### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T D e c e m be r 16, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ 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- 10957 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 2 - 0 0 1 3 1 - C V- 3 - L AC D A V I D W . E L L I S , J R ., P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s G O R D O N R . E N G L A N D , 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 orthe N orthe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( D e c e m b e r 16, 2005) B efo re T JO F L A T , D U B IN A an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: D avi d W . E l l i s, Jr . appeal s the di stri ctcourt ’ s dec i si on grant i ng sum m aryApparently, in 1993, a re duction in force(“RIF” ) led to the c losure of theNaval 1 Aviatio n D epo t in

Pens ac ola , F lorida

(“NADEP” ), which f

orc e d it s empl oye e s, inc ludingEl lis , to seek new jobs within the Depar tment of Def

ense ( “DoD” ). The PPP was an a utomated program used to register and match well-qualified displaced employees with vacant positions elsewhere in the D oD. 2 j ud gm entt o the S ec re t ary of the N avy ( “ N avy” ), hi s e m pl oyer , w ho m he al l eged di s c r i m i na t e d a ga i ns thi m on the ba s i s of hi s phy s i c a l di s abi l i ty , pa r a l y s i s i n one le g , in v io la tio n o f

th e R e h ab ilita tio n A c t o f 1 9 7 3 , a s a m e n d e d , 2 9 U .S .C . § 7 9 4 ( a ) . I n p a rtic u la r , h e a lle g e d th a t th e N a v yu n la w f u llyr e v e a le d h is d is ab ilityto prospect i ve em pl oyer s i n the P ri ori ty P l ac em entP rogram (P P P ) , w hi ch had an 1 a dve r s e i m pa c ton hi m . H e f urthe ra l l e ge d tha tthe E qua l E m pl oy m e nt O pportuni ty C om m i s s i on ( “ E E O C ” ) f ound s uc h di s c r i m i na t i on a nd or de r e d the N avy t o con si der hi s c om pensat ory dam ages cl ai m s, bu tbecause the N avy r ef used t o aw ar d h i m com pensat ory dam ages , he brou gh tthi s a ct i on , se eki ng a j ury tri al p u r s u a n t to 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 e - 1 6 ( c ) . O n appe a l , E l l i s c ont e nds tha t , i n l i ghtof the E E O C or de rf

i ndi ng di sc ri m i nat i on by the N avy, the di stri ctcourterre d i n con du ct i ng a de nov o revi ew on the i ss ue of l i abi l i ty. H e s ub m i t s thatthe on l y i ss ue before the di stri ctcourtw as o n e o f d a m a g e s . E llis f

u rth e rc o n te n d s th a t, a s s u m in g th e c o u rt p r o p e r ly c onduc t e d ade novo r e vi e w on the que s t i on of l i abi l i ty , i te rr e d i n gr a nt i ng the N a v y s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t b e c au s e h e p r e s e n te d e v id e n c e e s tab lis h in g ap r im af a c ie3

c a s e of di s c r i m i na t i on. I. W e rev i ew a d i stri ctco u rt ’ s l eg al co n cl u si o n s d e n o v o . C o tt o n v . M ass, M ut . L i fe Ins. C o. , 40 2 F . 3d 12 67 , 12 77 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). In bri ng i ng sui tun der th e R e h ab ilita tio n A c t, af e d e r a l e m p lo y e e m u s t f

