FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T MAY 31, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 14 22 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 3 :0 8- cv -0 11 96 -HLA-MCR
GEORGE SMITH,
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,

ve rs us
INTEGRATED COMMUNITY ONCOLOGY NETW ORK, LLC,
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t for th e Mi dd le Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma y 31 , 20 11 )
Befo re EDMONDSON, MARCUS an d P RYOR, Ci rcu it Ju dg es
. PER CURI AM:
Geo rg e Sm it h, who is ov er t he ag e o f 50 , a pp eal s th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of

su m m ary jud gm en t in fav or of In te gr at ed Co m m un it y Onc ol og y Netwo rk (“ ICON”)in hi s em

pl oym en t di sc riminat io n a c t i o n un de r th e Age Dis cri m in at io n in

Em pl o ym en t Act (“ ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 62 3( a)(1 ). Sm it h arg ue s th at th e di st ric t

co ur t erred in gr an ti ng ICON’s m ot io n for su m m ary jud gm en t beca us e he m ad e ou t

a pr im a faci e cas e of ag e di sc riminat io n an d be cau se he sh owe d th at ICON’s

art ic ul at ed reas on s fo r di sc ha rg in g hi m were a pr et ex t fo r di sc riminat io n. Afte r
th or ou gh rev ie w, we affi rm
.

“ W e rev ie w de no vo a di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t, ap pl y in g th e

sa m e le ga l st an da rd s as th e di st ric t co ur t.” Ch ap m an v. AI Tran sp or t, 22 9 F.3 d 10 12 , 10 23 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 00 ) (en ba nc ). “ [S]um m ary jud gm en t is ap pr op ria te if th e ev id en ce
be fo re th e co ur t sh ows th at th ere is no ge nu in e is su e as to an y m at eri al fact .” Id

. ( q u o t a t i on om it te d)

. In m ak in g th is de te rm in at io n, we “ m ak e al l reas on ab le
in fere nc es in fav or of th e” no nm ov in g pa rty. Id

. (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. “ [W] e m ay
affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t on an y gr ou nd th at ap pe ars in th e reco rd , whe th er or no t th at

gr ou nd was rel ie d up on or ev en co ns id ered by th e co ur t be lo w.” Ro well v. Bel lS ou th
Co rp ., 43 3 F .3d 79 4, 7 97 -9 8 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) (qu ot at io n o m it te d)

. A pl ai nt iff

can est ab li sh a pr im a fac ie cas e of ag e di sc riminat io n b y sh owi ng

“ th at he (1 ) w a s a m em

be r of th e pr ot ect ed ag e gr ou p, (2 ) was su bjec t to ad ve rs e

em pl oym en t act io n, (3 ) was qu al ifi ed to do th e job , an d (4 ) was rep la ced by a y ou ng er
in di vi du al .” Ben so n v. Toc co , In c., 11 3 F.3 d 12 03 , 12 07 -0 8 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 97 ) (ci ta ti on

2om it te d)

. How e v e r , w h ere th e pl ai nt iff ’s po si ti on was el im in at ed , he can pr ov e a

pr im a fac ie cas e (1 ) by de m on s t r a t in g th at he was in a pr ot ect ed ag e gr ou p an d was di sc ha rg ed , (2 ) by sh owi ng th at he was qu al ifi ed fo r an ot he r po si ti on at th e ti m e of di sc ha rg e, an d (3 ) by pr od uc in g ci rcu m st a n t i a l o r di rect ev id en ce by whi ch a fact fin de r m ig h t reas on ab ly co nc lu de th at th e em pl oyer in te nd e d t o d is cri m in at e on th e ba si s of ag e in reac hi ng th e de ci si on no t t o p la ce h im in th at ot he r po si ti on
. Mi tc he ll v. W or ld wid e Und erwri te rs In s. Co ., 96 7 F.2 d 56 5, 56 7- 68 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 92 ).
If a pl ai nt iff es ta bl is he s a pr im a faci e cas e of di sc riminat io n, an d th e de fen da nt

