NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 10a0369n.06 No. 09-5562 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
AN DR E T HO MA S, P laintif f-App ellant,
v. F RA N C IS J
. H A RV E Y , S e c r e t ar y, U
. S
. D e p art m e n to f

t h e A r m y, Defendan t-Appellee.

_______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E WE STE RN DI STRI CT OF TEN

NESSEE
O P I N I O N

Be for e : B AT CH ELD ER , C hie f Cir c uitJudg e , a nd M OORE and CO LE, Ci r c uitJudg e s. KA REN NELSO N MOORE, Circ uit Jud ge. Andre Thomas, a blac k male who suff ere d a knee injury while working for the U.S
. Army Corps of Enginee rs (“Corps”), sued the Secr etar y of the Army for disabili ty and race discrimination based on various adverse e mploy ment actions. The district court g rante d summary judgme nt for the Sec reta ry . On appe al, instead of c halleng ing the merits of the district cour t’s order , Thomas claims that the district cour t erroneously

considere d
un tim e ly , in a dmi ssi ble e vid e nc e. Becaus e we c on c lud e that th e dis tr ic t c ourt did no t e rr in i ts evidentiar y ruling s, we AF F IRM
. I. BACKG ROUND Andre Thomas first worke d for the Corps for a four- y ear period beg inning in 1991. I n J une 1999, he re turned to the Corps as a deck hand on a dr edg e. That September, he enter ed the Upw ard Mobilit y Prog ram, a

three -y ear

prog ram in which he would work for one y ear as a we lding he lper2

at pay level WG-5, th en wo rk for two y ear s as a we lding wor ker at WG-8, and subsequently be elig ible for pr omotion to full welder at W G-10. I n J une 2000, he tor e the media l meniscus in his left knee. F ollowing surg ery , he re turned to work in September 2000 with phy sician-imposed
re s t ri ct i o n s o f l i m i t edwa l k i n g, we i gh tl i ft i n g o f n o m o re t h an t en t o fi ft ee np o u n d s , an d n o b en d i n g, stooping, or c limbing. He w as plac ed on light duty in the Shops Unit office, ha ndling c lerica l and
su pp or t duti e s suc h as or de ri ng su pp lie s, pic kin g up su

pp lie s and de liv e ri ngthe m to the a pp ro pr ia te personne l, handling the mail, and answe ring phone ca lls. Thomas retained the t i t l e o f we lding h e l p e r . In t h i s c a

p a c i t y, h e r ar e l y h a d

t h e o p p o rtu n i ty t o w o r

k o v e rt i m e , a s h e d i d

b e f o r e h i s i n j u r y. I n November 2000, Thomas was promoted t o welding worke r at WG-8, despite havingbeen
re str ic te d to c le ri c a l w or

k s inc e re tur

nin g to the job
. I n M arc h 2 00 1, Th oma s’ s d oc tor inf or me d h im that he had rea ched max imum medical improve ment, that his lower lef t leg rema ined five pe rce nt impaired, a

nd that he could wor

k so long a s he did n o t s q u at o r cr aw l . I n J une 2002, the doc tor completed a

Duty Status Report indicating t h at Thomas could not do any of the tasks e x pecte d of
a we lding wor

ker a nd that he wa s prohibited from knee ling, squatting, or c raw ling. In Fe b ruar y 2003, the Corps issued Thomas a me morandum proposing to te rminate his e mploy ment in light of h i s p h y s i ca l l i m i t at i o n s an d i n fo rm i n g h i m o f h i s ri gh t t o re s p o n d t o t h e l et t er o ra l l y o r i nwr i t i n g. Thomas did not respond. I n April 2003, the C orps issued Thomas anothe r memora ndum offer ing him the choice betwee n termination and employ ment as an administrative assistant in its R eg ulatory Br anch in Me mphis, Tennessee , at $1.42 per hour less than he had been ear ning. Thomas ac cepte d the administrative position. Whil e wor

