FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT M ar c h 6, 2008 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 13021 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 06 -006 06 -C V -C -S R O B E R T H . H U D S O N , P la in tif f
- A p p e lla n t, v ersu s S H A W E N V I R O N M E N T A L & I N F R A S T R U C T U R E , I N C ., a co rp o rat i o n o r b u si n ess en t i ty d o i n g b u si n ess in th e s ta te o f

A lab a m a , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e M i d d l e D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( M ar c h 6, 2008) B efo re B L A C K , C A RN E S an d B A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:Huds on fu rt her a rgue s th edis tric t c ourt

erre d in dis mis singhisbre a c h o f c ontra c t c laim 1 un der s tatelaw. Huds on

faile d tooppo seSha

w’ s mo tio n todis mis s his b re a c h o f c ontra c t c laim in the district court. B eca use Hudson aba

ndoned this claim in the district court, wewill not addre ss this i ssue. See Krys v. Lufthans a German Airlines , 119 F.3d 1515, 1518 n.8 ( 11th Cir. 1997) (de clining to c onsider an a rgument beca

use it was cle ar theparty

abandone d it in the district court). In the district court, Hudson also brought claims under the Alabama Ag e Discrimination in Employ

ment Act (AADEA) , Alabama Code, § 25-1-20 et seq. , a s w e ll a s c laimsre late d tohis wo rk shif t a ssi gnment a

nd ov ertimepa

y . Hud so n h a s a

ba ndon e d th e seissue s o n a

pp e al, however, by

not presentingany

argument in support of these c laims in his appellate brief . See Rowe v. Schrieber , 139 F.3d 1381, 1382 n.1 ( 11th Cir. 1998) (statingissues not argued on appe al aredeeme d “aba

ndoned and will not be considered” ). 2 R o b e r t H . H u d s o n , af

o rm e re m p lo y e e o f

S h a w E n v ir o n m e n ta l & I nf r a s truc tur e , I nc . ( S ha w ) , appe a l s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s gr a ntof s um m a ry j udgm e nt f orS ha w i n hi s a ge di s c r i m i na t i on a c t i on, br oughtpur s ua ntt o the A ge D i s c r i m i na t i on i n E m pl oy m e ntA c t( A D E A ) , 29 U . S . C . § 621 e t s e q. H uds on 1
as se rt s he e st abl i shed a p r im a fa c ie ca se of age di sc ri m i nat i on because: (1) he w as 69 y e a r s ol d a tthe t i m e of hi s t e rm i na t i on; ( 2) he w a s qua l i f i e d f orhi s pos i t i on b ecau se, w i th th e ex cep t i o n o f o n e o ccasi o n , h e co m p l et ed al l t ask s sat i sfact o ri l y; a nd ( 3) the c om m e nt s m a de by hi s c ow orke r , T r a vi s L e e , s pe c i f i c a l l y , tha tH uds on w as “ ol d and w orn o ut , ” w ou l d l ea d a re as on abl e f ac t fi nd ert o con cl ud e thatS haw in te n d e d to d is c r im in a te a g a in s t h im o n th e b a s is o f a g e in te rm in a tin g h is e m p lo y m e n t. W e r e v ie w ad is tr ic t c o u r t o r d e rg r a n tin g s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t de no vo , vi e w i ng a l l the f

a c t s i n the r e c or d i n the l i ghtm os tf a vor abl e t o the non- m ovi ng3

p a r ty a n d d r a w in g a ll in f e r e n c e s in h is f

a v o r . Fr e de r ic k

v . S p r in t/U n ite d M g m t. C o. , 2 4 6 F .3 d 1 3 0 5 , 1 3 1 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . T he A D E A m a ke s i tunl a w f ul “ f oran e m pl oy e rt o . . . di s c ha r ge a ny in d iv id u a l o ro th e rw is e d is c r im in a te a g a in s t a n y in d iv id u a l w ith r e s p e c t to h is com pensat i on , t erm s, cond i t i on s, or pri vi l eges of em pl oym ent , because of s uch i n d i v i d u a l ’ s a g e . ” 2 9 U . S. C. § 6 2 3 ( a ) ( 1 ) . “ I n p r o v i n g a n a g e d i s c r i mi n a t i o n c l a i m, a pl ai nt i ff

