FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT A pr i l 7, 2006 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. 05- 15205 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 03 -027 85 -C V -P T -M W I L B E R T P R I C E , P la in tif f- A p p e lla n t, v ersu s M & H V A L V E C O M P A N Y , D e fe 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 fo rth e N o r th e r n D i s tr i c to f A l a b a ma

_________________________ ( A p r i l 7, 2006) B efo re D U B IN A , H U L L an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:M &H V alvealsoargue s inits app e llatebrie f that thec ourt c or re c tly grante d it 1 summary judgment as to Price’s retaliation claims. As M &H Valveasserts, however , Price ha s no t c halleng e d this determinatio n o n a pp e al. Thu s, wede em arguments onthe sec laims abandone d. See Ac cess Now , Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1330 ( 11th Cir. 2004) (ex plaining that issues not argued in initial brief are deemed abandoned). 2 P lain ti ff-A p p ellan t W il b er t P rice ap p ea ls th ro u g h co u n se l th e d istrict co u rt’s gr a ntof s um m a r y j udgm e nt , pur s ua ntt o F e d. R . C i v. P . 56© ) , t o hi s c urr e nt em pl oyer , M & H V al ve C om pany, a c om pany thatm anufactures and sel l s val ves a n d h y d r a n ts fo rc o m m e r c ia l u s e , o n h is c la im s o f fa ilu r e to p r o m o te a n d d is p a r a te i m pacti n tra i ni ng , base d o n rac e, fi l ed pu rs uantt o T i t l e V II of the C i vi l R i gh t s A ct of 1964 ( “ T i t l e V I I ” ) , 42 U . S . C . § 2000e - 2( a ) a nd 42 U . S . C . § 1981, a nd r e t a l i a t i on, f

i l e d pur s ua ntt o 42 U . S . C . § 2000e - 3. P r i c e a r gue s on a ppe a l tha tthe 1 di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n c onc l udi ng tha ts um m a r y j udgm e ntw a s w a rr a nt e d. F orthe r e a s o n s s e tfo r th mo r e f u l l y b e l o w , w e a f

f i r m. O n J une 30, 2003, P r i c e , a n A f r i c a n- A m e r i c a n m a l e w hom M & H V a l ve fi rs thi re d i n 1 97 2, fi l ed a c om pl ai ntagai nstM & H V al ve, pu rs uantt o T i t l e V II a n d § 1 9 8 1 , a lle g in g th a t h is e m p lo y e r( 1 ) fa ile d to p r o m o te h im to m u ltip le s upe r vi s or y pos i t i ons ; ( 2) r e t a l i a t e d a ga i ns thi m fors i gni ng agr i e va nc e a l l e gi ng r a c e d i s c r i m i n a t i o n b y p r o m o t i n g th r e e o th e rA f r i c a n - A m e r i c a n e m p l o y e e s o f M & H V a lv e to s u p e r v is o r y p o s itio n s , in s te a d o f P r ic e ; a n d ( 3 ) fa ile d to p r o v id e h im w ith tr a in in g o p p o r tu n itie s th a t M & H V a lv e p r o v id e d to C a u c a s ia n e m p lo y e e s .3

P ri ce att ac hed t o thi s c om pl ai nta c op y of the charge of di sc ri m i nat i on thathe had f i l e d w i th the E qua l E m pl oy m e ntO ppor tuni ty C om m i s s i on ( “ E E O C ” ) on M a y 5, 2001, i n w hi c h he a s s e r t e d tha tM & H V a l ve , ( 1) on F e br ua r y 10, 2001, a nd on a cont i nu i ng basi s, had d eni ed hi m the op po rtun i ty t o app l y for a s up er vi sory pos i t i on, be c a us e of

hi s r a c e , by fa i l i ng t o a dve r t i s e va c a nts upe r vi s or y pos i t i ons a nd by pr om ot i ng C a uc a s i a n e m pl oy e e s , i ns t e a d of m or e qua l i f

i e d A f r i c a nA m er i ca n em pl oyee s; and (2) had subj ec t ed hi m and o ther A fr i ca n-A m er i ca n e m p lo y e e s to h a r a s s m e n t th r o u g h r a c ia l s lu r s , jo k e s , a n d d if fe r e n t tr e a tm e n t. A f t e rthe par t i e s c om pl e t e d di s c ove r y , M & H V a l ue f i l e d aR ul e 56 m ot i on fo r s u m m ar y ju d g m en t o n all o f P rice ’s claim s. M & H V alv e a rg u ed th at P rice ’s fa i l ur e - t o- pr om ot e c l a i m r e l a t i ng t o i t s hi r i ng of W i l l i a m W a t s on i n F e br ua r y 2001, w as un t i m el y und erbo th T i t l e V II and § 19 83 , beca use the re cord ref l ec t ed that W at son actual l y w as hi re d o n F ebruary 23 , 19 99

— approx i m at el y 494 days before P ri ce fi l ed hi s c harge of di sc ri m i nat i on w i th the E E O C and al m ost4 years before P r ic e f ile d h is c iv il c o m p la in t. M & H V a lv e a lte r n a tiv e ly a r g u e d th a t P r ic e c o u ld n o t estab li sh a p rim a fac ie d iscr im in atio n claim b as ed o n M & H V alv e’s prom ot i on of W at son b ec ause , un l i ke W at son, P ri ce had n o sup er vi sory experi ence a n d , th u s , w a s n o t q u a lif ie d fo rth e p o s itio n .4

M & H V a l ve r e l i e d i n s uppor ton ( 1) ade pos i t i on of P r i c e , ( 2) ade pos i t i on of R oge rB a l dw i n, M & H V a l ve ’ s pe r s onne l m a na ge r , a nd ( 3) ade c l a r a t i on of B a l d wi n . P r i c e t e s t i f

i e d i n h i s d e p o s i t i o n th a th e h a d b e g u n wo r k i n g a tM & H V a l ve on the y a r d c r e w i n the foundr y a nd, e xc e ptforafe w s hor tpe r i ods dur i ng w hi c h he w a s l a i d of

f , ha d c ont i nue d t o w or k forM & H V a l ve thr ough the pr e s e nt . I n a ddi t i on, he ha d w or ke d i n the c l e a ni ng r oom a s agr i nde r , i n the m ach i n e sh o p , w h ere h e ran a d ri l l an d th e B th ro u g h G m ach i n es, as a j an i t o r, as a core -m akeri n the core r oo m , and i n the el ec tri c- m el tdepartm ent . P ri ce , ho w ever , n e v e rh a d h e ld as u p e r v is o r y p o s itio n . P r i c e a l s o t e s t i f

i e d tha t , i n J a nua r y 1999, a s auni on- c om m i tt e e m e m be r , he s i gne d agr i e va nc e tha tw a s pr e s e nt e d t o hi m by J e rr y S um m e r l i n, a nothe rA f r i c a nA m e r ic a n h o u r ly e m p lo y e e a t M & H V a lv e a n d th e c h a ir m a n o f th e lo c a l u n io n . In thi s uni on gri evance, P ri ce , S um m er l i n, and sever al other A fr i ca n-A m er i ca n e m p l o y e e s , i n c l u d i n g R o d n e y C h a t m a n a n d Gr a d y C a l l o wa y , c l a i m e d th a tM & H V a l ve ha d de ni e d the m pr om ot i ons t o s upe r vi s or y pos i t i ons a tM & H V a l ve be c a us e of

the i rr a c e . P r i c e s i gne d thi s gr i e va nc e be c a us e he be l i e ve d tha the s h o u l d h a v e b e e n c o n s i d e r e d fo rap r o m o t i o n t o s u p e r v i s o r y p o s i t i o n s th a tM & H ul t i m a t e l y of

fe r e d t o thr e e C a uc a s i a n m e n, tha ti s , W a y ne G i l l , M i ke H a tt on, a nd J a m e s P ut na m , i n 1997 or1998. P r i c e a l s o c ont e nde d tha tM & H V a l ve5

di sc ri m i nat ed agai nsthi m on D ec em ber 23, 19 99 , w hen i thi re d W at son from “ off th e s tr e e t” to w o r k a s as u p e r v is o rin th e e le c tr ic - m e lt d e p a r tm e n t in th e fo u n d r y . B al dw i n att es t ed i n h i s dec l ar ati on thatM & H V al ve supervi sors ar e sa l ar i ed em pl oyee s w ho supervi se ho url y e m pl oyee s t o ensure thatthe em pl oyee s pe r for m the i rj obs a nd tha tthe s upe r vi s or ’ s de pa r t m e nti s ope r a t i ng e f f i c i e nt l y a nd ef fe cti vel y. S up er vi sors al so ar e ( 1) re spon si bl e for ensuri ng thatho url y w orkers c o m p ly w ith c o m p a n y p o lic ie s , ( 2 ) n o t m e m b e r s o f th e b a r g a in in g u n it, ( 3) ty pi c a l l y pa i d m or e tha n hour l y w or ke r s a nd e nt i t l e d t o di f fe r e ntbe ne f