ir s t r a is e h is d is ab ility d i scri m i n at i o n cl ai m ad m i n i strat i v el y th ro u g h an i n t ern al co m p l ai n t s p ro cess w i thi n the e m pl oy i ng a ge nc y . S e e 29 C . F . R . § 1614. 106; s e e a l s o M oor e v. D ev in e, 7 8 0 F .2 d 1 5 5 9 , 1 5 6 2 (1 1 th C ir. 1 9 8 6 ). If d issa ti sf ied w ith th e a g en cy ’s r e s o l u t i o n , th e e m p l o y e e m a y b r i n g ac l a i m t o th e E E OC , wh i c h wi l l i s s u e i t s o wn r e c o m m e n d a tio n . S e e 2 9 C .F .R . § 1 6 1 4 .1 0 9 ; s e e a ls o M o o r e , 7 8 0 F .2 d a t 1 5 6 2 . T h e a g e n c y th e n r e v ie w s th e E E O C r e c o m m e n d a tio n a n d is s u e s a n o th e rd e c is io n . S e e 2 9 C .F .R . § 1 6 1 4 .1 1 0 . I f th is d e c is io n is n o t ap p e a le d to th e E E O C , it c o n c lu d e s th e a d m in is tr a tiv e p r o c e s s . S e e id . O n c onc l us i on of

the a dm i ni s tr a t i ve pr oc e s s , af e de r a l e m pl oy e e w ho pr e va i l s m a y s ue i n af

e de r a l di s tr i c tc ourtt o e nf or c e a n a dm i ni s tr a t i ve de c i s i on w i th w h i ch an ag en cy h as fai l ed t o co m p l y. S ee M o o re, 7 8 0 F . 2 d at1 5 6 3 ; see al so 29 C . F . R . § 1614. 503( g) . A l t e rna t i ve l y , af e de r a l e m pl oy e e unhappy w i th the a d m in is tr a tiv e d e c is io n m a y b r in g ac la im in th e f e d e r a l d is tr ic t c o u rt a n d o b ta in the sa m e de nov o revi ew thata pri vat e s ec t or em pl oyee re ce i ves i n a T i t l e V IIAs mentioned above , the EEOC dec ision relied on by Ellis also addressed theplaintiffs 2 in DeRey na. However, Ellis brought this sui t separate from a ny other action, and wehave not previously

considere d his arguments and claims as they relate to him. Thus, DeRey na, an unpublished opinion, is notcontrollingin this case. 4 a c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 4 2 U . S. C. § 2 0 0 0 e - 1 6 ( c ) . Se e Ch a n d l e rv . Ro u d e b u s h , 4 2 5 U . S. 84 0, 86 3, 96 S . C t . 19 49 , 19 60 -61, 48 L . E d. 2d 41 6 (19 76 ). In M oo re , w e a dd re ss ed the form ersi tuat i on and h el d that , w here an e m pl oy e e s e e ks e nf

or c e m e ntof

af a vor abl e E E O C rul i ng, w e do notr e vi e w the m e r its o f th e e m p lo y e e ’s c la im s d e n o v o u n le s s th e r e lie f th e E E O C o r d e r e d is beyond i t s autho ri ty. S ee M oo re , 78 0 F . 2d at15 63 -64. In contra st , i n D eR ey na, a n u n p u b l i s h e d o p i n i o n i n v o l v i n g th e s a m e E E OC o r d e ra ti s s u e i n th i s c a s e , we hel d thatde no vo re vi ew by the di stri ctcourtw as approp ri at e bec ause the pl ai nt i ff s i n thatca se di d n otse ek enforce m entof the order, bu tra ther “ soug htre l i ef grea t er tha n tha ta f

f or de d i n the E E O C ’ s or de r. . . ” D e R e y nav. E ngl a nd, N o. 03- 15069, s lip o p . a t 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . A p r . 3 0 , 2 0 0 4 ) . I n p a rtic u la r , w e n o te d th a t th e E E O C o n ly 2 or de r e d the de f

e nda ntt o c ons i de rpl a i nt i f f s ’ c om pe ns a t oryda m a ge s c l a i m s , a nd d id n o t o r d e rth e d e f

e n d a n t to a w a r d p la in tif f s c o m p e n s a to ryd a m a g e s . I d . a t 2 - 3 . T h u s , w e r e

