FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 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. 07- 10863 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 05 -022 21 -C V -C C H -1 S H E R E C A A N D E R S O N , S A N D Y N E V E T T , S T E P H A N I E R I C H A R D S O N , P la in tif f s - A p p e lla n ts , v ersu s U N I T E D P A R C E L S E R V I C E , I N C ., 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 N o r th e r n D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 11, 2007) B efo re M A R C U S , W IL S O N an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A ppe l l a nt s S he r e c a A nde r s on, S a ndy N eve tt , a nd S t e pha ni e R i c ha r ds on ap p e a l f r o m a m a g i s tr a te ju d g e ’s e n try o f s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t in f a v o ro f th e irThe pa rties consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by

a mag istrate judg e pursua nt to 28 1 U.S.C. 636(c). Inad di t i o n , Ap p el l ant s s u gges t , wi th o utfurth er el ab o rat i o n , th atth e m agi s trat e j u dge 2 misapplied the fra

mework f or their Title VIIclaims, as stated in McD onnell Doug las Corp. v. Gre e n, 41 1 U .S. 79 2 ( 19 73 ), and “ a pp lie d a sta nd ard oth e r t ha n th at sp e c if

ic a lly and so meticulously

laid out in [ that case ].” They also cite, without any

acc ompanying le g al argument or factual compa

rison to the instant case, our unpublished decision in Hornev Turner Constr. C o . , 1 3 6 F e d
. Ap p x . 2 8 9 ( 1 1 thC i r . Jun e2 1 , 2 0 0 5 ) , f o r th ep ro p o s i t i o nth atana dm i s s i o nb y a party opponent is admissible as an exception to the hea rsay rule. Appe llants have not sufficiently

briefe d these issues, and thus they aredeeme d abandone d. See Ac cess Now , Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1330 (11th Cir. 2004). 2 em pl oyer , U ni t ed P ar ce l S ervi ce , Inc. (“ U P S ”) , i n t hei r a ct i on al l egi ng ra ce d is c r im in a tio n , in v io la tio n o f T itle V I I o f

th e C iv il R ig h ts A c t o f 1 9 6 4 ( “T itle V I I ” ) , 4 2 U .S .C . § § 2 0 0 0 e - 2 ( a ) , 3 ( a ) , a n d 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 1 . O n ap p e a l, 1 A p p el l an t s arg u e th e m ag i strat e j u d g e erred b y fi n d i n g th atth ey fai l ed t o est ab l i sh a pri m a f

ac i e c as e of di sc ri m i nat i on because l ow Q ual i ty P er fo rm ance R evi ew ( “ Q PR” ) s c or e s d i d n o tq u a l i f y a s a d v e r s e e mp l o y me n ta c t i o n s . Th e y a l s o c l a i m, 2 f o r th e fi rstt i m e o n ap p eal , th atb y g ran t i n g su m m ary j u d g m en t , th e m ag i s tr a te j udge vi ol a t e d the i rr i ghtt o a j ur y tr i a l , w hi c h the y a s s e r ti s gua r a nt e e d by the Se v e n th A me n d me n tt o th e U . S. Co n s t i tu t i o n a n d b y Ti t l e V I I . W e a f f i r m. W e r e vi e w a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s g ran t of s um m a r y j udgm e ntde novo, vi e w i ng the ev idence i n the l i gh tm ostfa vo rabl e t o t he party opp osi ng the m ot i on . S krt i ch
v . T h o r to n , 2 8 0 F .3 d 1 2 9 5 , 1 2 9 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . S u m m a r y j u d g m e n tis
appr opr i a t e i f t h e pl e a di ngs , de pos i t i ons , a ns w e r s t o i nt e r r oga t or i e s , a nd
a dm i s s i ons on f

i l e , t oge the rw i th the affi d av i t s , i f a ny , s how the r e i s no ge nui ne3