i t s , a nd ( 4) e va l ua t e d a nd di s c i pl i ne d di f fe r e nt l y tha n hour l y w or ke r s . I n A ugus t2003, P ri ce expres se d an i nt er es ti n ent er i ng M & H V al ve’ s new l y i m pl em ent ed supervi sor- tra i ni ng prog ra m atJa cksonv i l l e S t at e U ni vers i ty, w hi ch w as devel op ed b y M & H V a lv e , J a c k s o n v ille S ta te U n iv e r s ity , G a d s d e n S ta te , a n d P a t L y n c h . B al dw i n further a tt es t ed that , as a pre re qu i si t e t o ent erthi s s up er vi sortr a in in g p r o g r a m , P r ic e h a d to ta k e aw r itte n e x a m in a tio n g iv e n b y G a d s e n S ta te a nd pe r for m , on a ve r a ge , a tthe t e nth- gr a de l e ve l i n m a th, s pe l l i ng, l a ngua ge , a nd r e a d in g . B e c a u s e P r ic e o n ly p e r fo r m e d a t th e 4 .5 , 1 .3 , a n d 5 .7 g r a d e le v e ls in re adi ng , l angu age a nd spel l i ng , and m athem ati cs , re spec t i vel y, he w as deem ed i ne l i gi bl e forthi s s upe r vi s or - tr a i ni ng pr ogr a m . A f t e rS um m e r l i n, C ha t m a n, a nd C al l ow ay si gn ed the 19 99 un i on gri evance a ti ss ue i n thi s c as e, they w er eAs evidenc e of his qualific ations, Price cited to his deposition testimonythat he had 2 wo rked“v irtu al l y

al lo v erth e p l an t , ” trai n edo th erM& HVal v e e mp l o yee s , an dtrai n edthro u gh a four-year

apprenticeship to becomea journeyman core-maker. Pricealso cited to evidence showingthat (1) M &H Valvenever had expressed any

complaints about his abilityto train, (2) hehad a “ near

perf ect attendancerec ord” and “virtually no disciplinary

actions ag ainst him,” and (3) Baldwin confirmed that, although hedid not know if Price ever had be en considered f or a supervisory

po sition , B aldw in knew that Pric ehad disp laye d intere st i n s uch p os iti on s. Mo reov er, Bal dwi n agreedth at, inAugus t 2 00 3, Pri ce ex pres sedan i nteres t i n en terin g M & H Valve’ s newly

implemented supervisor- trainingprogram. 6 p ro m o t ed t o su p erv i so ry p o si t i o n s atM & H V al v e. M & H V al v e m ad e th ese pr om ot i ons a f

t e ri nt e r vi e w i ng al i s tof c a ndi da t e s w ho w e r e r e c om m e nde d by s u p e r v is o r s , a n d a f

te rd e te r m in in g th a t th e s e e m p lo y e e s w e r e m o s t q u a lif ie d . P r ic e o p p o s e d M & H V a lv e ’s m o tio n fo rs u m m a r y ju d g m e n t, a r g u in g th a t, despi t e hi s e xp er i ence and h i s di spl ay i ng i nt er es ti n sup er vi sory po si t i on s, he w as de ni e d the m w he n M & H V a l ve fa i l e d t o gi ve hi m the oppor tuni ty t o be c ons i de r e d forthe m , w hi l e one C a uc a s i a n s upe r vi s orw a s pr om ot e d a nd one C a uc a s i a n s upe r vi s orw a s hi r e d f r om out s i de M & H V a l ve i n 2000 a nd 2001. 2 P ri ce al so cont ended that , al tho ug h M & H V al ve had d es i gn ed i t s s up er vi sortr a in in g p r o g r a m to “m a k e c u rr e n t e m p lo y e e s e lig ib le fo rs u p e r v is o r y p o s itio n s ,” a nd a l though the E E O C ha d de t e r m i ne d tha tP r i c e w a s “ am e m be rof ac l a s s of bl ac ks w ho m ha[d] been di sc ri m i nat ed agai nstre gardi ng prom ot i on al op po rtun i t i es base d o n thei r r ac e, ” non e of the curre ntcl as s i n the supervi sor- tra i ni ng prog ra m w e r e A f r ic a n A m e r ic a n s .7

A d d itio n a lly , P r ic e a s s e r te d th a t s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t w a s n o t w a rr a n te d a s to h i s ret al i at i o n cl ai m b ecau se h e t est i fi ed d u ri n g h i s d ep o si t i o n th at(1 ) l ess e xpe r i e nc e d A f

r i c a n A m e r i c a ns , i ns t e a d, w e r e pr om ot e d a f t e rhe f i l e d auni on gri evance a nd an E E O C char ge, (2) M & H V al ve “ t apped the shou l ders of se l ec t A fr i ca n-A m er i ca n em pl oyee s, ” ( 3) the A fr i ca n-A m er i ca n em pl oyee s w ho re ce i ved su p erv i so ry p o si t i o n s w ere t o l d n o tt o t el l o th er em p l o yees ab o u tth ese p ro m o t i o n s, and (4) on l y A fr i ca n-A m er i ca n em pl oyee s w er e questi on ed by an M & H att orney abou tdi sc ri m i nat i on i n the w ork p l ac e. F i nal l y, P ri ce cont ended thatsum m ar y ju d g m e n t w a s n o t w a rr a n te d a s to h is h a r a s s m e n t c la im b e c a u s e ( 1 ) W a y n e G ill, a C auca si an em pl oyee w ho w as a “ deci si on [- ] m akeri n p rom ot i ng ” i n the F ou nd ry D e pa r t m e nt , ha d notbe e n di s c i pl i ne d a f t e rm a ki ng ar a c i a l l y de r oga t or y s t a t e m e nt a b o u t P r ic e a t w o r k ; a n d ( 2 ) P r ic e h a d b e e n c a lle d a“S a m b o ” a t w o r k . M & H V a lv e th e n f

ile d as u p p le m e n ta l m o tio n fo rs u m m a r y ju d g m e n t, a r gui ng tha t , t o the e xt e ntP r i c e w a s r a i s i ng afa i l ur e - t o- pr om ot e c l a i m ba s e d on C hu ck Y ea ger’ s prom ot i on i n O ct ob er20 00 , thi s prom ot i on occurre d al m ostthree y e a r s b e fo r e P r ic e f

ile d h is c o m p la in t in O c to b e r2 0 0 3 , a n d , th u s , w a s u n tim e ly u n d e rb o th T itle V I I a n d § 1 9 8 1 . M & H V a lv e a lte r n a tiv e ly a r g u e d th a t th is c la im fa i l e d be c a us e P r i c e , w ho ha d no s upe r vi s or y e xpe r i e nc e , c oul d nots how tha the w a s a s qua l i f

i e d, orm or e qua l i f

i e d, forthe s upe r vi s or y pos i t i on tha n Y e a ge r , w hoYeag er te stified duringhis deposition that (1) CNC refers to machines that are 3 numerically

controlled, (2) these machines must be programmed or “set up” before startingeach different type of job the machine is intended to perform, (3) some CNC operators do not know how to perf

orm these set-ups, (4) CNC set-ups a re not e asy

to learn and usually

take at least two to thre emonths per m ac hineto l e arn , and(5 ) s omeempl oye e s a reun ableto m a ster the seset- up s. 8 h ad t en years’ ex p eri en ce w o rk i n g o n th e C N C m ach i n es, i n cl u d i n g fo u r years’ 3 experi ence as a s up er vi sor overs ee i ng these m ac hi nes. M & H V al ve cont ended th a t P r ic e ’s r e ta lia tio n c la im , th a t h e s u f fe r e d r e ta lia tio n w h e n W a y n e G ill, a supervi sor a tM & H V al ve, w as no tdi sc i pl i ned aft erhe al l egedl y m ade ara ce r e l a t e d s t a t e m e ntr e ga r di ng P r i c e , w a s w i thoutm e r i tbe c a us e P r i c e c oul d nots how thathe suff

er ed an adverse em pl oym entac t i on . M oreover, M & H V al ve ar gu ed tha t , t o the e xt e ntP r i c e w a s c ont e ndi ng tha tthe s t a nda r di z e d t e s ttha tM & H V a l ve w a s u s in g to s c r e e n a p p lic a n ts fo rits s u p e r v is o r y - tr a in in g p r o g r a m h a d ad is p a r a te i m pa c ton A f

r i c a n- A m e r i c a n e m pl oy e e s , P r i c e ne i the rc oul d pr oduc e s uf f i c i e nt su p p o rt i n g st at i st i cal ev i d en ce, n o r sh o w th atM & H V al v e’ s l eg i t i m at e b u si n ess r e a s o n s fo rth e te s t w e r e p r e te x tu a l. I n s u p p o r t o f

th is s u p p le m e n ta l m o tio n , M & H V a lv e c ite d to th e e v id e n c e it previ ou sl y had subm i tt ed, as w el l as t o the supp l em ent al decl ar ati on of R og er B a l dw i n, the de c l a r a t i on of M i ke F ul m e r , the m a c hi ne - s hop m a na ge r , the d e c la r a tio n o f

