FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT DECEMBER 13, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ 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. 06- 13345 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 04 -000 78 -C V -H L -7 L E S T E R W A L L A C E , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s G E O R G I A D E P A R T M E N T O F T R A N S P O R T A T I O N , 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 id d le D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( D e c e m b e r 13, 2006) B efo re T JO F L A T , B A R K E T T an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: L es ter W allace , a b lack m ale p ro ce ed in g p ro se , ap p ea ls th e d istrict co u rt’sWallace also raised be low a hostile work environment claim and a disparateimpact 1 claim under

Title VIIas we ll as claims under theAmeric ans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) . However, Wallacehas failed to raise a ny argument as to these c laims in his appellate brief and, there fore , we de em these c laims to have been abandone d. See Ac cess Now , Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1330 (11th Cir. 2004). 2 gr a ntof s um m a ry j udgm e nti n f a vorof the G e or gi aD e pa rtm e ntof T r a ns port a t i on (“ G D O T ”) w i th regard t o h i s c l ai m s of r et al i at i on and o f di spar at e tre atm entbase d on r a c e i n a n e m pl oy m e ntdi s c r i m i na t i on a c t i on br oughtpur s ua ntt o T i t l e V I I , 42 U .S .C . § § 2 0 0 0 e - 2 a n d 2 0 0 0 e - 3 . I n h is c o m p la in t, W a lla c e a lle g e d th a t, in 1 re ce i vi ng a w ri tt en re pri m and as are sul tof a G D O T i nv es t i gat i on i nt o em pl oyee m is u s e o f

d e p a rtm e n t c o m p u te re q u ip m e n t, h e w a s tr e a te d w o r s e o n a c c o u n t o f h is race th an o th er G D O T em p l o yees w h o h ad en g ag ed i n si m i l ar o r w o rse m is c o n d u c t. H e a ls o a lle g e d th a t th e J u n e 2 0 0 2 w r itte n r e p r im a n d w a s in r e t a l i a t i on f

orhi s f i l i ng of a n E qua l E m pl oy m e ntO pportuni ty C om m i s s i on ( “ E E O C ” ) c om pl a i nti n N ove m be r2001. O n app ea l , W al l ac e argues thatthe di stri ctcourterre d i n g rant i ng sum m ary j ud gm entas t o h i s di spar at e tre atm entcl ai m because he had prese nt ed evi dence that15 other s i m i l ar l y s i tuat ed G D O T em pl oyee s, w ho w er e w hi t e, had rece i ved pr e f e r e nt i a l tr e a tm e nti n tha tthe i rc om put e r s w e r e notc he c ke d a nd the y di d not re ce i ve any di sc i pl i naryac t i on . H e a ss ert s thatthi s e vi dence i s s uffi ci ent , un der th e s ta n d a r d s e t f

o rth in B u r lin g to n N o rth e rn & S a n taF e R y . C o . v . W h ite ,3

___ U . S . ___, 12 6 S . C t . 24 05 , 16 5 L . E d. 2d 34 5 (20 06 ), t o d ef ea ta s um m ary j udgm e ntm ot i on f

orac l a i m br oughtunde rT i t l e V I I ’ s a nt i - di s c r i m i na t i on prov i si on . H e a l so ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourt , i n g rant i ng sum m ary j ud gm entas t o hi s r e t a l i a t i on c l a i m , e rr e d i n f i ndi ng tha tthe r e w a s notac aus a l c onne c t i on betw ee n the E E O C fi l i ng and the w ri tt en re pri m and. F i nal l y, W al l ac e s ug gest s that the di stri ctcourtabused i t s di sc re t i on by no tno t i fy i ng hi m of the G D O T ’ s part i al m ot i on for s um m ary j ud gm entand i t s m ot i on for r ec on si dera t i on of a pri or part i al d en i al o f su m m ary j u d g m en tan d b y n o tg ran t i n g h i m l eav e t o resp o n d t o th ese p l ead i n g s.

“ W e r evi ew a grantof sum m ary j ud gm entde no vo , usi ng the sa m e l egal s t a nda r d a s the di s tr i c tc ourt . ” M e rr i ttv. D i l l a r d P ape rC o. , 120 F . 3d 1181, 1184 ( 11th C i r . 1997) . S um m a ry j udgm e nti s pr ope ri f the pl e a di ngs , de pos i t i ons , a nd a f f i da vi t s s how tha tthe r e i s no ge nui ne i s s ue of m a t e r i a l f

