o al t erth e c o n d i t i o n s o f t h e v i ct i m ’s em pl oym en t an d c reat e an ab us iv e wor ki ng en vi ro nm en t.” Harris v. Fo rk li ft S y s., In c., 51 0 U.S. 1 7, 2 1, 1 14 S.Ct . 36 7, 3 70 , 12 6 L.Ed .2d29 5 (1 99 3) .30

W e ha ve “ re pe at ed ly

ins tr uc te d th at a pla int if f w ish ing to es ta

bli sh a hos til e w ork e nvi ro nm en t c la im

sho w : ( 1) that he be lon gs t o apr ote ct ed gr oup; ( 2) that he ha s be ensub

j ec t t o un w el co m e hara ssm en t; (3 ) that the hara ssm ent m ust have be enba se d onapr ote ct ed c hara ct er ist ic of

the e m plo y ee , suc h a s natio na l or igi n; (4 ) that the hara ssm en t w as suf fi ci en tly se ve re or pe rv as ive to al te r the te rm s and co ndi tio ns o f em

plo y m en t and c re at e a dis cr im inator ily abusi ve w orkin g environm ent; and (5) that the em ploy er is re spon sible for such environm ent under ei the r a the or

y of vic ar iou s or

of dir ec t l ia bil ity . ” Mi lle r v. K en w orth o f D oth an , In c., 27 7 F .3d12 69 , 12 75 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). Ine va luatin g th e obj ec tiv e se ve ri ty of the hara ssm en t, w e loo k a t the tot al ity of the c ir cum stanc es and c onsi de r, int er a lia , ( 1) the f

re que nc y of the c ondu ct , (2 ) the se ve ri ty

of the c ondu ct , ( 3) w he the r the c ondu ct is phy sic al ly

thr eate nin g or hum iliating , or a m ere offensive utterance, and (4) w hether the conduct unr ea sona

bly int er fe re s w iththe e m

plo y ee ’ s j ob p er fo rm an ce . I d. a t 12 76. I t i s re p ea t edi n ci d en t s o f v erb al h ar as s m en tth at co n t i nu e d es p i t e t h e e m p l o yee’s o b j e c t i o n s th a tar e i n d i c a t i v e o f ah o s t i l e w o rke n v i r o n me n t , an dn o ts i mp l y s o me

“ m ag ic num

be r” of r ac ia l or e thn ic ins ult s. I d. N ev er the le ss, hara ssm en t ne ed

not be sho w n to be so e xtr em e that i t pr oduc es tangi ble e ff ec ts o n j ob p er fo rm an ce in or de r to b e ac tio nable . H ar ri s, 510 U . S. a t 22 , 114 S . Ct . a t 37 1.31

E nw onwu f

ai le d to e sta

bli sh a pr im a fa ci e ca se of

hos til e w ork e nvi ro nm en t ba se d up on h er

r ac e an d natio na l or igi n. E nw onwu a dm itt ed that L ind se y

did not m ak e an y co m m en ts ab ou t h er ra ce o r na ti on al ori gi n. Th us , sh e h as no t s ho wn th atth e al le ge d h aras sm en t b y Lin ds ey was b as edon a pr ot ect edch arac te ris ti c. E nw onwu c la im ed

that G ar re tt m ad e a state m en t a

bout he r ra ce and n at ion al or igi n w he n G ar re tt tol d E nw onwu th at

“pe opl e not

li ke [ E nw onwu] , have tr ie d [ to com plain] but th at the point is y ou have to do what T om Lindsey say s.” How ever, even if G arre tt’ s sing le, isolated statem ent was based upon a protected charac teristic, Enw onwu has not sh own that the statem ent was “ sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the ter m s and condi tions of em

ploym ent and create a di sc riminat or il y

ab us iv e wor ki ng en vi ro nm en t.” Se e Mi ll er, 2 77 F.3dat 1 27 5- 76 . D . E nw onwu’ s A D ACl ai m T o pr ove a

pr im a fa ci e em

plo ym en t- dis cr im inatio n c as e unde r the A D A , the em ploy ee m ust sh ow that (1) she has a disabilit y ; (2) she is a qualified individ ual for the position in questio n, and (3) the e m ploy er discrim inated against her because of his disabilit y . See 42 U. S. C. § 121 12; W addell v. V alley Forge D ental Ass oc s. In c., 27 6 F .3d12 75 , 12 79 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). T he A D Aand the r eg ulatio ns i nte rp re tin g th e Re habil itatio n A ct both de fi ne