king in the Shops Unit, befor e beingtransfe rre d to the Reg ulatory Br anch, T homas applied to bec ome a r ecipient of donated lea

ve throug h the Corps ’s Vo l u n t ary L eave Transf

er3

Prog ram (“ VL TP”). Unde r the VL TP, e mploy ees could transfe r acc rued leave or sick day s to fellow employ ees w hose medica l conditions left the m wi t h a z ero le ave ba lance . The Corps then a sked Thomas to provide a

doctor’s state ment detailing the medications he had bee n presc ribed, the r eason for the me dications, the length o f t i me he wa s expected to be on the me dications, and a ny side eff ects. In response , Thomas submitted a doctor’ s note written on pre scription paper indicating that he had be en pre scribed U ltram, a pa inkiller, and m i gh t n ee d o ther medic ations in the future. The Corps informed Thomas that this documentation was inadequate to approve his participation in the VL TP. I t f

ur the r o ff e re d to ob ta in t

he me dic a l in fo rm a tio n f or him. T ho ma s to ok

no ste ps to
su pp or t hi s a pp lic a tio n w ithfu

rt he r d oc ume ntatio n, ho we ve r, and did no t a uth or ize the Cor

ps to contac t his doctor. After joining the Regulatory Br anch, Thomas verba lly reque sted to work fr om home under the Cor ps ’s Te le wo rk

Pr og ra m on da y s o n w hic h h is m e dic a tio n ma de it uns a fe fo r himto d ri ve to the office
. His supervisors denied his r equest beca use his duties supported the work o f o ther employ ees a

nd could not be done remotely
. Those duties included a nsweringand dire cting phone calls, re ceivingand distributing mail, and f inalizi ng corr espondenc e. B a se d o n th e se e ve nts , T ho ma s r a ise d c omp la int s o f dis a bil ity and ra c e dis c ri min a tio n w ith
an E qu a l E mpl oy

me nt O pp or

tun ity Couns e lor , w ho ini tiated me diatio n w ithhis su pe rv iso rs . Me diatio n f

a iled, and Th oma s f

ile d a c omp la int

wi th t he Eq ua l E mpl oy

me nt O pp or

tun ity C o m m i s s i o n(“ E E OC ”)
. Fo l l o wi n g a fo u r- d ay h ea ri n g i nJ u n e 2 0 0 5 , an Ad m i n i s t ra t i v e Law J u d ge
c on c lud e d in

De c e mbe r 2 00 5 th a t th e Cor ps ha d n ot d isc ri min a te d a g a ins t T ho ma s. Thomas then broug ht suit i n fede ral d i s t ri ct court ag ainst Fra ncis J . Har

vey in his official capa city as Secr etar

y of the Army , alleg ing violations of Tit le VI I of the Civil Ri g hts Act of 1964,4

42 U.S.C. § 2 0 0 0 e , an d th e Re h a b il it a ti o n A c t, 2 9 U
. S. C. § 7 9 4 a ; 2 9 C. F
. R. § 1 6 1 4
. 2 0 3
. Thomas
c la ime d th a t th e Cor

ps ha d d isc ri min a te d a g a ins t hi m ba se d o n r a c e and dis a bil ity in ( 1) fo rc inghim from his position as a welding worke r at pay level WG-8; ( 2) failing to pr omote him to full welder at WG-10; (3) de ny ing him the opportunity to work over time; (4) deny

ing him par

ticipation in the VL TP; and

(5 ) r e fu sin g to l e t hi m w or k f ro m ho me thr ou g h th e Te le wo rk Pr og ra m. The Sec reta

ry initially filed a summary -judg ment motion on April 30, 2008. Thomas filed
a re sponse in opposition on May 30, 2008, objecting to the Secre tary ’s at t ac h ed exhibi ts on authentication and hear say g rounds
. On J une 11, 2008, the Sec reta ry moved for le ave to make a substitut e filing to cure the evidentiar y defe cts. Over Thomas’s opposition, t he district cour t gr anted the motion for leave on J uly 9, 2008, but require d the S ecr etar y to file wit hin two business day s. The Secre tary missed the deadline by