C h u c k Y e a g e r , a n d am e m o r a n d u m o p in io n in ar e la te d c a s e . Ye a g e rt e s t i f

i e d d u r i n g h i s d e p o s i t i o n th a t , i n th e fa l l o f 2 0 0 0 , wh e n h e wa s aC NCJ oe Cavender ex plained in his decla ration that the TAB E (1) is a norm-based 4 examination that is used extensively throughout the United States, espec ially in adult-educ ation programs, to determinetheappro ximategradelevel of thepers onte ste d; and(2 ) i s o neof only threetests that the State of Alabama has a pproved f or examining a

pplicants for adult-education 9 ope r a t ora tM & H V a l ve , he be c a m e a w a r e tha tas upe r vi s orpos i t i on i n the m a c h in e s h o p o n th e s e c o n d s h if t h a d b e c o m e v a c a n t. Y e a g e ra ls o s ta te d th a t, b e c a u s e o f

h i s p r e v i o u s e x p e r i e n c e a s as u p e r v i s o ra n d h i s k n o wl e d g e o f th e C NC m ac hi nes, he bel i eved he w as qu al i fi ed for the vacantpo si t i on , and h e s ub m i tt ed hi s r es um e t o F ul m er . F ul m ersi m i l ar l y a tt es t ed thatY ea ger w as prom ot ed base d on hi s know l e dge of

C N C m a c hi ne s , hi s t e n y e a r s ’ e xpe r i e nc e ope r a t i ng a nd s e ttin g u p th e s e m a c h in e s , a n d h is fo u ry e a r s ’ s u p e r v is o r y e x p e r ie n c e . B a l d wi n , i n tu r n , e l a b o r a t e d i n h i s s u p p l e m e n t a l d e c l a r a t i o n th a tM & H V a lv e in s titu te d its s u p e r v is o r - tr a in in g p r o g r a m in J u ly 2 0 0 3 , a s p a r t o f its c onc i l i a t i on a gr e e m e ntw i th the E E O C , w hi c h ha d r e s ul t e d f r om c ha r ge s of d is c r im in a tio n f

ile d b y P r ic e a n d o th e rA f r ic a n - A m e r ic a n e m p lo y e e s r e la tin g to a lle g e d d is p a r a te tr e a tm e n t in p r o m o tio n s a t M & H V a lv e . B a s e d o n c o m p la in ts tha tM & H V a l ve ha d “ t a ppe d the s houl de r s ” of w hi t e e m pl oy e e s i n pr om ot i ng em pl oyee s, thi s tra i ni ng prog ra m w as prop osed t o p rovi de al l qu al i fi ed em pl oyee s w h o w e r e in te r e s te d in s u p e r v is o r y p o s itio n s w ith a n a v e n u e to im p r o v e o n s k ills ne c e s s a r y fora dva nc e m e nt . J oe C a ve nde r , the D i r e c t orof A dul tE duc a t i on S e r vi c e s a tG a ds de n S t a t e , s ugge s t e d the us e of the T A B E a s aw a y t o de t e r m i ne

4classes f

or per sons seekingto obtain a General Educ ation Degree(“GED”) . 10 the a ppl i c a nt s ’ e l i gi bi l i ty forthe pr ogr a m . M a na ge m e nta tM & H V a l ve de t e r m i ne d, ba s e d on the r e qui r e m e nt s of i t s s upe r vi s or y pos i t i ons , tha ta10thgr a de e qui va l e nc y on the T A B E w oul d be am i ni m a l l e ve l a tw hi c h t o be gi n the s upe r vi s or y - tr a i ni ng pr ogr a m . B a l dw i n f ur the re xpl a i ne d tha tthi s m i ni m a l t e s t i ng le v e l w a s im p le m e n te d b e c a u s e : ( 1 ) th e p r o g r a m c o s t $ 2 4 ,0 0 0 fo re a c h o f its e nr ol l e d s tude nt s ; a nd ( 2) s upe r vi s or s ne e de d t o do ba s i c c a l c ul a t i ons , r e a d a nd un ders t and com pany po l i ci es and p roce du re s, w ri t e c l ear a nd conci se m em oranda, a n d p r o v id e d ir e c tio n s to th e w o r k fo r c e . I n hi s r e s pons e , P r i c e ne w l y a r gue d tha the e s t a bl i s he d tha tM & H V a l ve fai l ed t o p ro m o t e h i m , an d , i n st ead , p ro m o t ed D ean N an ce, a C au casi an m al e, as a s upe r vi s or“ i n 2000- 2001. ” E xpl a i ni ng tha tM & H V a l ve ’ s fa i l ur e t o di s c i pl i ne G ill w a s e v id e n c e o f

r e ta lia to r y in te n t, in s te a d o f a c tu a l r e ta lia tio n , P r ic e a ls o a g a in cont ended thatM & H V al ve re t al i at ed agai nsthi m by (1) prom ot i ng other A f r ic a n - A m e r ic a n e m p lo y e e s , in s te a d o f h im s e lf ; a n d ( 2 ) d ir e c tin g its a tto r n e y to que s t i on hi m a boutdi s c r i m i na t i on c l a i m s . W i thouti de nt i f y i ng s pe c i f

i c tr a i ni ng prog ra m s, P ri ce al so new l y a ss er t ed thatM & H V al ve had fai l ed t o ei ther ( 1) offe r A f r ic a n - A m e r ic a n e m p lo y e e s tr a in in g o p p o r tu n itie s “n e c e s s a r y fo ra d v a n c e m e n t,” o r( 2 ) c o n d u c t s tu d ie s o n w h e th e rth e s u p e r v is o r y - tr a in in g p r o g r a m r e a s o n a b ly11

rel at ed t o th e req u i rem en t s o f an y su p erv i so ry p o si t i o n atM & H V al v e. F i n al l y, P r ic e n e w ly a r g u e d th a t s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t w a s n o t w a rr a n te d b e c a u s e ( 1 ) G ill m ade a“ ra ci al sl ur” t o S t eve C aruso, and (2) a co-w orker r ef erre d t o P ri ce as “S a m b o ” in th e 1 9 8 0 s . M & H V al ve re pl i ed that , i n add i t i on t o b ei ng ent i t l ed t o sum m ar y j ud gm enton P ri ce ’ s c l ai m of di sc ri m i nat ory fai l ure t o p rom ot e r el ati ng t o Y ea ger, sum m ar y j ud gm entw as w arra nt ed as t o h i s new l y r ai se d cl ai m re l ati ng t o N ance beca use N ance w as hi re d o n A ug ust23 , 19 99 , m ore than fou r y ears before P ri ce fi l ed hi s c i vi l com pl ai nt . M & H V al ve cont ended thatP ri ce ’ s c l ai m that que s t i oni ng by one of

M & H V a l ve ’ s a tt or ne y s c ons t i tut e d r e t a l i a t i on w a s w i thout m er i tbeca use, even as sum i ng thi s questi on i ng occurre d, i tdi d n otconst i tut e a n a dve r s e e m pl oy m e nta c t i on. M & H V a l ve a l s o a r gue d tha tP r i c e ’ s ne w c l a i m s of di spar at e i m pactre l ati ng t o i t s fai l ure t o tra i n w er e due t o b e di sm i ss ed be c a us e P r i c e ha d fa i l e d t o ( 1) i de nt i f y atr a i ni ng oppor tuni ty “ ne c e s s a r y for a dva nc e m e nt , ” othe rtha n the s upe r vi s or y - tr a i ni ng pr ogr a m ; a nd ( 2) s how tha tthe s u p e r v is o r y - tr a in in g p r o g r a m its e lf , in s te a d o f te s tin g u s e d to q u a lif

y fo rth is tra i ni ng , had a di spar at e i m pact . A dd i t i on al l y, M & H V al ve re spon ded that P r i c e ’ s ne w l y r a i s e d “ r a c i a l s l ur ” c l a i m s ha d no ba s i s i n T i t l e V I I or§ 1981 a nd w e r e u n tim e ly .12