a c ta nd tha tthe m ovi ng pa rty i s e nt i t l e d t o j udgm e nta s am a tt e rof l a w . S e e C e l ot e x C orp. v. C a tr e tt , 477 U . S. 3 1 7 , 3 2 2 , 1 0 6 S. Ct . 2 5 4 8 , 2 5 5 2 , 9 1 L. Ed . 2 d 2 6 5 ( 1 9 8 6 ) ( q u o t i n g Fe d . R. Ci v . P. 56 (c )) . T here i s agenu i ne i ss ue of m at er i al fa cton l y i f the no n-m ov i ng party has p r o d u c e d e v id e n c e th a t ar e a s o n ab le f a c t- f in d e rc o u ld r e tu rn av e r d ic t in its f a v o r . W addel l v. V al l eyF orge D ent al A ss ocs. , Inc. , 27 6 F . 3d 12 75 , 12 79 (11th C i r. 2 0 0 1 ) . T h e e v id e n c e , a n d a ll in f e r e n c e s d r a w n f

r o m th e f a c ts , m u s t b e v ie w e d in4

the l i ghtm os tf

a vor abl e t o the non- m ovi ng pa rty . M a t s us hi t aE l e c . I ndus . C o. , L t d. v. Z e ni th R a di o C orp. , 475 U . S . 574, 587, 106 S . C t . 1348, 1356, 89 L . E d. 2d 538 (198 6). T he no n-m ov i ng party m ustm ake asuff i ci entshow i ng on ea ch es se nt i al e l e m e ntof

the c a s e f

orw hi c h he ha s the bur de n of pr oof . C e l ot e x, 477 U . S . a t323, 106 S . C t . a t2552. A . D is p a r a t e T r e a t m e n t C la im T o est ab l i sh a p ri m a faci e case o f raci al d i scri m i n at i o n , th e p l ai n t i ff m u st s h o w, a m o n g o th e rth i n g s , th a th e s u f f e r e d a n a d v e r s e e m p l o y m e n ta c t i o n . E E OC v. Joe’ s S t on e C rab, Inc. , 22 0 F . 3d 12 63 , 12 86 (11th C i r. 20 00 ). If the pl ai nt i ff e s t ab l i s h e s ap r i m af

a c i e c a s e , th e e m p l o y e rth e n b e a r s th e b u r d e n t o s h o w a l e gi t i m a t e a nd non- di s c r i m i na t ory r e a s on f orthe e m pl oy m e nta c t i on. W i l s on v. B /E A e r o s p a c e , I n c ., 3 7 6 F .3 d 1 0 7 9 , 1 0 8 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . I f th is b u r d e n is m e t, the n the pr e s um pt i on i s r e butt e d a nd the bur de n s hi f t s ba c k t o the pl a i nt i f

f t o s how the pr of f e r e d r e a s on w a s apr e t e xtf ordi s c r i m i na t i on. I d. W e have s t at ed that“ no tal l cond uctby an em pl oyernegat i vel y a ff ec t i ng an e m pl oy e e c ons t i tut e s a dve r s e e m pl oy m e nta c t i on. ” D a vi s v. T ow n of L a ke P a rk, F l a. , 2 4 5 F . 3 d 1 2 3 2 , 1 2 3 8 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 1 ), an d th att o p ro v e an ad v erse e m pl oy m e nta c t i on “ a n e m pl oy e e m us ts how as e r i ous a nd m a t e r i a l c ha nge i n the term s, co n d it io n s, o r p riv il eg es o f e m p lo ym en t. ” I d . “ M o re o v er , th e e m p lo ye e’s5

s ubj e c t i ve vi e w of

the s i gni f

i c a nc e a nd a dve r s i ty of

the e m pl oy e r ’ s a c t i on i s not co n tro l l i n g ; th e em p l o ym en tact i o n m u stb e m at eri al l y ad v erse as v i ew ed b y a r e a s onabl e pe r s on i n the c i r c um s t a nc e s . ” I d. a t1239. U n d e rth e s ta n d a r d a rtic u la te d in D a v is , W a lla c e c an n o t e s tab lis h th a t h is w r i tt e n r e p r i ma n d c o n s t i tu t e s a n a d v e r s e e mp l o y me n ta c t i o n n e e d e d f o rap r i ma f a c ie d is p a r a te tr e a tm e n t c a s e . T h e w r itte n r e p r im a n d d id n o t le a d to a n y ta n g ib le h a rm in th e f

o rm o f lo s t p a yo rb e n e f

its . S e e D a v is , 2 4 5 F .3 d a t1 2 4 0 - 4 1 . M o reo v er, th ere i s n o ev i d en ce th atW al l ace h as b een d en i ed j o b p ro m o t i o n s as a r e s ul tof the w r i tt e n r e pr i m a nd. W e r e j e c tW a l l a c e ’ s a r gum e nttha tB ur l i ngt on N orthern appl i es t o h i s s ub st ant i ve di spar at e tre atm entcl ai m . T he S up re m e C ou rt m a d e c le a rin th a t c a s e th a t th e s ta n d a r d d e f in in g a n a d v e r s e e m p lo y m e n t a c tio n in the c ont e xtof