four da y s, submitt ing his amended motion for summary judgme nt with supporting doc uments on J uly 15, 2008. Thomas then filed a second opposition on September 10 , 2 00 8, no ting tha

t th e Se c re tary ’s fi lin g wa s unti me ly and re ne wi nghis e vid e nti ary ob je c tio ns . The re cord r efle cts no furthe r discussion of the timeliness issue. The district cour

t issued an order conditionally g ranting summary judgme nt f or the Secr etar

y
on Marc h 1 2, 20 09
. Th e re in, the c ourt de a lt w itha numbe r o f e vid e nti ary

ob je c tio ns , s tr iki ngc e rt a in exhibi ts but deeming admissible tr anscr ipts fr om the EEOC hear ing a nd a 2004 hea

ring befor e the Depa rtment of De fense Offic e of Complaint I nvestig ations, co n d it io n a l u p o n th e Secre tary

cer tify ing their authe nticity

within ten day s of the orde r. With respe ct t o the m erits of the m otion, the district court fir st found that the Secr etar y had admitted in his answer that Thomas had a dequate ly exhausted his admin i s t ra t ive re medies. The c ourt then dete rmined that Thomas c ould prove that he was

“ dis a ble d” wi thi n th e me anin g of the Re ha bil itatio n A c t ba se d o n h is w a lki nglim itatio ns and c ou ld5

ide nti fy a sim ila rl y sit uate d d isa ble d whi te e mpl oy e e wh o w a s tr e a te d mo re fa vo ra bly . N on e the le ss, the court held that Thomas could not preva il based on the Corps’s f ailure to re tain him as a we lding
wo rk e r bec ause T ho ma s n e ve r r e qu e ste d a re a so na ble a c c omm od a tio n th a t w ou ld a llo w h im t o cont in u e in th a t p o s it io n . Si n c e h e c o u ld n o t w o r k a s a w e ld e r , th e c o u rt h e ld , h e could not be promoted to WG-10, and over time was not ava ilable to cler ical wor kers a s a matter of policy . The dis tr ic t c ourt

fo un d th a t T ho ma s h a d f a ile d to pr ov id e th e Cor

ps wi th t he inf or ma tio n r e qu ir e d to qu a lif y fo r t he VL TP a

nd , f ur the r, that he c ou ld n ot g a ins ay the Se c re tary ’s e vide nc e that hi s part i cipation i n the Tele work Prog ram would impose an undue burden on the Reg ulatory Br anch. Finally , the district court held that the Secre tary had provided leg itimate, nondiscriminatory rea sons fo r a ll a lle g e dly

dis c ri min a tor

y a c ts, and that Tho ma s had fa ile d to put f or th a ny e vid e nc e of

pr e te xt. Five da y s after the di strict court’s conditional order , the S ecr etar y filed ce rtified copie s of the hea ring tr ans c ri pts . T he dis tr ic t c ourt the n g ra nte d s umm ary

jud g me nt i n f

ull and e nte re d f ina l ju dg me nt. Thomas timely

appea led. II. AN AL YSI S Surprisin gl y , T homas’s appe llate brief focuse s not on the g rounds for the district court’s order , but rather

on (only some of) the arguments made below by the Secr etar

y . The re sult is t hat Thomas does not ac tually challeng e th e m erits of the summary -judg ment order . His brief, r ather difficult to parse , contains t he following arg uments: (1) the Secre tary has wa ived his rig ht to arg ue that T ho ma s f

a ile d to e xha

us t his admin istra

tiv e re me die s; (2 ) Th oma s is in fa c t “ dis a ble d” wi thi n the meaningof the Reha bilitation Act; (3) Thomas ca n establish a prima f

aci e case of ra cial discrimination; and (4) the Secre tary ’s profe rre d nondiscriminatory rea sons for adve rse e mploy ment
a c tio ns a g a ins t T ho ma s are su pp or te d o nly by ina dmi ssi ble e vid e nc e . Th e dis tr ic t c ourt agreed wi th6