je c te d p la in tif

f s ’ s u g g e s tio n th a t “th e o n lyw o rkle f t in th is c a s e is to qu ant i fydam ages . ” I d. at2. N on ethel es s, w e have notaddres se d o r a ff i rm ed D eR ey na’ s hol di ng i n a pu bl i shed op i ni on , al tho ug h w e have hel d, i n an u nrel at ed c ont e xt , tha tapa rty c a nnots e e k t o e nf or c e a n E E O C de c i s i on unl e s s i ti s f i na l a nd5

ha s r e a c he d the m e r i t s of the c a s e . S e e H i ne s v. W i dna l l , 334 F . 3d 1253, 1259 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 3 ) (h o l d i n g th atd i stri ctco u rtw as n o tb o u n d t o en fo rce E E O C cl ass ce rt i fi ca t i on because E E O C had n otre ac hed a fi nal det erm i nat i on on the m er i t s) . I n c o n tr a s t, o th e rc ir c u its h a v e a d d r e s s e d th is is s u e in p u b lis h e d o p in io n s . T he y appe a rt o s pl i ton the i s s ue . I n c a s e s de c i de d ove rt e n y e a r s a go, both the F ourth a nd N i nth C i r c ui t s a l l ow e d l i m i t e d r e vi e w i n de novo a c t i ons unde r42 U . S . C . § 2 00 0e-16(c). S ee M orri s v. R i ce , 98 5 F . 2d 14 3, 14 5 (4th C i r. 19 93 ); P e c ke rv. H e c kl e r , 801 F . 2d 709, 711 n. 3 ( 4th C i r . 1986) ; G i r a r d v. R ubi n, 62 F . 3d 12 44 , 12 47 (9th C i r. 19 95 ). T ho se ca se s a l l ow ed pl ai nt i ff s t o see k d e nov o revi ew o f a fav o rab l e E E O C d eci si o n i n th e d i stri ctco u rto n l y o n th e i ssu e o f d am ag es, a nd noton l i abi l i ty . S e e R i c e , 985 F . 2d a t145; P e c ke r , 801 F . 2d a t711 n. 3; G ir a r d , 6 2 F .3 d a t 1 2 4 7 . O n th e o th e rh a n d , mo r e r e c e n tc a s e s d e c i d e d b yth e Th i r d , Te n th , a n d D . C. C i rc ui t s have hel d thata di stri ctcourtm ustconsi der afe dera l em pl oyee ’ s c l ai m s of di s c r i m i na t i on de novo, a nd i s notbound bythe r e s ul t s of the a dm i ni s tr a t i ve pr oc e s s . M orr i s v. R um s f i e l d, 420 F . 3d 287, 294 ( 3r d C i r . 2005) ; s e e a l s o S c ottv. J o h a n n s , 4 0 9 F .3 d 4 6 6 , 4 7 2 ( D .C . C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( h o ld in g th a t f e d e r a l e m p lo y e e in T i t l e V I I a c t i on c oul d nots e e k de novo j udi c i a l r e vi e w onl yon the i s s ue of re m edy, and n otl i abi l i ty) ; T i m m on s v. W hi t e, 31 4 F . 3d 12 29 , 12 34 (10th C i r.6

2 0 0 3 ) ( s a m e ) . F o r in stan ce , i n M o rr is, th e T h ird C ircu itd iscr ed it ed th e F o u rth C ircu it ’s d e c is io n s in P e c k e ra n d M o rr is b e c au s e th o s e d e c is io n s r e lie d o n o u rd e c is io n in M oor e , w hi c h i nvol ve d as ui tt o e nf or c e a n E E O C de c i s i on, notas ui ts e e ki ng de n o v o rev i ew o f th e E E O C ’ s d eci si o n . S ee M o rri s, 4 2 0 F . 3 d at2 9 3 n . 1 1 ; see al so S c o tt, 4 0 9 F .3 d a t 4 7 0 - 7 1 ( h o ld in g th a t th e c o u rt in P e c k e ra n d R ic e f a ile d to c ons i de rT i t l e V I I ’ s pl a i n l a ngua ge a nd r e l i e d on i nappos i t e c a s e s i nvol vi ng enforce m entac t i on s) ; T i m m on s, 31 4 F . 3d at12 36 (s am e) . M oreover, the T hi rd C i r c ui ts t a t e d tha t“ G i r a r d of f e r s no a na l y s i s , a nd appe a r s t o be i n s om e t e ns i on w ith o th e rN in th C ir c u it p r e c e d e n t.” M o rr is , 4 2 0 F .3 d a t 2 9 3 n .1 1 ; s e e a ls o S c o tt, 409 F . 3d a t471 ( hol di ng tha tG i r a r d s uf f e r s f r om the s a m e de f