r e t a l i a t i on c l a i m doe s notappl y t o ac or e T i t l e V I I di s c r i m i na t i on cl ai m . S ee __ U . S . at__ , 12 6 S . C t . at24 14 . T here fore , w i th regard t o w hat c ons t i tut e s a n a dve r s e e m pl oy m e nta c t i on i n the c ont e xtof adi s pa r a t e tr e a tm e nt cl ai m , D av i s st i l l co n tro l s. B . R e t al i at i on U nde rT i t l e V I I , i ti s unl a w f ul “ f ora n e m pl oy e rt o di s c r i m i na t e a ga i ns ta ny of hi s e m pl oy e e s . . . be c aus e he ha s oppos e d a ny pr a c t i c e m a de a n unl a w f ul e m pl oy m e ntpr a c t i c e by thi s s ubc hapt e r . ” 42 U . S . C . § 2000e - 3( a ) . T o e s t abl i s h a6

pr i m af a c i e c a s e of

r e t a l i a t i on unde rT i t l e V I I , “ apl a i nt i f f m us ts how tha t( 1) he e nga ge d i n s t a tut or i l y pr ot e c t e d e xpr e s s i on; ( 2) he s uf f e r e d a n a dve r s e e m pl oy m e nt a c t i on; a nd ( 3) the r e i s ac aus a l c onne c t i on be tw e e n the tw o e ve nt s . ” B r oc hu v. C i ty of R i vi e r aB e a c h, 304 F . 3d 1144, 1155 ( 11th C i r . 2002) ( quot a t i on a nd al t erat i o n s o m i tt ed ). A s n o t ed ab o v e, th e S u p rem e C o u rth as d efi n ed an ad v erse em pl oym entac t i on i n con t extof a r et al i at i on cl ai m as an ac t i on by an em pl oyer tha ti s ha rm f

ul t o the poi nttha ti tc oul d w e l l di s s ua de ar e a s onabl e w orke rf r om m aki ng or supp ort i ng a c harge of di sc ri m i nat i on . ” B url i ng t on N orthern, __ U . S . at

__ , 1 2 6 S .C t. a t 2 4 0 9 .

“ T o e s t abl i s h ac aus a l c onne c t i on, apl a i nt i f f m us ts how tha tthe deci si on -m aker s w er e aw ar e of the prot ec t ed cond uct , and thatthe prot ec t ed a c t i vi ty a nd the a dve r s e a c t i on w e r e notw hol l y unr e l a t e d. ” G upt av. F l or i daB d. of R e g e n ts , 2 1 2 F .3 d 5 7 1 , 5 9 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ( a lte r a tio n s a n d q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ) . M or e ove r , “ [ f

] orpurpos e s of

apr i m af

a c i e c a s e , ‘ c l os e t e m por a l pr oxi m i ty ’ m a y be s uf f i c i e ntt o s how tha tthe pr ot e c t e d a c t i vi ty a nd the a dve r s e a c t i on w e r e not

‘ w ho l l y unrel at ed. ’ ” I d. W e have not ed thatthe S up re m e C ou rti n a T i t l e V II re t al i at i on ca se has s t at ed thati n o rdert o sho w a c ausa l conn ec t i on “ m er e t em po ra l pr oxi m i ty be tw e e n know l e dge of pr ot e c t e d a c t i vi ty a nd a n a dve r s e a c t i on m us tbe

‘ ve ry c l os e . ’ ” H i gdon v. J a c ks on, 393 F . 3d 1211, 1220 ( 11th C i r . 2004) ( i nvol vi ng7

a l l e ge d r e t a l i a t i on unde rthe A D A ) ( c i t i ng C l a rk C ounty S c h. D i s t . v. B r e e de n, 532 U . S . 268, 273, 121 S . C t . 1508, 1511, 149 L . E d. 2d 509 ( 2001) ( a l t e r a t i ons o m itte d ) ) . M o r e o v e r , w e h a v e o b s e rv e d th a t th e S u p r e m e C o u rt h a s c ite d w ith appr ova l de c i s i ons i n w hi c h athr e e t o f ourm onth di s pa r i ty w a s f ound t o be i n su ffi ci en tt o sh o w cau sal co n n ect i o n . Id . W e co n cl u d ed th at“ [i ] f th ere i s a s ubs t a nt i a l de l a ybe tw e e n the pr ot e c t e d e xpr e s s i on a nd the a dve r s e a c t i on i n the abs e nc e of