Thomas’s first thre e a rgu m en ts but gra nted summary

judgme nt to the Secre tary on g rounds not
c on te ste d b y

Th oma s o n a

pp eal
. Th om a s’ s f

ourt h a rgume nt i s th e on ly

on e tha t, i f m e ri tor iou s, would undermine the district c ourt’s judgme nt. Acc ording ly , this case turns on the district c ourt’s
e vid e nti ary

ru lin g s. Thomas’s evide ntiary

challeng e come s in two parts. First, he claims that the district court should have struc k the Secr etar y ’s amend ed m o t i o n for summary judgme nt and ac company ing exhibi ts as untimely . The Sec reta ry filed his amende d motion for summary judgme nt four day s late, b u t t h e d is tr ic t c o u rt c o n s id e r e d th e mo ti o n an d it s s u p p o rti n g d o c u me n ts in r e s o lv in g th e c a s e . “ [I ]t is w ith in t he dis c re tio n o f t

he dis tr ic t c ourt s w he the r t o c on sid e r [e vid e nc e ] sub mit te d in an unti me ly fashion . . . .” Hooks v . Hooks , 77 1 F .2 d 9 35 , 9 46 (6 th C ir . 1 98 5) ; see also Moore, Owe n, Thomas & Co. v. Coffey , 9 92 F .2 d 1 439, 14 46 (6 th C ir . 1 99 3) (n oti ngtha t th e dis tr ic t c ourt

e xer c ise d it s discretion to consider

an af fidavit filed thirty -four

day s late, and holding that the af fidavit there fore could be c onsidered on a

ppeal) . We reviewsuch dec isions for abuse of discretion. Estes v. King’s Da ug hte rs M e d. Ctr

. , 59 F. App’ x 749, 753 (6th Cir. 2003) (unpublished opinion). Given that the Secre tary ’s filing was but four day s lat e, t h at T h o m as had ample opportunity to respond, and that Thomas in fac t did file a sec ond response in oppositi on two months later, he suff ere d no prejudice from the de lay . Under

these c ircumstance s, we have no re ason to believe that t h e d istrict court abused its discre tion. Se c on d, Th oma s c la ims that a ll o f t he Se c re tary ’s e xhibi ts i n s up po rt of his mot ion

sh ou ld have be en struck on la ck-of -authe ntication and hea

rsay g rounds. The distric t co u rt cre dited Thomas’s objec tions with reg ard to a co p y o f a note from his doctor a nd the Equal Employ

ment Opportunity

Counselor Report. I t admitted and relied on four ty pes of doc umentary

evidenc e: (1)Th ro ug h c ouns e l, T ho ma s r e fe rs in h is b ri e f t o e xhibi ts that are no t in the re c or d b e c a

us e 1 the Se c re tary

e xclu de d th e m f

ro m th e a me nd e d mo tio n f or su mma ry jud g me nt. Th is a

pp e ars to be the r esult of Thomas’s c opy ing a nd pasting whole sec tions of his first response in opposition into his appellate brief

without modification. 7 transcr ipts of the 2005 EEOC proce eding s; (2) transc ripts of the 2004 De partment of D efe nse Off ice of Complaint Investig ations hear ing; (3) a decla ration from Ba

rbar a Cook, a h u m an resources specia list for the Corps’s office in Me mphis, whic h attache d cer tain corr espondenc e and T homas’s Duty Status Report, re tained by her a s custodian of re cords; and ( 4) a de clar ation from L arr y Watson, chief of the Reg ulatory Br anch. I mportantly , nowher e does Thomas seriously doubt the acc urac y 1

o f an y of these materials, at times eve n relying on the m himself. I nstead, he insists on technica l g rounds that they