i ssu e as t o an y m at eri al factan d th atth e m o v i n g p a r ty is en t i t l ed t o j u d g m en tas a m a tte ro f la w . F e d
. R . C i v . P . 5 6 ( c ) ; E b e r h a r d t v . W a te r s , 9 0 1 F .2 d 1 5 7 8 , 1 5 8 0 ( 1 1 th C ir. 1 9 9 0 ). A “m er e ‘ s c in ti ll a’ o f e v id en ce su p p o rtin g th e o p p o sin g p ar ty’s p o s itio n w ill n o t s u f

f ic e ; th e r e m u s t b e e n o u g h o f a s h o w in g th a t th e ju r y c o u ld
reaso n ab l y fi n d fo r th atp arty. ” B ro o k s v . C o u n ty C o m m ’ n o f Jefferso n C o u n ty, A la ., 4 4 6 F .3 d 1 1 6 0 , 1 1 6 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 )
. T i t l e V I I ma k e s i t u n l a w f u l f o r a n e mp l o y e r t o d i s c h a r g e a n y i n d i v i dua l , or othe r w i s e t o di s c r i m i na t e a ga i ns ta ny i ndi vi dua l w i th r e s pe c tt o he rco m p en sa t i on, t erm s, con d it i on s, or pri vi l eges of em pl oym ent , because of s uch i nd i vi du al ’ s r ac e, co l o r, re lig io n , sex , o r n at i o n al o ri g i n . S ee 4 2 U . S . C . § 2 0 0 0 e-2 (a). B ecau se A ppe l l a nt s r e l y on c i rcu m st an t i a l e vi de nc e t o e s t a bl i s h the i rc l a i m s , w e t e s tthe suff i ci ency of tho se cl ai m s by app l yi ng the bu rd en -s h i ft i ng fr am ew ork est abl i shed i n M c D onne l l D ougl a s C orp. v. G r e e n, 411 U . S . 7 9 2 ( 1973) , a nd T e xa s D e p’ tof C m ty . A f

f a i r s v. B ur di ne , 450 U . S . 2 4 8 (1 9 8 1 ). S e e C hapm a n v. A I T r a ns p. , 229 F . 3d 10 12 , 10 24 (11t h C i r. 20 00 ) ( en banc). U nd erthe M cD on nel l D ou gl as fr am ew ork, a pl ai nt i ff fi rs tm ustshow an i nf e r e nc e of di s c r i m i na t or y i n t en t , a nd thus c a r r i e s the i ni t i a l bur de n of e s t a bl i s hi ng a pri m a f ac i e c as e of di sc ri m i nat i on . S ee M cD o n n ell D o ug l as , 41 1 U . S . at80 2. In a di spar at e- tre atm entca se l i ke thi s one, t o sat i sf y herpri m a faci e burden, a pl ai nt i ffSection 1981 guara ntees all indivi duals “e qual bene fit of all laws”reg ardle ss of rac e, 3 and spec ifically, it protects individuals ag ainst employ ment discrimination based on race. 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a); seealso J ohnson v. Ry . Express Ag ency, Inc., 421 U.S. 454, 459 (1975). When a litig ant a ssert s c laims un der b oth Ti tleVIIand

§1 98 1, thestatut e s “havethesame requirements of proof a

nd use the sameanaly

tical fra mework.”Standard v. A.B .E.L . Servs., Inc., 161 F .3d 1318, 1330 (11th Cir. 1998). 4 m us ts how : ( 1) s he w a s a m e m be rof a pr ot e c t e d c l a s s ; ( 2) s he w a s q u al i fi ed forthe po si t i on ; (3) s he suff

er ed an adverse em pl oym entac t i on ; an d (4 ) she w as tre at ed l es s f avorabl y than a si m i l ar l y- si tuat ed i nd i vi du al ou t si de h er p ro te ct ed cl as s. S ee M a y na r d v. B d. of