A ft er ex t en si v el y su m m ari zi n g th e ev i d en ce i n th e reco rd an d th e p art i es’ a r g u m e n ts , th e c o u r t n o te d in am e m o r a n d u m o p in io n th a t it w a s “v e r y d o u b tf u l” if P r ic e h a d e s ta b lis h e d th a t h e w a s m in im a lly q u a lif ie d fo ras u p e r v is o r y p o s itio n . N e ve r the l e s s , the c our ta s s um e d, w i thoutde c i di ng, tha tP r i c e ha d e s t a bl i s he d a pri m a fac i e c as e of fai l ure t o p rom ot e a s t o the C N C supervi sor posi t i on thatw as a w a r d e d to Y e a g e r , b u t th a t s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t w a s w a rr a n te d o n th is c la im b ecau se M & H V al v e’ s art i cu l at ed reaso n fo r th i s p ro m o t i o n al d eci si o n , th ati s, th a t Y e a g e rw a s m o r e q u a lif ie d fo rth e p o s itio n , w a s n o t p r e te x tu a l. T h e c o u r t, h o w ev er, o rd ered th e p art i es t o ad d ress fu rth er: (1 ) th e p ro o f n ecessary to establi sh P r ic e ’s c la im o f

d is p a r a te im p a c t r e la tin g to tr a in in g , ( 2 ) w h e th e rP r ic e in c lu d e d in hi s E E O C c om pl a i nthi s di s c r i m i na t i on c l a i m r e l a t i ng t o N a nc e ’ s pos i t i on, a nd ( 3 ) if th e r e c o r d c o n ta in e d e v id e n c e s h o w in g N a n c e ’s d a te o f h ir e . F ol l ow i ng re ce i ptof the parti es ’ re spon se s t o thi s c ou rtorder, the court gr a nt e d M & H V a l ve s um m a r y j udgm e nta s t o the m a j or i ty of P r i c e ’ s c l a i m s a nd se ta tri al dat e onl y t o add re ss the fa ctual i ss ue of w hen M & H V al ve hi re d N ance , a“ c om pa r a t or ” e m pl oy e e . T he c our te xpl a i ne d tha t , i n a c c or da nc e w i th the re as on s i tgave i n i t s pre vi ou s m em orandu m op i ni on , i tw as grant i ng sum m ar y j udgm e nta s t o, a m ong othe rc l a i m s , P r i c e ’ s c l a i m of fa i l ur e t o pr om ot e hi m t o the p o si t i o n o f C N C su p erv i so r i n O ct o b er 2 0 0 0 , i n st ead o f Y eag er. T h e co u rtal soAlthough Pric e has not identified theemployee who was promoted to the position over 5 thec ore -m akin gmac hinein N ov ember o f 2 00 0, M &H V alveha s ac kn ow le dg e d th at this empl oye ewa s Mi c hae l Smi th. Neverthele ss, be c aus ePric edidno t identi fy thi s “ c omp arator” in the district court, wewill not address this newly raised c laim on appeal. See Acc ess Now, 385 F .3 d at 13 31 (explaini ngthat “ an is su eno t raise d inthedis tric t c ourt andraise d f

or thefirs t ti me on appeal will not be considered by this [ C] ourt”).

13 foun d thatP ri ce ’ s c l ai m of di spar at e i m pactas t o tra i ni ng w as du e t o b e di sm i ss ed be c a us e ( 1) he ha d fa i l e d t o i nc l ude thi s c l a i m i n hi s E E O C c om pl a i nt , a nd ( 2 ) § 1 9 8 1 d id n o t p r o v id e ab a s is fo rs u c h ac la im . B ecau se P ri ce h ad fai l ed t o ack n o w l ed g e th atN an ce’ s h i re d at e w as A u g u st 23 , 19 99 , and thathi s c l ai m re l ati ng t o N ance , there fore , w as t i m e- barr ed, the court in itia lly d e n ie d s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t a s to th is c la im a n d s e t it fo rtr ia l. N e v e r th e le s s , a f

te rP r ic e n o tif

ie d th e c o u r t th a t h e w a s n o t c o n te s tin g N a n c e ’s d a te of hi re , the courtdet er m i ned thatthi s r em ai ni ng cl ai m w as t i m e barre d and grant ed in f u ll M & H V a lv e ’s m o tio n fo rs u m m a r y ju d g m e n t. Is su e 1: P ri ce ’s cl ai m s of d i sc ri m i n atory fai l u re to p rom ote P ri ce ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourterre d i n g ra nt i ng M & H V al ve sum m ar y j u d g m en tas t o h i s d i scri m i n at i o n cl ai m s b ecau se h e est ab l i sh ed a p ri m a faci e case of di sc ri m i nat ory fai l ure t o p rom ot e a nd tra i n h i m se l f a nd other A fr i ca n-A m er i ca n em pl oyee s. Ident i fy i ng as com para t ors t w o C auca si an em pl oyee s w ho w er e prom ot ed and h i re d i n 2 00 0 and 20 01 , and o ne C auca si an em pl oyee w ho w as pr om ot e d t o the pos i t i on ove rthe c or e - m a ki ng m a c hi ne i n N ove m be rof 2000, 514

P r i c e c ont e nds tha the w a s de ni e d tr a i ni ng “ ne c e s s a r y fora dva nc e m e nt ” a nd re ce i ved l ow erw ages . P ri ce as se rt s thatthese cl ai m s w er e nott i m e- barr ed un der § 1981 be c a us e he w a s s ubj e c tt o afour - y e a rl i m i t a t i ons pe r i od. P r i c e c ont e nds that , al tho ug h h e di d n ott ec hn i ca l l y app l y for a prom ot i on , M & H V al ve used an i n fo rm al , secret i v e sel ect i o n p ro cess b ased o n su bj ect i v e cri t eri a an d P ri ce, th u s, st i l l co u l d rai se an i n feren ce o f i n t en t i o n al , raci al l y d i sp arat e treat m en t . P ri ce al so i s argui ng thatsum m ar y j ud gm entw as no tw arra nt ed because he i dent i fi ed s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e s how i ng tha tM & H V a l ve ’ s pr of fe r e d r e a s ons fornot p r o m o tin g h im w e r e p r e te x tu a l. A s aprel i m i nary m att er , t o the ext entP ri ce w as re l yi ng on T i t l e V II , before ap la in tif f m a y p u r s u e aT itle V I I d is c r im in a tio n c la im , h e f ir s t m u s t e x h a u s t h is a d m in is tr a tiv e r e m e d ie s . W ilk e r s o n v . G r in n e ll C o rp ., 2 7 0 F .3 d 1 3 1 4 , 1 3 1 7 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2001) . T o e xha us thi s r e m e di e s , the pl a i nt i f f m us tf i l e at i m e l y c ha r ge of d is c r im in a tio n w ith th e E E O C . I d . ( c itin g 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 e - 5 ( b ) ) . T o b e tim e ly w i thi n anon- de f

e rr a l s t a t e , s uc h a s A l a ba m a , i tm us tbe f i l e d w i thi n 180 da y s of the l as tdi sc ri m i nat ory a ct . 42 U . S . C . § 2 00 0e-5(e) (1); L edbett erv. G oo dyear T i re and R ub ber C o. , Inc. , 42 1 F . 3d 11 69 , 11 78 (11th C i r. 20 05 ) ( expl ai ni ng that A l a ba m ai s anon- de fe rr a l s t a t e ) , pe t i t i on forc e r t . f i l e d, ( U . S . F e b. 17, 2006) ( N o. 05 -107 21 ).Duri ngB aldw in’ s depo sition , pri or to which Pr

ic ehad n ot i denti fi e d N anc ea s a 6 “compa rator,”Baldwin initi ally

guessed that Nance had been hired in 2000 or 2001. Af ter Baldwin review ed Nance’ s employment rec ords, however, he determined that Nance w as hired on August 23, 1999. 15 H er e, P er sonn el M anager Bal dw i n and N ance , hi m se l f, t es t i fi ed thatN ance w as hi re d as asupervi sor i n the M ac hi ne S ho p o n A ug ust23 , 19 99 . Y ea ger w as 6 p r o m o te d b y M & H V a lv e o n O c to b e r2 9 , 2 0 0 0 . P r ic e d id n o t d id n o t f ile h is E E O C char ge un t i l M ay 1, 20 01 , 18 4 d ay s a ft erY ea ger’ s prom ot i on and m ore than 2 0 m o n th s a f