e c t s a s P e c ke ra nd R i ce ). W hi l e s om e c i r c ui t s , pa rt i c ul a r l ythe F ourth a nd the N i nth, ha ve r e a d our d e c is io n in M o o r e to a llo w f r a g m e n ta ryd e n o v o r e v ie w o f s u its b r o u g h t, n o t to enforce an E E O C deci si on , bu tra ther s ee ki ng de no vo re vi ew of thatdeci si on , se e R i c e , 985 F . 2d a t145; P e c ke r , 801 F . 2d a t711 n. 3; G i r a r d, 62 F . 3d a t1247, w e do notr e a d M oor e a s pe rm i tt i ng s uc h f r a gm e nt a ryde novo r e vi e w . I n a ddi t i on, the F ou rth and N i nth C i rc ui t s’ approach i s c on traryt o the pl ai n l angu age of T i t l e V II , 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 e - 1 6 ( c ) , w h ic h p r o v id e s f o rd e n o v o r e v ie w o f

E E O C d e c is io n s .7

S e e M o rr is , 4 2 0 F .3 d a t 2 9 4 ; S c o tt, 4 0 9 F .3 d a t 4 7 2 ; T im m o n s , 3 1 4 F .3 d a t 1 2 3 4 . H e r e , E l l i s br oughts ui tunde rthe s ubs t a nt i ve pr ovi s i ons of the R e habi l i t a t i on A c ta nd de m a ndi ng atr i a l byj urys oughtr e l i e f unde rthe pr ovi s i ons o f 4 2 U. S . C . § 2 0 0 0 e - 1 6 ( c ) . Mo r e o v e r , E l l i s d i d n o ts e e kt o e n f o r c e th e E E OC de c i s i on on c om pe ns a t ory da m a ge s , butr a the rs oughtde novo r e vi e w of the N avy’ s dec i si on denyi ng hi s c om pensat ory dam ages cl ai m . A s i n D eR ey na, here the E E O C di d nota w a r d E l l i s c om pe ns a t oryda m a ge s , butonl yor de r e d the N a vy to c o n s id e rh is c o m p e n s a to ry d a m a g e s c la im s . S e e D e R e y n a , N o . 0 3 - 1 5 0 6 9 , s lip o p . a t2 . A s s u c h , u n d e rth e b e tt e rap p r o a c h a d o p t e d b yth e Th i r d , Te n th , a n d D . C. C i rcu i t s, w e rej ectE l l i s’ s arg u m en tth ath e i s en t i t l ed t o a d e n o v o rev i ew (b y a ju ry ) lim ite d to th e q u e s tio n o f d a m a g e s .