R e ge nt s of

D i v. of U n i v s. of

F l a . D e pt . of

E duc
. e x r e l
. U ni v. of S . F l a . , 342 F . 3d 1281, 1289 ( 11th C i r . 2003) ; H ol i f i e l d v. R eno, 115 F . 3d 1555, 15 62 (11t h C i r. 19 97 ) ( per c uri am ). 3 T h e p la in tif

f’s s u c c e s s f

u l a s s e r tio n o f a p r im a f a c ie c a s e “c r e a te s a r e b u ttab le pr e s um pt i on tha tthe e m pl oyer unl a w f ul l y di s c r i m i na t e d a ga i ns the r . ” E . E . O . C . v. Joe’ s S t on e C ra b , Inc. , 29 6 F . 3d 12 65 , 12 72 (11t h C i r. 20 02 ) ( ci t i ng U . S . P ost al S erv. B d. of G ov erno rs v. A i kens, 46 0 U . S . 71 1, 71 4 (19 8 3 ))
. If the pl ai nt i ff
s uc c e s s f ul l y dem o n st rat e s a pr i m a f a c i e c a s e , the bur de n the n s hi f t s t o the
em pl oyerto p ro d u ce evi dence thati t s a ct i on w as t aken for a l egi t i m at e, non- di s c r i m i na t or y r e a s on. S e e J oe ’ s S t one C rab , 2 96 F . 3d a t1272. “ S houl d the
e m p lo y e r m e e t its b u r d e n o f p r o d u c tio n , th e p r e s u m p tio n o f d is c r im in a tio n is
r e butt e d, a nd the i nqu i ry ‘ p ro c e e ds t o a ne w l e ve l of s pe c i f i c i ty , ’ i n w hi c h the pl a i nt i f f m us ts how tha tt h e p ro f f e r e d r e a s on r e a l l y i s a pr e t e xtf orunl a w f

ul5

di s c r i mi n a t i o n . ” I d
. a t1 2 7 2
- 7 3 ( q u o t i n g Bu r d i n e , 4 5 0 U . S. a t2 5 5 - 5 6 )
. “ A l th o ugh t h e i nt e r m e di a t e bur de ns of pr oduc t i on s hi f

tba c k a nd f

or th, the ul t i m a t e bur de n of pe r s ua di ng the tr i e rof

f a c ttha tthe e m p l o yer i nt e nt i ona l l y di s c r i m i na t e d a ga i ns tthe
e m pl oy e e r e m a i ns a ta l l t i m e s w i th the pl a i nt i f f . ” I d. a t1273. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t f

o u n d th a t A p p e lla n ts d id n o t s a tis f y th e ir i n i t ia l b u r d e n to est ab l i sh a p ri m a faci e ca s e o f d i scri m i n at i o n . A g ai n , t o d o so , a p l ai n t i ff m u st s how : ( 1) s he w a s a m e m be rof a p ro t ect ed cl a s s ; ( 2) s he w a s qua l i f i e d f orthe po si t i on ; (3) s he suff

er ed an adverse em pl oym entac t i on ; and (4) sh e w as tre at ed l es s f avorabl y than a si m i l ar l y- si tuat ed i nd i vi du al ou tsid e h erprot ec t ed cl as s. S ee M a y na r d , 3 4 2 F. 3 d a t 1 2 8 9 . Th e i n s t a n t ap p e a l c o n c e r n s o n l y th e th i r d e l e me ntof the pri m a f

ac i e c as e. W e h a v e h e ld th a t “to p r o v e a d v e r s e e m p lo y m e n t a c tio n in a c a s e u n d e r T itle V II’ s a nt i -di sc ri m i nat i on cl ause , an em pl oyee m ustshow a s er i ou s a nd m at er i al
c ha nge i n the t e r m s , c ondi t i ons , or pr i vi l e ge s of e m pl oy m e nt . M or e over, t he
em p lo ye e’s s u b