te rN a n c e ’s p r o m o tio n . T h u s , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t e rrin c o n c lu d in g th a t P r ic e fa ile d to tim e ly e x h a u s t h is a d m in is tr a tiv e r e m e d ie s a s to th e s e T itle V I I c la im s . S e e W ilk e r s o n , 2 7 0 F .3 d a t 1 3 1 7 . T o the ext entP ri ce w as re l yi ng , i nst ea d, on § 1 98 1, a pl ai nt i ff i s notre qu i re d t o exh austhi s a dm i ni stra t i ve re m edi es before fi l i ng a § 19 81 ac t i on i n federa l c our t . S e e C a l dw e l l v. N a t ’ l B r e w i ng C o. , 443 F . 2d 1044, 1046 ( 5th C i r . 1971) (hol di ng thata pl ai nt i ff

al l egi ng di sc ri m i nat ory e m pl oym entprac t i ce s w i th regard t o r a c e “ ha s a n i nde pe nde ntr e m e dy unde r§ 1981 w i thoutr e s pe c tt o e xha us t i on un der T i t l e V II ”) . N ever thel es s, P ri ce ’ s c i vi l sui tsti l l had t o b e ti m el y f i l ed. P ri ce d id n o t fil e h is civ il su itu n ti l O cto b er1 0 , 2 0 0 3 , fo u r y ea rs af ter N an ce ’s prom ot i on . P ri ce ’ s c l ai m re l ati ng t o N ance ’ s prom ot i on i n A ug ust19 99 , w as unt i m e l y , r e ga r dl e s s of

w he the rthe t w o- y e a rorthe four - y e a rs t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons i n 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 65 8 w as appl i cabl e. O n the other hand, P ri ce ’ s c l ai m i n O ct ob er16

2 0 0 3 , c h a lle n g in g Y e a g e r ’s p r o m o tio n o n O c to b e r2 9 , 2 0 0 0 , w a s u n tim e ly o n ly if th e tw o - y e a rlim ita tio n s p e r io d w a s a p p lic a b le . P r io rto 1 9 9 0 , in d e te r m in in g th e p r o p e rs ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s , fe d e r a l c o u r ts w ere t o ap p l y th e m o stan al o g o u s st at e st atu t e o f l i m i t at i o n s t o § 1 9 8 1 cl ai m s, w hi c h, i n thi s c a s e , w a s t w o y e a r s unde rA l a ba m al a w . S e e G oodm a n v. L uke ns S t ee l C o. , 48 2 U . S . 65 6, 66 0-61 , 10 7 S . C t . 26 17 , 26 20 -21, 96 L . E d. 2d 57 2 (19 87 ), s u p e r s e d e d b y s t a tu t e a s s t a t e d i n J o n e s v . R. R. D o n n e l l e y & So n s Co . , 5 4 1 U . S. 369 ( 2004) ; s e e a l s o M oor e v. L i be r ty N a t . L i fe I ns . C o. , 267 F . 3d 1209, 1219 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ( a p p ly in g A la b a m a ’s tw o - y e a rs ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s fo rp e r s o n a li nj ury t ort s t o § 19 81 cl ai m ). In 19 90 , C on gres s e nact ed § 1 65 8(a) , w hi ch cr ea t ed a defaul tfour-y ear l i m i t ati on s per i od for f eder al ca uses of ac t i on cr ea t ed af t erthat da t e . S e e 28 U . S . C . § 1658. O ne y e a rl a t e r , a s pa r tof the C i vi l R i ght s A c tof 1 9 9 1 , C o n g r e s s a m e n d e d § 1 9 8 1 to in c lu d e ac a u s e o f a c tio n fo rd is c r im in a tio n in the t e r m s a nd c ondi t i ons of e m pl oy m e nta s w e l l a s di s c r i m i na t i on i n the m a ki ng a n d e n fo r c e m e n t o f

c o n tr a c ts . S e e 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 1 . T h e S u p rem e C o u rtsu b seq u en t l y d et erm i n ed i n Jo n es v . R . R . D o n n el l ey & S on s C o. , 54 1 U . S . 36 9, 12 4 S . C t . 18 36 , 19 45 , 15 8 L . E d. 2d . 64 5 (20 04 ), that C on gres s’ s 199 0 enactm entof § 1 65 8 chang ed the l i m i t ati on s per i od t o fou r y ears fors om e c l a i m s unde r§ 1981. S e e i d. a t377- 80, 124 S . C t . a t1842- 44. T he17

S upr e m e C our ta l s o e xpl a i ne d tha t , t o the e xt e nttha tthe C i vi l R i ght s A c tof 1991 c r e a t e d n e w c a u s e s o f

a c t i o n n o tp r e v i o u s l y c o g n i z a b l e u n d e r§ 1 9 8 1 , s u c h c l a i ms ar e s ubj ec tt o the four-y ear “ ca t ch-a l l ” s t atut e of l i m i t ati on s of § 16 58 . S ee i d. at 3 8 0 - 8 3 , 1 2 4 S .C t. a t 1 8 4 4 - 4 5 . W e , th e r e fo r e , m u s t d e te r m in e w h e th e rP r ic e ’s § 1 9 8 1 c la im w a s c o g n iz a b le before the ef

fe cti ve dat e of the four-y ear “ ca t ch-a l l ” s t atut e of l i m i t ati on s und er § 1658, a nd, thus , s ubj e c tt o the t w o- y e a rl i m i t a t i on pe r i od. U nde rP a tt e r s on v. M cL ea n C re di tU ni on , 49 1 U . S . 16 4, 10 9 S . C t . 23 63 , 10 5 L . E d. 2d 13 2 (19 89 ), s u p e r s e d e d b y s t a tu t e a s s t a t e d i n J o n e s v . R. R. D o n n e l l e y & So n s Co . , 5 4 1 U . S. 3 6 9 ( 2 0 0 4 ) , w h ic h a p p lie d to § 1 9 8 1 b e fo r e th e a m e n d m e n ts c o n ta in e d in th e C iv il R i ght s A c tof

1991, afa i l ur e - t o- pr om ot e c l a i m w a s a c t i ona bl e unde r§ 1981 i f the pr om ot i on r os e “ t o the l e ve l of a n oppor tuni ty forane w a nd di s t i nc tr e l a t i on b et w een th e em p l o yee an d th e em p l o yer. ” Id . at1 8 5 , 1 0 9 S . C t . at2 3 7 7 . B ecau se P ri ce w as as se rti ng thatM & H V al ve fa i l ed t o p rom ot e hi m beca use of hi s r ac e, w e co n cl u d e th ath i s § 1 9 8 1 cl ai m s w ere co g n i zab l e u n d er P att erso n an d , th u s, t i m e-b arred u n d er A l ab am a’ s t w o -year st atu t e o f l i m i t at i o n s. T o th e e x te n t P r ic e a ls o is c o n te n d in g th a t th e s e b a r s w e r e in a p p lic a b le beca use he w as al l egi ng a “ cont i nu i ng vi ol ati on , ” i n d et er m i ni ng w hether a d i s c r i m i n a t o r y e m p l o y m e n tp r a c t i c e c o n s t i tu t e s a“ c o n t i n u i n g v i o l a t i o n , ” weB e c aus ePric edidno t identi fy Nanc ea s a