othe re vi de nc e t e ndi ng t o s how c aus a t i on, the c om pl a i ntof r e t a l i a t i on f a i l s a s am a tt e rof

l a w . ” I d. “I f ap la in tif

f m a k e s o u t ap r im af

a c ie c a s e o f

r e ta lia tio n , th e b u r d e n s h if ts to the defendantt o p rodu ce l egi t i m at e r ea sons for the adverse em pl oym entac t i on . ” Br o c h u , 3 0 4 F. 3 d a t1 1 5 5 ( q u o t a t i o n s o mi tt e d ) . Th e r e a f t e r , th e p l a i n t i f

f mu s tc o me forw ar d w i th evi dence s uffi ci entt o p erm i ta r ea sonabl e f ac tfi nd ert o con cl ud e that th e r e a s o n s g iv e n b y th e e m p lo y e rw e r e p r e te x tu a l. I d . In hi s s um m ary j ud gm entm ot i on , W al l ac e a l l eged thatthe w ri tt en r e pr i m a nd w a s i n r e t a l i a t i on f orthe f i l l i ng of hi s E E O C c om pl a i nt . T ha tc om pl a i nt w a s f i l e d on N ove m be r19, 2001. T he w r i tt e n r e pr i m a nd w a s noti s s ue d unt i l J une 28, 2002, s om e s e ve n m onths a f t e rthe E E O C c om pl a i ntw a s f i l e d. I n abs e nc e of a d d itio n a l e v id e n c e s h o w in g c au s a tio n , th is s e v e n - m o n th d is p a r ity is in s u f f ic ie n t to s how the r e qui s i t e c aus a l c onne c t i on ne e de d t o e s t abl i s h apr i m af a c i e c a s e of8

r e t a l i a t i on. S e e H i gdon, 393 F . 3d a t1220. C. C o ur t ’ s t r e a t m e nt o f G D O T’ s pa r t i a lm o t i o n f o r s um m a r y j udg m e nt an d m ot i on f

or p ar t i alr e c on s i d e r at i on

“ C ourt s do and s houl d s how al e ni e nc yt o pr o s e l i t i ga nt s note nj oy e d by th o s e w ith th e b e n e f

it o f ale g a l e d u c a tio n . Y e t e v e n in th e c a s e o f p r o s e litig a n ts thi s l eni encydo es no tgi ve a c ou rtl i ce nse t o serve as de fa ct o cou nsel for a p a rty . . .” G J R I n v s ., I n c . v . C o u n ty o f E s c a m b ia , F la ., 1 3 2 F .3 d 1 3 5 9 , 1 3 6 9 ( 1 1 th C i r . 1998) ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . W he r e apr o s e l i t i ga ntha s de m ons tr a t e d pr e vi ous p ro fi ci en cy i n fi l i n g t i m el y m o t i o n s an d resp o n ses, h e can n o tth en u se h i s p ro se s t a tus a s a“ de f

e ns i ve s hi e l d” f

r om hi s ow n ne gl e c t . S e e P e l l e gr i no v. M a r a thon B a n k , 6 4 0 F .2 d 6 9 6 , 6 9 8 - 9 9 ( 5 th C ir . M a r . 2 5 , 1 9 8 1 ) . A r e vi e w of

the r e c or d r e ve a l s tha t , c ontr a ry t o W a l l a c e ’ s a s s e rt i on, the d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t g r a n t th e G D O T e x c lu s iv e le a v e to f ile its m o tio n s w h ile proh i bi t i ng W al l ac e f

rom fi l i ng hi s r es po nses . T he ce rt i fi ca t es of se rvi ce att ac hed t o the s e G D O T ’ s m ot i ons s how tha tthe y w e r e s e rve d upon W a l l a c e a nd tha the ha d not i c e of

the i rr e s pe c t i ve f

i l i ng. G i ve n tha tW a l l a c e ha s pr ope r l y f i l e d i n the i ns t a ntc a s e num e r ous m ot i ons a nd r e s pons e s , he c a nnotnow us e hi s pr o s e s t a tus a s a n e xc us e f

orhi s f a i l ur e t o f

i l e hi s r e s pons e s t o the s e m ot i ons . S e e P e l l i gr a no, 640 F . 2d a t688- 89. B a s e d on ar e vi e w of

the r e c or d a nd the pa rt i e s ’ br i e f s , w e di s c e rn no9

r e ve r s i bl e e rr or . F orthe r e a s ons s t a t e d above , w e a f f i rm the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s gr a nt o f s u mm a ry j u d g me n ti n f a v o ro f th e GD OT. AF F I RME D.