ca n est abl i sh a p r im a fa c ie ca se of di sc ri m i nat i on throu gh ei ther di re ct evi dence of di sc ri m i nat i on or . . . ci rc um st ant i al evi dence. ” D am on v . Fle m i ng Su perm arke t

s of Fla. , Inc. , 19 6 F . 3d 13 54 , 13 58 (11th C i r. 19 99 ). W here , as here , a p l ai n t i ff o ffers circum st an t i al ev i d en ce t o p ro v e a cl ai m o f d i scri m i n at i o n , w e u se the a na l y t i c a l f

r a m e w ork e s t abl i s he d by the S upr e m e C our ti n McD onne l l D ouglas C orp. v. G re en , 9 3 S . C t. 1 8 1 7 ( 1 9 7 3 ) . See C of i eld v. G oldkist

, Inc. , 267 F . 3d 12 64 , 12 68 n. 6 (11 th C i r. 20 01 ) ( no t i ng “ [a ] tho ug h the McD onne l l D ouglas f r a m e w ork or i gi na l l y appl i e d t o T i t l e V I I c a s e s , i ti s now w i de l y a c c e pt e d tha tthe f r a m e w o rkap p lie s to c la im s o f d is c r im in a tio n u n d e rth e A D E A a s w e ll” ) .

“ U nd erthe [ McD onne l l D ouglas ] fram ew o rk , th e p l ai n t i ff m u stfi rst es t abl i sh a p r im a fa c ie ca se of di sc ri m i nat i on . ” Ch a p m a n v. A I T

ra n sp o rt , 229 F .3 d 1 0 1 2 , 1 0 2 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . H u d s o n r e lie s o n r e d u c tio n - in
- f o r c e c a s e s to show he has e st abl i shed a p r im a fa c ie case o f d i scri m i n at i o n . H o w ev er, th i s case4

s houl d be a na l y z e d a s adi s c r i m i na t ory t e rm i na t i on c a s e be c aus e the r e i s no e v id e n c e th a t H u d s o n 's te rm in a tio n w a s th e r e s u lt o f ar e d u c tio n in S h a w 's
w orkforce. R ather, S haw pres ent ed evi dence thatH ud son w as t erm i nat ed af t er d is c ip lin a ry a c tio n h a d b e e n ta k e n a g a in s t h im , a n d H u d s o n h a s n o t r e f u te d th is e v id e n c e . “I n a n A D E A c a s e in v o lv in g d is c h a r g e , d e m o tio n , o rf a ilu r e to h ir e , a pl ai nt i ff m ayes t abl i sh a p r im a fa c ie c a s e by s how i ng: ( 1) tha the w a s am e m be rof the pr ot e c t e d gr oup of

pe r s ons be tw e e n the a ge s of f or ty a nd s e ve nty ; ( 2) tha the
w a s s ubj e c tt o a dve r s e e m pl oy m e nta c t i on; ( 3) tha tas ubs t a nt i a l l y y ounge rpe r s on f i l l e d the pos i t i on tha the s oughtorf r om w hi c h he w a s di s c ha r ge d; a nd ( 4) tha the
w as qu al i fi ed t o d o the j ob for w hi ch he w as re j ec t ed. ” T

ur l i ngton v . A t lanta G as L i ght C o. , 13 5 F . 3d 14 28 , 14 32 (11th C i r. 19 98 ). H ud son fai l ed t o est abl i sh a p r im a fa c ie c a s e o f a g e d is c r im in a tio n w ith re spec tt o h i s t erm i nat i on because he f ai l ed t o ref

ut e S haw ’ s e vi dence s ho w i ng that hi s pos i t i on ha d notbe e n r e pl a c e d. A c c or di ngl y , H uds on f a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h a p r im a fa c ie case fo r d i scri m i n at o ry t erm i n at i o n b ecau se h e w as n o trep l aced b y a p e r s o n o u ts id e th e p r o te c te d c la s s . Se e i d. T h u s , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t e rrin grant i ng sum m ary j ud gm enti n S haw ' s f avor. A F F I R M E D .