jectiv e v iew o f th e s ig n ifican ce an d ad v er sity o f th e e m p lo y er ’s
ac t i on i s notcont rol l i ng ; the em pl oym entac t i on m ustbe m at er i al l y a dv er se as vi e w e d by a r e a s ona bl e pe r s on i n the c i r c um s t a nc e s . ” D a vi s v. T ow n of L a ke P a r k, F l a . , 245 F . 3d 1 2 3 2 , 1 2 39 ( 11th C i r . 2001) ( e m pha s i s a dde d)
. I n D a vi s , the
ap p e lla n t a s s e r te d th a t tw o n e g a tiv e jo b p e r f o r m a n c e m e m o r a n d a p l a c e d in h is f ile6

a nd tw o c ha nge s i n hi s w or k a s s i gnm e nt s qua l i fi e d a s a dve r s e e m pl oy m e nta c t i ons i n co n n ect i o n w i th a d i scri m i n at i o n cl ai m . Id
. W e rej ect ed th atarg u m en tb ecau se D av i s d i d n o tsu ffer an y co n n ect ed t an g i b l e i n j u ry, su ch as a l o ss i n b en efi t s, i ne l i gi bi l i ty f

or pr om ot i ona l oppor tuni t i e s , or m or e f orm a l di s c i pl i ne . Id
. at1 2 4 1;
se e a l s o Br ow n v. Snow , 44 0 F. 3d 12 59 , 12 65
- 66 ( 11 th Ci r . 20 06 ) ( ho l di ng t hat

“ [ a ] l ow e rs c or e on [ a n e m pl oy e e’ s] p e r f or m a nc e e va l ua t i on, by i t s e l f , i s not ac t i on abl e un d er T it le V II un l es s [ the em pl oyee ] ca n est abl i sh thatthe l ow ersc ore l ed t o amor e t a ng i bl e f orm of a dv e r s e a c t i on , s uc h a s i ne l i gi bi l i ty f orpr omot i on al oppor tuni t i e s ” ; c onc l udi ng pl a i nt i f f f a i l e d t o a s s e r ta dve r s e e m pl oy m e nta c t i on, w he r e h e f

a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h a c o n n e c t i o n b e tw e e n th e l o w e r s c o r e a n d h i s l a c k of pr omot i on ) ; G i l l i s v. G e or gi a D e pt . of Corr e c t i on s , 40 0 F. 3d 88 3, 88 8 ( 11 t h C i r. 2005) ( hol di ng tha t“ a n e va l ua t i on tha tdi r ect l y di s e nt i t l e s a n e m pl oy e e t o a r a i s e of
a n y s ig n if

ic a n c e is a n a d v e r s e e m p lo y m e n t a c tio n u n d e rT itle V I I ” ( e m p h a s is added)). H er e, the m agi stra t e j ud g e fo un d t hatal tho ug h t he A pp el l ant s’ Q P R sc ores w ere l ow , the r e w a s no e vi de nc e tha tthe poorpe r f or m a nc e e va l ua t i ons by them se l ve s q u al i fi ed as advers e e m pl oym entac t i on s, or thatthe eval uat i on s w er e, i n any di re ctw ay , conn ec ted t o a deni al of l at er al tra nsfe rs , prom ot i on s or pay ra i se s. A l tho ug h A pp el l ant s pre se nt ed evi dence tha t Q P R sc ores w er e c on si dere dF or e xamp le , e lig ibi lity