“ c omp arator” prior

to f ili nghis re sp on seto 7 M &H V ale ’s supp lemental mo tio n f or su mma ry judg ment, there c ord d oe s n ot c ontain evidenc e reflec ting whether Priceestablished a prima fac ie ca se in relation to Nance. H owever, beca use M &H Valveobjected to Priceraisingthis claim for the fir st tim e in his brief opposing summary judgment, this claim was due to be dismissed, see Gilmour v. Gates, McD onald and Co., 382 F.3d 1312, 1314 (11th Cir. 2004) (ex plaining that the liberal pleading standard under Fe d.R.Civ.P . 8(a) (2) doe s not afford plaintiffs with an opportunity to raise new claims at summary judgment); see also St eg er v. General Elec . Co., 318 F.3d 1066, 1077 &n.11 (11th Cir. 2003) (ex plaining that, although issues not raised in the pleading s may be tre ated a s if they

were properly raised when they

either a re “tried by

express or implied consent of the pa rties,” or “are inc lude d ina

pretrial order, ” the see xcepti on s a reno t app lic ableif

an opp os ingpa

rty ob je c ts to the assertion of such a c laim without the filing of a supplemental pleading) . 18 “ di sti ng ui sh[] bet w ee n the pres entconsequence of a one t i m e vi ol ati on , w hi ch do es note xt e nd the l i m i t a t i ons pe r i od, a nd the c ont i nua t i on of tha tvi ol a t i on i nt o the pr e s e nt , w hi c h doe s . ” S e e C i ty of H i a l e a h, F l a . v. R oj a s , 311 F . 3d 1096, 1101 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). M o re o v er , th e S u p re m e C o u rt h as ex p lain ed th at an em p lo ye r’s fa i l ure t o p rom ot e i s adi sc re t e a ctor si ng l e occ urre nce. S ee N at ’ l R . R . P as se ng er C orp. v. M or ga n, 536 U . S . 101, 114, 112 S . C t . 2061, 2073, 153 L . E d. 2d 106 (2 0 0 2 ). T h u s, th is d o ctrin e o f “co n ti n u in g v io lati o n ” w as n o t ap p li ca b le to P rice ’s fa ilu r e - to - p r o m o te c la im s . E ve n i f w e w e r e t o c onc l ude tha tP r i c e ’ s fa i l ur e - t o- pr om ot e c l a i m s w e r e not barr ed by hi s fai l ure t o t i m el y e xh austhi s a dm i ni stra t i ve re m edi es un der T i t l e V II a nd hi s unt i m e l y f

i l i ng of hi s § 1981 a c t i on, the di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rri n gr a nt i ng M & H V al ve sum m ar y j ud gm entas t o these cl ai m s a s they r el at ed t o Y ea ger. 7 S e e J o h n s o n v . B d . o f

R e g e n ts o f

U n iv . o f G a ., 2 6 3 F .3 d 1 2 3 4 , 1 2 5 1 n .1 7 ( 1 1 thB e c aus e§ 1 98 1 andTi tleVII sh arethesamerequirements of proo f andus ethesame 8 analytical framework, w e apply case s from both bodies of lawinterchang eably and conc lude that Price failed to satisfy

his burden of proof under both provisions. S ee Shields v. Fort J ames Corp., 305 F.3d 1280, 1282- 83 (11th Cir. 2002) (a pplying this parallel treatment and conc luding that, under b othTi tleVII and§ 1 98 1, c laims of

ho sti lework

env ironment h aveto b ereviewe d in their entirely , so long a s at least one event comprisingit fell within the limitations period). 19 C i r . 2001) ( e xpl a i ni ng tha t , “ [ w ] he n r e vi e w i ng agr a ntof s um m a r y j udgm e nt , the c our tof a ppe a l s m a y a f

f i r m i f the r e e xi s t s a ny a de qua t e gr ound fordoi ng s o, re gardl es s of w hether i ti s the on e on w hi ch the di stri ctcourtre l i ed”) . W e r evi ew 8 de no vo the grantof a m ot i on for s um m ar y j ud gm ent . C ot t on v. C ra ckerB arre l O l d C ou ntry S t ore, Inc. , 43 4 F . 3d 12 27 , 12 30 (11th C i r. 20 06 ). S um m ar y j u d g m en ti s ap p ro p ri at e “ i f th e p l ead i n g s, d ep o si t i o n s, an sw ers t o i n t erro g at o ri es, a nd a dm i s s i ons on f

i l e , t oge the rw i th the a f

f i da vi t s , i f

a ny , s how tha tthe r e i s no g e n u in e is s u e a s to a n y m a te r ia l fa c t a n d th a t th e m o v in g p a r ty is e n title d to j udgm e nta s am a tt e rof l a w . ” F e d. R . C i v. P . 56© ) . T o s ur vi ve am ot i on for su m m ar y ju d g m en t, th e n o n m o v in g p ar ty m u st d em o n stra te th at th er e is “ a g e n u in e is s u e fo rtr ia l.” M a ts u s h itaE le c . I n d u s . C o ., L td . v . Z e n ith R a d io C o rp ., 47 5 U . S . 57 4, 58 6, 10 6 S . C t . 13 48 , 13 56 , 89 L . E d. 2d 53 8 (19 86 ). T i t l e V II proh i bi t s e m pl oyer s f rom di sc ri m i nat i ng “ agai nstany i nd i vi du al w ith r e s p e c t to h is c o m p e n s a tio n , te r m s , c o n d itio n s , o rp r iv ile g e s o f e m p lo y m e n t, be c a us e of

s uc h i ndi vi dua l ’ s r a c e , c ol or , r e l i gi on, s e x, orna t i ona l or i gi n. ” 42 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 e - 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) . W h e r e d ir e c t e v id e n c e o f d is c r im in a tio n isTheSupremeCourt set out this thre e -p art

burden- shif

tin gframe work

in M c Do nn e ll 9 Doug las Corp. v. Gre en, 411 U.S. 792, 802-03, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 1824, 36 L .Ed.2d 668 (1973), and Texas Dept. of CommunityAffairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 254-55, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 1093, 67 L .Ed.2d 207 (1981). 20 una va i l a bl e — a s w a s the c a s e he r e — apl a i nt i f f , ne ve r the l e s s , m a y pr e s e nt c ir c u m s ta n tia l e v id e n c e o f d is c r im in a tio n s u f

f ic ie n t to c r e a te aju r y q u e s tio n . S i l ve r av. O r a nge C ounty S c hool B d. , 244 F . 3d 1253, 1258 ( 11th C i r . 2001) . F or c l a i m s ba s e d on c i r c um s t a nt i a l e vi de nc e , the pl a i nt i f f be a r s the i ni t i a l bur de n of e s ta b lis h in g ap r im afa c ie c a s e o f d is c r im in a tio n . I d . I f

th e p la in tif

f is s u c c e s s f

u l, the de fe nda ntm us t“ a r t i c ul a t e s om e l e gi t i m a t e , nondi s c r i m i na t or y r e a s on forthe [ a d v e r s e e m p lo y m e n t a c tio n ].” I d . T h e p la in tif f th e n m a y a tte m p t to d e m o n s tr a te tha tthe pr of

fe r e d r e a s on w a s , i n fa c t , m e r e l y pr e t e xtforthe de fe nda nt ’ s a c t s . I d. 9 “T h e u ltim a te b u r d e n o f p e r s u a d in g th e tr ie ro f

fa c t th a t th e d e fe n d a n t in te n tio n a lly d is c r im in a te d a g a in s t th e p la in tif f r e m a in s a t a ll tim e s w ith th e p la in tif f .” I d . “A p la in tif

f e s ta b lis h e s ap r im afa c ie c a s e o f d is c r im in a to r y fa ilu r e to prom ot e by s ho w i ng that(1) he i s am em ber of aprot ec t ed cl as s; (2) he w as q u a lif ie d a n d a p p lie d fo rth e p r o m o tio n , ( 3 ) h e w a s r e je c te d d e s p ite h is qua l i f i c a t i ons , a nd ( 4) othe re qua l l y orl e s s qua l i f i e d e m pl oy e e s w ho w e r e not m e m b e r s o f

th e p r o te c te d c la s s w e r e p r o m o te d . W ils o n v . B /E A e r o s p a c e , I n c ., 37 6 F . 3d 10 79 , 10 89 (11th C i r. 20 04 ). U nd erthe se cond pron g— the on l y one at issu e h er e— a T itle V II p lain ti ff n ee d o n ly sh o w th at h e s atisfied th e e m p lo ye r’s21