II . W e r evi ew de no vo the di stri ctcourt ’ s grantof a m ot i on for s um m ary j udgm e nt , c ons i de r i ng a l l of the e vi de nc e a nd the i nf e r e nc e s i tm a yy i e l d i n the l i ghtm os tf

a vor abl e t o the nonm ovi ng pa rty . T urne s v. A m S outh B a nk, N . A . , 36 F . 3d 1057, 1060 ( 11th C i r . 1994) . “ S um m aryj udgm e nti s appr opr i a t e w he r e the e vi de nc e s how s ‘ tha tthe r e i s no ge nui ne i s s ue a s t o a nym a t e r i a l f a c ta nd tha tthe m o v in g p a rtyis e n title d to aju d g m e n t a s am a tte ro f la w .’” C o m e rv . C ityo f P a lm B a y , F la ., 2 6 5 F .3 d 1 1 8 6 , 1 1 9 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ( q u o tin g F e d .R .C iv .P . 5 6 ( c ) ) .8

“ G enui ne di sput es ar e tho se i n w hi ch the evi dence i s s uch thata r ea sonabl e j ury coul d return a verdi ctfor the no n-m ov ant . F or fa ctual i ss ues t o b e c on si dere d g e n u i n e , th e y m u s th a v e ar e a l b a s i s i n th e r e c o r d . ” Mi z e v . J e f f e r s o n C i tyB d . Of E du c. , 93 F . 3d 73 9, 74 2 (11 th C i r. 19 96 ) ( ci t at i on s om i tt ed). F or i nst ance , m er e c o n c lu s io n s a n d u n s u p p o rte d f a c tu a l a lle g a tio n s a r e le g a llyin s u f f ic ie n t to d e f

e a t a s um m a ry j udgm e ntm ot i on. B a l d M ount a i n P a rk, L t d. v. O l i ve r , 863 F . 2d 1560, 1 5 6 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 9 ) . M o r e o v e r , s ta te m e n ts in a f f id a v its th a t ar e b a s e d , in p a rt, u p o n i n fo rm at i o n an d b el i ef, can n o trai se g en u i n e i ssu es o f fact , an d th u s al so c a nnotde f

e a tam ot i on f

ors um m a ryj udgm e nt . P a c e v. C apobi a nc o, 283 F . 3d 1 2 7 5 , 1 2 7 8 - 7 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ; s e e a ls o F e d .R .C iv .P . 5 6 ( e ) . T h e R e h ab ilita tio n A c t p r o h ib its f e d e r a l a g e n c ie s f

r o m d is c r im in a tin g in e m pl oy m e nta ga i ns ti ndi vi dua l s w i th di s abi l i t i e s . M ul l i ns v. C r ow e l l , 228 F . 3d 13 05 , 13 13 (11th C i r. 20 00 ) ( ci t at i on om i tt ed); se e a l so 29 U . S . C . § 7 94 (a ); 42 U . S . C . § 1981a ( a ) ( 2) . T he s t a nda r d f orde t e rm i ni ng l i abi l i tyunde rthe R e h ab ilita tio n A c t is th e s a m e a s th a t u n d e rth e A m e r ic a n s w ith D is ab ilitie s A c t, 42 U . S . C . § 12101, e t . s e q. ( “ A D A ” ) ; thus , c a s e s i nvol vi ng the A D A a r e pr e c e de nt f orthos e i nvol vi ng the R e habi l i t a t i on A c t . C a s h v. S m i th, 231 F . 3d 1301, 1305 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ; s e e a ls o 2 9 U .S .C . § 7 9 4 ( d ) .

“ T o e s t abl i s h apr i m af

a c i e c a s e of

di s c r i m i na t i on unde rthe [ R e habi l i t a t i on]9

A ct , an i n d i v i d u al m u stsh o w th at(1 ) h e h as a d i sab i l i ty; (2 ) h e i s o th erw i se qu al i fi ed for the po si t i on ; and (3) he w as subj ec t ed t o u nl aw ful di sc ri m i nat i on as the re sul tof hi s di sabi l i ty. ” S utt on v. L ader , 18 5 F . 3d 12 03 , 12 07 -08 (11 th C i r. 19 99 ). T he fi rs ttw o el em ent s are no tati ss ue i n thi s c as e. T o est abl i sh the thi rd e l e m e nt , a n i ndi vi dua l m us ts how tha the ha s 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 be c aus e of