“ dis ab ili ty ” as ( 1) aphy sic al or m en ta l i m

pa irm en t tha t su

bst an tia lly

li m its one or32

m ore of the m aj or life ac tivities o f the individ ual; (2) a r ecord of such an im pa irm en t; or

( 3) be ing r eg ar de d a s havin g an im pa irm en t. 42 U . S. C. § 12 102( 2) ; 34 C. F. R. § 10 4. 3( j )( 1) ; C as h v. S m ith , 231 F . 3d 1 301, 1305 ( 11th C ir . 200 0) ( hol din g th at an e m plo y ee f ai le d to sho wthat he r se iz ur es , dia be te s, m igr ai ne s, and d ep re ssi on c onst itu te d a“ dis ab ili ty ”) . T he de te rm inatio n whether an indiv idual is di sabled for A DApurposes is to be m ade w ith refer ence to m easures that m itigate im pairm ent. S utton v. United Air L ines, Inc. , 527 U. S. 471, 475, 119 S.Ct. 2139 , 2143, 144 L. Ed. 2d 45 0 (1999). A“phy sic al or

m en ta l i m

pa irm en t” is an y

phy sio log ic al dis or de r or conditi on affec ting o ne or m ore body sy stem s, or any

m ental or psy cholog ical dis or de r. 29 C. F. R. § 16 30. 2( h) (1 ), (2 ). A“ m aj or li fe a ct ivi ty ” m ay

inc lud e w orkin g. S ee 29 C . F. R. § 16 30. 2( I) . F or ac ondi tio n to li m it a pe rs on’ s a bil ity to work substantially , it m

ust sig nificantly

restrict a person’ s ability

to perform

either a cl as s of j obs or abr oa d r an ge of

j obs in v ar iou s c la sse s a s c om pare d w iththe average per son havi ng com parable tra ining , skills, and abilities. 29 C. F. R. § 16 30. 2( j )( 3) (I ). T he ina

bil ity to pe rf or m asin gle , part ic ular j ob d oe s no t constitu te a substantial lim itation in the m aj or life ac tivityof w orking. 29 C.F. R. § 16 30. 2( j )( 3) (I ); H ill bur

n v. MurataE le cs . N . A m . , I nc . , 181 F . 3d 1 220, 122 7 (1 1thCi r. 199 9) . I t i s in suf fi ci en t f or ind ivi dua ls atte m

pti ng t o pr ove dis ab ili ty33

status un der this test to m erely subm it evidence of a m edical diagnosi s of an im pa irm en t; rathe r, the A D Ar equir es pla int if fs to of fe r ev ide nc e that the e xte nt o f the li m itatio n c au se d by

the ir im pa irm en t i n te rm s of

the ir ow n e xpe ri en ce is subs tanti al . T oy ota

Mo tor Mf g. , K en tuc ky , I nc . v. W ill iam s, 534 U . S. 184 , 198 , 122 S. Ct . 681 , 691 -9 2, 151 L . E d. 2d 6 15 ( 2002 ). T he e xis te nc e of adis ab ili ty

is to be de te rm in edon a cas e-b y -cas e b as is . Id. T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr by gr an tin g th e H ospi ta l’ s m oti on f or JM O L on E nw onwu’ s A D Ac la im . E nw onwu st at ed that sh e suf

fe rs f ro m sarc oid osi s and that he r sarc oid osi s “ fl ar ed up” w he n sh e w orke d inthe c old e nvi ro nm en t i n th e D at a Ce nte r. A s ar es ult , E nw onwu su ff er ed art hr iti s- lik e sym

pto m s, inc lud ing swelling of her j oints , and difficulty breathing. H owever , E nwonwu testified at tr ia l tha t sh e w as able to care f or he rs el f, to w al k, to re ad , to spe ak , and t o unde rs tand. S ign if

ic an tly , E nw onwu w as a

ble to m ai nta in anothe r, f ull -t im e j ob during th e w eek, and she also adm itted that she was able to perf orm her duties at the Help D esk. I n ligh t of the unrestricted abilities she testified to concerning her ability to perform

her w ork duties, Enw onwu failed to dem onstrate that her sa rco id os is co nd it io n s ub st an ti al ly lim it edhe r ab il it y to work . Thu s, En won wu fai le d t o d em on st rat e th atsh e h as a di sabi li ty w it hi n t he m ean in g o f th e ADA. Inli ght of the f or eg oin g, w e fi nd n o e rr or in the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of the34

H ospi ta l’ s m oti on f

or JM O L , and w e fi nd tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse it s dis cr et ionin de ny ing E nw onwu’ s pr etri al m oti ons. A cc or din gly , the de ci sio n of the dis tr ic t c ourt i s AFFIRMED.