obj e c t i ve qua l i f

i c a t i ons . V e s s e l s v. A t l a nt aI nde pe nde ntS c hool S y s t e m , 408 F . 3d 7 6 3 , 7 6 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . M o r e o v e r , w h e r e a n e m p lo y e rd o e s n o t fo r m a lly anno un ce a posi t i on , bu tra ther use s i nform al and subj ec t i ve procedures t o i dent i fy ac a ndi da t e , s uc h a s i n the i ns t a ntc a s e , apl a i nt i f f “ ne e d nots how unde rthe s e c ond p r o n g th a t h e a p p lie d fo rth e p o s itio n — o n ly th a t th e e m p lo y e rh a d s o m e r e a s o n to consi der hi m for the po st . ” I d. at76 8. H er e, M & H V al ve di d n otshow thati thad obj e c t i ve c r i t e r i atha ti s us e d i n m a ki ng pr om ot i ons , a tl e a s tdur i ng the r e l e va nt tim e p e r io d d u r in g w h ic h P r ic e b e lie v e d d is c r im in a to r y p r o m o tio n s o c c u rr e d . M oreover, B al dw i n con fi rm ed that , al tho ug h h e di d n otkn ow i f P ri ce everhad been consi dere d for a s up er vi sory po si t i on , B al dw i n k new thatP ri ce had d i spl ay ed in te r e s t in s u c h p o s itio n s . H o w e v e r , a s s u mi n g fo rp u rp o s e s o f a r g u me n tth a tPr i c e e s t a b l i s h e d ap r i ma fa ci e c l ai m of fa i l ure t o p rom ot e, he fa i l ed t o sho w thatM & H V al ve’ s proff er ed non- di s c r i m i na t or y r e a s ons fornotpr om ot i ng hi m w e r e pr e t e xtua l . I n de t e r m i ni ng p ret ex t , w e ev al u at e w h eth er th e p l ai n t i ff d em o n strat ed “ su ch w eak n esses, im p lau sib il ities, in co n sisten cies , i n co h er en cies , o r c o n trad icti o n s in th e e m p lo ye r’s pr of fe r e d l e gi t i m a t e r e a s ons fori t s a c t i on tha tar e a s ona bl e fa c t f i nde rc oul d f

i nd the m unw or thy of

c r e de nc e . ” C om bs v. P l a nt a t i on P a tt e r ns , 106 F . 3d 1519, 1538 ( 11th C i r . 1997) ( quot a t i on om i tt e d) . “ I f the pl a i nt i f

f doe s notpr of

fe rs uf f i c i e ntWe note that, to the extent we have ex plained in the past that the plaintiff must adduce 10 ev i d en ceth atth e di s p ari ty i nqu al i fi cati o n s wa s “s oap p aren tas v irtu al l y toj u mpo ff

th e p age and slap you in the fac e,” se e Wilson, 376 F.3d at 1090, the Supreme Court recently has clarified, without offeringan alternative standa rd of review, that an employer’ s stated re asons for an alleg edly

discriminatory

hiringdecision nee d not “jump off the pag e and sla p you in the fac e” to be considered pretextual, seeAsh v. Ty son Foods, Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 1195, 1197- 98, ___ L .Ed.2d ___ (Feb. 21, 2006). TheCourt also discussed that “qualifications evidenc e may suffice , at least in some circumstance s, to show pretext.” See Ash, U.S. at , 126 S.Ct. at 1197. 22 e vi de nc e t o c r e a t e age nui ne i s s ue of m a t e r i a l fa c tr e ga r di ng w he the re a c h of the defe nd ant ’ s arti cul at ed re as on s i s pre t extual , the [defe nd ant ] i s e nt i t l ed t o sum m ar y j udgm e nt . ” C ha pm a n v. A I T r a ns por t , 229 F . 3d 1012, 1024- 25 ( 11th C i r . 2000) (e n b anc) (di sc ussi ng pret exti n con t extof age and di sabi l i ty di sc ri m i nat i on ). B e c a us e a n e m pl oy e rm a y us e l e gi t i m a t e , non- di s c r i m i na t or y s ubj e c t i ve fa ct ors i n i t s dec i si on -m aki ng , w e “ ha[ve] re fuse d t o ado pta l ow erst andard w hen em p l o yers u se su bj ect i v e cri t eri a. ” W i l so n , 3 7 6 F . 3 d at1 0 8 8 . A p l ai n t i ff al so c a nnotpr ove pr e t e xtm e r e l y by a s s e r t i ng tha the w a s be tt e rqua l i f i e d tha n the pers on w ho re ce i ved the po si t i on ati ss ue. Id. at10 90 . W e “ m ustno tj ud ge w hi ch em pl oyee w as m ore qual i fi ed, bu tdet er m i ne w hether a ny di spar i ty i s s o g re atthat ar e a s ona bl e fa c t - f

i nde rc oul d i nfe rtha t[ the e m pl oy e r ] di d notbe l i e ve ” tha tthe com para t or w as bett erqu al i fi ed. Id. (quo t ati on s a nd m arks om i tt ed). M oreover, 10 “ap la in tif

f e m p lo y e e m a y n o t e s ta b lis h th a t a n e m p lo y e r ’s p r o f fe r e d r e a s o n is pret extual m er el y by questi on i ng the w i sdom of the em pl oyer ’ s r ea son, ” a s l on g as “th e r e a s o n is o n e th a t m ig h t m o tiv a te ar e a s o n a b le e m p lo y e r .” P e n n in g to n v . C ity23

o f H u n ts v ille , 2 6 1 F .3 d 1 2 6 2 , 1 2 6 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ; s e e a ls o R o w e ll v . B e llS o u th C orp. , 433 F . 3d 794, 798- 99 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( e xpl a i ni ng tha t“ [ i ] ti s by now a xi om a t i c tha tw e c a nnots e c ond- gue s s the bus i ne s s de c i s i ons of a n e m pl oy e r , ” a nd th a t th e e m p lo y e r ’s u s e o f c o m p e te n c y fa c to r s d id n o t d e m o n s tr a te in te n t to di sc ri m i nat e bas ed on age) . A pp l yi ng thi s a nal ys i s t o the i nst antfa ct s, al tho ug h “ qu al i fi ca t i on s e vi dence m ay suff i ce , atl ea sti n som e c i rc um st ance s, t o sho w pret ext , ” s ee A sh, __ _ U . S . at

_ _ _ , 1 2 6 S . C t . at1 1 9 7 , ev i d en ce reflecti n g th atP ri ce w as su b st an t i al l y l ess q u alified th an Y ea g erfo r th e C N C S u p er v iso r p o siti o n in clu d ed F u lm er ’s de pos i t i on t e s t i m ony tha tY e a ge rul t i m a t e l y w a s hi r e d ba s e d on hi s e xt e ns i ve know l e dge of

C N C m a c hi ne s , hi s t e n y e a r s ’ e xpe r i e nc e ope r a t i ng a nd s e tt i ng up these m ac hi nes, and h i s fou r y ears ’ supervi sory experi ence . P ri ce , on the other hand , conceded du ri ng hi s deposi t i on thathe had n o sup er vi sory experi ence . P r i c e a l s o d i d n o ts h o w th a th e e v e ro p e r a t e d , m u c h l e s s s e tu p , aC NC m a c h in e p r io rto Y e a g e r ’s p r o m o tio n . M o r e o v e r , to th e e x te n t th a t P r ic e is c ont e ndi ng tha the tr a i ne d m a ny M & H V a l ve e m pl oy e e s , a nd he “ kne w the pl a nt a s w e ll a s a n y o n e , a s h e h a d b e e n o n e o f th e irlo n g e rte r m e m p lo y e e s ,” h e fa ile d to s how tha tM & H V a l ve ’ s r e a s on be hi nd i t s pr om ot i on of Y e a ge rw a s notar e a s on “th a t m ig h t m o tiv a te ar e a s o n a b le e m p lo y e r .” S e e P e n n in g to n , 2 6 1 F .3 d a t 1 2 6 7 .To the extent Price is arguing f or the fir st tim e on appe al that “racial slurs” that he 11 pre vious ly

alle g e d c on sti tute d retaliatio n w a s dire c t evidenc eof dis c ri min atory

intent, wealso will not address this newly raised c laim on appeal. See Acc ess Now, 385 F .3d at 1331.

24 T hus , e ve n i f

P r i c e ’ s c l a i m of

fa i l ur e t o pr om ot e a s i tr e l a t e d t o Y e a ge rw a s not tim e - b a rr e d , a n d e v e n a s s u m in g P r ic e e s ta b lis h e d ap r im afa c ie c a s e , h e fa ile d to sh o w th at g en u in e iss u es o f m ater ial fac t ex isted as to w h eth erM & H V alv e’s no n-di sc ri m i nat ory r ea sons for notprom ot i ng hi m w er e pre t extual and that s um m a r y j udgm e ntw a s notw a rr a nt e d. 11 I s s ue 2 : Pr i c e ’ s c l a i m o f di s pa r a t e i m pa c ti n t r a i ni ng P r i c e a l s o a r gue s on a ppe a l tha the pr of fe r e d s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e of di spar at e i m pactbase d o n M & H V al ve’ s fai l ure t o tra i n A fr i ca n-A m er i ca n e m p lo y e e s . P r ic e c o n te n d s th a t, a lth o u g h tr a in in g is “n e c e s s a r y fo ra d v a n c e m e n t” a tM & H Va l v e , h e h a s n o tb e e n o f fe r e d a n y tr a i n i n g . He a l s o a s s e r t s th a tM & H V al v e’ s cu rren tsu p erv i so ry-trai n i n g p ro g ram h as a d i scri m i n at o ry i m p actb ecau se (1) non e of the curre ntsupervi sors had t o m ee tthe prog ra m ’ s e du ca t i on al req u i rem en t s, (2 ) th e p ro g ram d o es n o ti n cl u d e an y A fri can -A m eri can em p l o yees, a n d ( 3 ) M & H V a lv e fa ile d to c o n d u c t as tu d y a s to w h e th e rth e p r o g r a m is r e a s o n a b ly r e la te d to th e r e q u ir e m e n ts o f s u p e r v is o r y p o s itio n s a t M & H V a lv e . A s d i scu ssed ab o v e, a p l ai n t i ff p u rsu i n g a T i t l e V II d i scri m i n at i o n cl ai m fi rst m us te xha us thi s a dm i ni s tr a t i ve r e m e di e s , i nc l udi ng f i l i ng at i m e l y c ha r ge ofThepurp os eof thi s re quirement i s th at theEE OC“ sh ou ld h avethefirs t opportunity to 12 investigate the alleg ed discriminatory prac tices to permit it to perform its role in obtaining voluntary complianceand promotingconciliation ef forts.” SeeGre g ory , 355 F.3d at 1279. Additionally , the cha