hi s di s abi l i ty . D oe v. D e ka l b C ountyS c h. D i s t . , 145 F . 3d 1441, 14 45 (11th C i r. 19 98 ) ( A D A ca se ). I ti s note nough f

orapl a i nt i f

f t o de m ons tr a t e tha ta n a dve r s e e m pl oy m e nt a c tio n w a s b a s e d p a rtlyo n h is d is ab ility . S e e M c N e lyv . O c a laS ta r - B a n n e rC o rp ., 9 9 F .3 d 1 0 6 8 , 1 0 7 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ) . R a th e r , u n d e rth e R e h ab ilita tio n A c t, a pl a i nt i f f m us tpr ove tha the s uf

f e r e d a n a dve r s e e m pl oy m e nta c t i on “ s ol e l yby r e a s o n o f ” h is h a n d ic ap . 2 9 U .S .C . § 7 9 4 ( a ) . H e r e , E l l i s c ont e nds tha tthe N a vyr e f us e d t o of

f e rhi m apos i t i on thr ough the P P P because of hi s di sabi l i ty. In part i cul ar , he says thatthe P P P C oo rdi nat or, S a ndr aV a s ko, f

a i l e d t o s ubm i tdi s abl e d e m pl oy e e s ’ r e s um e s t o pr os pe c t i ve em pl oyer s, and that , as a r es ul t , he di d n otre ce i ve tw o el ec troni cs t ec hn i ci an po si t i on s f

or w hi ch he w as qu al i fi ed. In re spon se , the N avy pre se nt ed evi dence tha tE l l i s w a s note ve n r e gi s t e r e d f orone of the e l e c tr oni c s t e c hni c i a n pos i t i ons a nd th a t th e o th e rp o s itio n w a s f ille d w ith a n in d iv id u a l w h o lis te d th e s a m e d is ab ility10

code as hi s. E l l i s answ er ed w i th aff i davi t s f rom F rank C herry, the H andi capp ed P r ogr a m C oor di na t or , a nd hi m s e l f . I n hi s a f

f i da vi t , how e ve r , C he rry , c onc e di ng th a t h e c o u ld n o t r e m e m b e ra n y s p e c if ic p o s itio n s n o t o f

f e r e d to E llis , o n ly prov i ded a concl usory, un supp ort ed st at em entthatthe N avy non -s el ec t ed an o th e rw is e q u a lif

ie d E llis f

o rs o m e p o s itio n s . F u rth e r , in h is o w n a f f id a v it, E llis s t a t e d th a t“ u p o n i n f

o rm a t i o n a n d b e l i e f

, ” h e wa s n o n - s e l e c t e d f o rth e two e l e c tr o n i c s t e c h n i c i a n p o s i t i o n s m e n t i o n e d ab o v e b e c au s e o f h i s d i s ab i l i ty . He offe re d n othi ng t o ref

ut e the N avy’ s e vi dence. E l l i s a l so cont ended thatthe N avy off er ed no n-di sabl ed em pl oyee s bett er po si t i on s than i toffe re d h i m and ref used t o p l ac e hi m w i thi n h i s pre fe rr ed ge ogr aphi c a l a r e a , e ve n though the N a vyc ons i de r e d non- di s abl e d e m pl oy e e s f or s u c h p o s i t i o n s . Ag a i n , h o we v e r , E l l i s o f f e r e d n o e v i d e n c e , o th e rth a n h i s o wn c o n c lu s o ry s ta te m e n ts , a n d f a ile d to id e n tif

yw h a t th o s e p o s itio n s w e r e , w h e r e th is o c c u rr e d , o rh o w h e k n e w th is . A s m en t i o n ed ab o v e, m ere co n cl u si o n s an d u n su p p o rt ed factu al al l eg at i o n s, as w el l as af

fi davi t s bas ed, i n p art , up on i nform at i on and b el i ef , ra ther than p e r s o n a l k n o w le d g e , a r e in s u f f ic ie n t to w ith s ta n d am o tio n f o rs u m m a ryju d g m e n t. B al d M ou nt ai n P ark, 86 3 F . 2d at15 63 ; P ac e, 28 3 F . 3d at12 78 -79. E l l i s r el i es e n tir e lyo n u n s u p p o rte d , c o n c lu s o rys ta te m e n ts n o t b a s e d o n p e r s o n a l k n o w le d g e .11