“ art ic ul at e[s ] a le gi ti m at e, no nd is cri m in at or y reas on fo r th e” di sc ha rg e, th e pl ai nt iff

m us t pr od uc e su ffi ci en t ev id en c e , i n c l ud in g ev id en ce it pr of fere d to es ta bl is h it s
pr im a faci e cas e, “ to pe rm it a reas on ab le fact fin de r to co nc lu de th at th e reas on s gi ve n by th e em pl oyer were no t th e real reas on s fo r th e” di sc ha rg e. Ch ap m an , 22 9 F.3 d at
10 24 (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. “ A pl ai nt iff is no t al lo wed to reca st an em pl oyer’s

pr of f e r e d no nd is cri m in at or y reas on s or su bs ti tu te hi s bu si ne ss jud gm en t fo r th at of
th e em pl oyer.” Id

. at 10 30

. Ra t he r, th e pl ai nt iff m us t sh ow “ su ch weak ne ss es , im pl au si bi li ti es , in co ns is te nc ie s, i nc oh eren ci es , or c on tra di ct io ns in th e em pl oyer’s

pr of fere d le gi ti m at e reas on s
. . . th at a reas on ab le fact fin de r co ul d fin d th em un wor th y

o f cred en ce.” Co m

bs v. Pl an ta ti on Pat te rn s, 10 6 F.3 d 15 19 , 15 38 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 97 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

.

3Here, Sm it h di d no t e st ab li sh a pr im a faci e cas e of ag e di sc riminat io n un de r

Ben so n or un de r Mi tc he ll

. The reco rd sh ows th at Dan ie l Tay lo r, th e em pl oyee Sm it h
al le ge d rep la ced hi m , ha d di st in ct job du ti es fro m Sm it h -- sp eci fic al ly, whi le Sm it h
di d ha ve so m e ex pe rie nc e wor ki ng w i t h an el ect ro ni c m ed ic al reco rd s (“ EMR”)
syste m , he pr ov id ed n o ev id en ce to di sp ut e th e te st im on y th at th is ex pe rie nc e

co ns is te d on ly of pr od uc in g de sk to p sh or tc ut s to th e EM R ’s w e b s it e, whe reas Tay lo r’s job , on th e ot he r h a n d , c o n s is te d of im pl em en ti ng th e EMR, in cl ud in g

se tt in g up th e Ci tri x se rv er f o r t h e EM R

. The refo re, Sm it h was no t “ rep la ced by a

y ou ng er in di vi du al .” Ben so n, 11 3 F.3 d at 12 08

. Fu r t h e r mo r e , Sm it h was no t

qu al ifi ed for an av ai la bl e p os it io n a t ICON whe n he was di sc ha rg ed . See Mi tc he ll , 96 7 F .2d at 5 67

. Howev er, as su m in g arg ue nd o th at Sm it h ha d es ta bl is he d a pr im a faci e cas e of
di sc riminat io n, he st il l di d no t sh ow th at ICON’s art ic ul at ed reas on s fo r di sc ha rg in g
hi m -- th at he di d no t ha ve th e sk il ls ne ces sa ry to im pl eme n t a n e l ect ro ni c m ed ic al

reco rd s syste m an d th at ICON’s Bo ard of Dire ct or s wou ld no t ap pr o v e h i r in g an
ad di ti on al em

pl oyee to im

pl em en t th at syste m -- were pr et ex t fo r ag e di sc riminat io n.
As th e reco rd sh ows , Tay lo r di d no t la ck th e ex pe rie nc e ICON cl ai m ed was ne ces sa ry
fo r th e EMR p os it io n, th e ev id en ce su pp or te d ICON’s go od fai th be li ef t ha t Taylor

wa s i n f a c t more qu al ifi ed fo r th e EMR po si ti on th an Sm it h, an d Sm it h of fere d no

4ev id en ce to sh o w h o w t h e su bs eq ue nt hi rin g of ad di ti on al em pl oyees rel at ed to hi s

own di sc ha rg e. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm
. AFFIRMED.

5