rg e re quirement serves to notify the employer of

the alleg ations made ag ainst it. S ee Wilkerson, 270 F .3d at 1319. 25 d i s c r i mi n a t i o n w i th th e EEO C. Se e W i l k e r s o n , 2 7 0 F. 3 d a t1 3 1 7 ; 4 2 U . S. C. § 2 00 0e-5(b). A dd i t i on al l y, al tho ug h w e m ustl i bera l l y c on strue E E O C char ges tha ta r e pr e pa r e d w i thoutthe a s s i s t a nc e of c ouns e l , apl a i nt i f

f i s pr e c l ude d f

r om r a i s i ng a l l e ga t i ons i n ac i vi l a c t i on unl e s s the y a r e r e a s ona bl y r e l a t e d t o the unde r l y i ng c ha r ge s r a i s e d be for e the E E O C . S e e G r e gor y v. G e or gi aD e pt . of H u m an R es o u rc es , 3 5 5 F .3 d 1 2 7 7 , 1 2 8 0 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ) ( ex p lain in g th at “a pl a i nt i f f ’ s j udi c i a l c om pl a i nti s l i m i t e d by the s c ope of the E E O C i nve s t i ga t i on w hi ch ca n rea sonabl y be e xp ec t ed t o g row ou tof the charge of di sc ri m i nat i on ”) . 12 A l though j udi c i a l c l a i m s tha t“ a m pl i f y , c l a r i f y , orm or e c l e a r l y foc us ” the a lle g a tio n s in th e E E O C c h a r g e a r e p e r m itte d , ap la in tif f m a y n o t a lle g e in h is c o m p la in t n e w a c ts o f

d is c r im in a tio n . S e e id . a t 1 1 7 9 - 8 0 . I n the i ns t a ntc a s e , P r i c e ’ s E E O C c ha r ge i nc l ude d tha tM & H V a l ve ( 1 ) d e n ie d h im th e o p p o r tu n ity to a p p ly fo ras u p e r v is o r y p o s itio n b e c a u s e o f h is r a c e by fa i l i ng t o a dve r t i s e va c a nts upe r vi s or y pos i t i ons a nd by pr om ot i ng C a uc a s i a n e m pl oy e e s , i ns t e a d of m or e qua l i f

i e d A f r i c a n- A m e r i c a n e m pl oy e e s ; a nd ( 2) s ubj e c t e d hi m a nd othe rA f r i c a n- A m e r i c a n e m pl oy e e s t o ha r a s s m e ntthr ough26

ra cial slu rs , j o k es , an d d iffe re n ce s in trea tm en t. P rice ’s claim th at M & H V alv e’s supervi sory -tra i ni ng prog ra m had a di spar at e i m pacton i t s A fr i ca n-A m er i ca n e m pl oy e e s di d not“ a m pl i f y ” or“ c l a r i f

y ” the pr e vi ous a l l e ga t i ons , nordi d i t“ gr ow ou tof the previ ou s c l ai m s. ” M oreover, the re cord do es no tre fl ec tthatP ri ce a tte m p te d to a m e n d o ru p d a te h is E E O C c h a r g e . S e e G r e g o r y , 3 5 5 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 0 . T hu s, w e c on cl ud e thatP ri ce al so fa i l ed t o exh austhi s a dm i ni stra t i ve re m edi es as to h is c la im o f

d is p a r a te im p a c t. E ve n i f w e w e r e t o c onc l ude tha tP r i c e e xha us t e d hi s a dm i ni s tr a t i ve re m edi es , the di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr i n g ra nt i ng M & H V al ve sum m ar y j ud gm entas t o thi s c l ai m . T he theory of di spar at e i m pact“ proh i bi t s neutra l em pl oym entprac t i ce s w hi ch, w hi l e non -di sc ri m i nat ory on thei r fac e, vi si tan ad v er se , d isp ro p o rtio n ate im p ac t o n a s tatu to rily-p ro tected g ro u p .” E E O C v . Jo e’s S to n e C r a b , I n c ., 2 2 0 F .3 d 1 2 6 3 , 1 2 7 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . T o e s ta b lis h ap r im afa c ie ca se of di spar at e- i m pactdi sc ri m i nat i on , a pl ai nt i ff m ustdem on stra t e ( 1) a s peci fi c, fa c i a l l y - ne utr a l e m pl oy m e ntpr a c t i c e , ( 2) as i gni f i c a nts t a t i s t i c a l di s pa r i ty i n the ra ci al com po si t i on of em pl oyee s benef i tt i ng fr om the practi ce and tho se qu al i fi ed t o b enef i tfr om the practi ce ; and (3) a causal nexu s bet w ee n the practi ce i dent i fi ed and the st ati sti ca l di spar i ty. C oo per v. S ou thern C o. , 39 0 F . 3d 69 5, 71 6 (11 th C i r. 2004) , c e r t . de ni e d, 126 S . C t . 478 ( 2005) . A s s um i ng tha tP r i c e i de nt i f i e d a27

“ spec i fi c, fa ci al l y- neutra l em pl oym entprac t i ce , ” he fai l ed t o d em on stra t e a s t a t i s t i c a l di s pa r i ty i n the r a c i a l c om pos i t i on of e m pl oy e e s be ne f

i tt i ng f r om the p r a c tic e a n d th o s e q u a lif ie d to b e n e f

it f r o m th e p r a c tic e . S e e W a ts o n v . F o r t W o r th B a nk a nd T r us t , 487 U . S . 977, 996- 97, 108 S . C t . 2777, 2790, 101 L . E d. 2d 827 ( 1 9 8 8 ) ( h o ld in g th a t “s ta tis tic s b a s e d o n a n a p p lic a n t p o o l c o n ta in in g in d iv id u a ls la c k in g m in im a l q u a lif

ic a tio n s fo rth e jo b w o u ld b e o f little p r o b a tiv e v a lu e ” ) . T h u s , P r ic e c o u ld n o t e s ta b lis h ap r im afa c ie c a s e o f d is p ar a te im p a c t in tr a in in g . F in a lly , to th e e x te n t P r ic e w a s r e ly in g o n § 1 9 8 1 , w e h a v e e x p la in e d th a t, be c a us e § 1981 l i a bi l i ty m us tbe founde d on purpos e f ul di s c r i m i na t i on, as how i ng of di spar at e i m pactthrou gh a neutra l prac t i ce al on e i s i nsuffi ci entt o p rove a § 1 98 1 v i ol ati on . S ee F erri l l v. P arker G roup , Inc. , 16 8 F . 3d 46 8, 47 2 (11 th C i r. 1999) . T hus , onl y di r e c tori nfe r e nt i a l m ode s of pr ovi ng i nt e nt i ona l di s c r i m i na t i on a r e a v a ila b le to th e § 1 9 8 1 p la in tif f , a n d th e d is tr ic t c o u r t a ls o d id n o t e rrin c o n c lu d in g th a t s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t w a s w a rr a n te d a s to P r ic e ’s c la im o f d is p a r a te im p a c t u n d e r§ 1 9 8 1 . A c c or di ngl y , w e c onc l ude tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rri n gr a nt i ng s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t a s to P r ic e ’s T itle V I I c la im s o f d is c r im in a to r y fa ilu r e to p r o mo t e a n d d i s p a r a t e i mp a c ti n tr a i n i n g . W e , th e r e fo r e , a f f i r m. AF F I RME D.