In do i ng so, he has f

ai l ed t o p re se ntany e vi dence t o d i sput e the N avy’ s proof that he w as no tre gi st er ed for one of the el ec troni c t ec hn i ci an po si t i on s or thatthe other p o s i t i o n wa s f

i l l e d b y a n i n d i v i d u a l wh o l i s t e d th e s a m e d i s ab i l i tyc o d e a s h i s . As s u c h , h e h a s f

a ile d to d e m o n s tr a te th a t ag e n u in e is s u e o f m a te r ia l f

a c t e x is ts a s to w h e th e rh e s u f

f e r e d a n a d v e r s e e m p lo y m e n t a c tio n “s o le lyb yr e a s o n o f ” h is di sabi l i ty. S ee 29 U . S . C . § 7 94 (a ). F urthe r , a l though E l l i s s ugge s t s tha tthe N a vya dm i tt e d di s c r i m i na t i ng a g a in s t h im o n th e b a s is o f h is d is ab ility , th e r e c o r d d o e s n o t s u p p o rt th is s u g g e s tio n . R a th e r , th e N a v y r e p e a te d lyd e n ie d liab ilityin th e d is tr ic t c o u rt. E llis i s a l s o i nc orr e c ti n hi s s ugge s t i on tha tthe N a vya dm i tt e d di s c r i m i na t i on by not r e pl y i ng t o hi s s t a t e m e ntof undi s put e d m a t e r i a l f

a c t s . T he l oc a l rul e s f

orthe U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rti n the N orthern D i stri ctof F l ori da on l y dee m adm i tt ed thos e f a c t s f i l e d by the m ovi ng pa rtyw hi c h a r e notc ontr ove rt e d bythe oppos i ng pa rty , a nd notvi c e ve r s a . U . S . D i s t . C t . R ul e s N . D . F l a . , § 56. 1( A ) . T hus , the N a vy , a s the m ovi ng pa rty , ha d no obl i ga t i on t o r e pl yt o E l l i s ’ s r e s pons i ve s t a t e m e ntof

m a t e r i a l f

a c t s . S e e i d. A l s o, the N a vy ’ s de c i s i on nott o appe a l the E E O C de c i s i on tha tdi s c r i m i na t i on oc c urr e d, ori t s f a i l ur e t o r a i s e the i s s ue of a dve r s e e m pl oy m e nta c t i on be f or e the E E O C , doe s nota m ountt o a n a dm i s s i on of li ab il ity, as th e E E O C d ec isio n h ad n o b in d in g ef fe ct o n th e d istrict co u rt’s12

p r o c e e d in g s . S e e M o rr is , 4 2 0 F .3 d a t 2 9 4 . E l l i s a l s o c ont e nds , i nc orr e c t l y , tha tthe N a vyha d the i ni t i a l bur de n of pr ovi ng byc l e a ra nd c onvi nc i ng e vi de nc e tha t , e ve n abs e ntthe di s c r i m i na t i on, the N a v y w o u ld n o t h a v e s e le c te d h im f o rth e p o s itio n s h e d e s ir e d . E llis p u lls th is la n g u a g e f

r o m th e E E O C ’s d e c is io n . H o w e v e r , b e c au s e E llis , a s th e p la in tif f in thi s c a s e , ha d the i ni t i a l bur de n of e s t abl i s hi ng apr i m af

a c i e c a s e , hi s a r gum e nt n e c e s s a r ilyf

a ils . S e e S u tto n , 1 8 5 F .3 d a t 1 2 0 7 - 0 8 . AF F I R ME D.