fo r a lateral trans fer o r p ro motion wa s b a se d o n tw o s epa

rate 4 and unre lated proc esses -- the “opt-in”proce ss and the proc ess of enteringthe elig ibility pool -- e a c h o f which invo lve d multiplesteps , whil ec omp e ns atio n d e c isi on s w e reba se d o n, at le a st, nine factors, includingjob perfor mance . 7 i n d et erm i ni ng an em pl oyee ’ s e l i gi bi l i ty f or l at er al tra nsfe rs , p ro m ot i on s, and p ay r a i s e s , A ppe l l a nt s co n cede d tha tthe s c or e s w e r e onl y “ a c ontr i but i ng f a c t or ” i n a m u lt i-step p ro ce ss fo r s u ch b en ef it s. O n th is re co r d , th e m ag istrate ju d g e’s 4 f i n d i n g th a tth e Q PR s c o r e s , “ a tmo s t , b o r e s o me i n f l u e n c e o n th e v a r i ous de c i s i ons m a ke rs, ” butdi d notdi r e c t l y r e s ul ti n the c ha l l e nge d e m pl oy m e nt d e c is io n s , w a s s u p p o r te d b y th e e v id e n c e . A c c o r d in g ly , th e m a g is tr a te ju d g e d id
no t e r rby c onc l udi ng tha tA ppe l l a nt s f a i l e d t o de m ons tr a t e a n a dve r s e e m pl oy m e nt ac t i on , for purpo se s of e st abl i shi ng thei r pri m a f ac i e c as e. W e l i k e w is e a r e u n p e r s u a d e d b y A p p e lla n ts ’ c la im s th a t th e m a g is tr a te j udge ’ s de c i s i on i m pr ope r l y d en i e d the m the i rr i ghtt o a j ur y tr i a l , i n vi ol a t i on of th e S ev en th A m en d m en t , an i ssu e w e rev i ew d e n o v o . S ee P l easan t -E l v . O il R e c ove r y C o. , 148 F . 3d 1300, 1301 ( 11th C i r . 1998) ( r e vi e w i ng que s t i on of
c o n s t itu tio n a l la w d e n o v o ) . “I n s u its a t c o m m o n la w , w h e r e th e v a lu e in cont rovers y s hal l exce ed tw enty dol l ar s, the ri gh tof tri al by ju ry sh al l be pres erved

. . .” U .S . C o n st . am en d
. V II. T h e C i v i l R i g h t s A cto f 1 9 9 1 am en d ed T i t l e V II, in
re l evantpart , by cr ea ti ng a r i gh tt o t ri al by j ury. S ee 42 U . S . C . §§ 19 81 a( a) (1) &8

( c ) ; T itle V I I o f t h e C i v il R ig h ts A c t o f 1 9 6 4 , a s a m e n d e d , 4 2 U .S .C . § § 2 0 0 0 e to 2 0 0 0 e - 1 7 ; G o o d g a m e v . A m e r ic a n C a s t I r o n P ip e C o ., 7 5 F .3 d 1 5 1 6 , 1 5 1 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 )
. W hen “ ma t e r i a l f

a c t s c on c e r ni ng a c l a i m c a nn ot r e a s on a bl y be di s pu t e d” a di s tr i c tc our tm a y gr a ntsu m m ary j udgm e nt . S e e G a r vi e v. C i ty of F t . W a l t on B ea ch, F l a. , 36 6 F . 3d 11 86 , 11 90 (11t h C i r. 20 04 ) ( ci t i ng F ed . R . C i v. P . 56 (c ))
. “E v e n th o u g h [ R u le 5 6 ( c ) ] te c h n ic a lly p r e v e n ts t h e p a r tie s f r o m h a v in g a ju r y ru le upon thos e f

a c t s , the r e i s no ne e d t o go f or w a r d w i th a j ur y tr i a l w he n the pe r t i ne nt f a c ts a r e o b v io u s a n d in d is p u ta b le f r o m th e r e c o r d ; th e o n ly r e m a in in g tru ly de b a t a b l e ma tt e r s a r e l e g a l q u e s t i o n s th a t a c o u r t i s c o mp e t e n t t o a d d r e s s . ” I d. B ec ause w e have concl ud ed the m agi strate ju dg e c orre ct l y a w ar ded U P S sum m ary j ud gm enton the A pp el l ant s’ cl ai m s, because th er e w er e n o i ss ues of m at er i al fa ct on the “ advers e e m pl oym entac t i on ” e l em entof thei r pri m a f ac i e c as e, w e di sc ern no S eventh A m endm entvi ol at i on . W e a lso fin d no vi ol at i on of T i t l e V II ’ s j ury tr i a l pr ovi s i on. A F F I R M E D .