wer e inadmissible. We disag ree . The doc uments were sufficie ntly authenticated. The district c ourt hig hlighted the Secr etar

y ’s initial failure to authenticate the transcr ipt e x cer pts a nd made its order

conditional
on su c h a uth e nti c a tio n. Th e re a ft e r, the Se c re tary tim e ly fi le d c e rt if ie d c op ie s of the fu ll tra

ns c ri pts
. Mo re ov e r, the fa c t th a t T ho ma s h ims e lf a tta c hed po rt io ns of

the EE OC he ari ngtr ans c ri pts to h is
re sp on se in o pp os iti on

“ a tte sted to the tr ans c ri pts ’ a uth e nti c ity , th e re by

re mov ingany

un c e rt a int

y reg ardingtheir admissibilit y on that g round.” United States v. Haun , 90 F.3d 1096, 1101 (6th Cir. 1 9 9 6 )
. T h e Co o k an d Wats o n d e c la r a ti o n s , ma d e u n d e r p e n a lt y o f p e r ju r y , f u lf il l th e persona l knowledg e, admissibility , and compe tency require ments of Fe dera l Rule of Civil Procedur e 56(e ) and other wise ar e admissible in lieu of af fidavits under 28 U .S.C. § 1746. S e e P e te rs v . Li nc oln Elec. Co. , 285 F.3d 456, 475 ( 6 t h C i r. 2002). Finally , the documents attached to the Cook decla ra ti o n w e r e authenticated by

the Cook decla

ration itself under

Fe dera l Rules of Evidence 901(a) (“The require ment of authentication
. . . is satisfied by evidenc e suff

icient to support a finding that8

the m atter in question is what its proponent claims.”) and 902(11) (for cer tified domestic re cords of regularly conducte d activity

). The district cour

t a lso pr operly conclude d that the hear say rules did not bar the Secr etar y ’s exhibi ts. Thomas’s only

explained hear say

objection is that the transc ripts were inadmissible under Fe dera l Rule of Evidence 804(b), whic h provides that former testim ony is not excluded as hea rsay “if the de clar ant is unavailable as a w itness.” Her e, he points out, the Secre tary never established that the witnesses who te stified previously wer e now unavailable. This ar g ument is too clev er by ha lf . Ru le 80 4( b) is the same ru le that c on tr ol s the a dmi ssi bil ity of de po sit ion s. Di str ic t c ourt s routinely consider pr operly

authenticated deposi tion transcripts, and he aringtranscr ipts of equal reliability should be treated in the same wa y . See A lexande r v. CareSource , 5 76 F .3 d 5 51 , 5 60 (6 th Cir . 2 00 9) ; se e als o Fe d. R. Civ. P . 56(c) (2) ( stating that summary judgme nt should be determined by re fe re nc e to, int e r a lia , “ the dis c ov e ry and dis c los ur e ma te ri a ls o n f

ile ” ); Ba ile

yv . F loy d Co un ty Bd. of Educ. , 1 06 F .3 d 1 35 , 1 45 (6 th C ir . 1 99 7) (“ Th e pr of fe re d e vid e nc e ne e d n ot b e in a dmi ssi ble form , but i ts content

m u s tb e a d m i s s i b l e. ” ( ci t i n g Ce lot e xCor p. v . Ca tre tt , 4 7 7 U
. S. 317, 324 ( 1 9 8 6 ) )
. T o t h e e x t e n tt h a tT h o m a s i n t e n d s t o o b j e c tt o h e ar s ay t e s t i m o n y with in the hea ring transcr ipts—that is, occasions when the w itness relay s statements from a third party —he has f

ailed to p inp oin t any

su c h s ta te me nts or

to i nd ic a te ho w the dis tr ic t c ourt re lie d o n th e m. W e t h er efore conc lude that the district cour t did not err in re ly ing on the Secre tary ’s d o c u m e n t ar

y e v i d e n c e i ng r an t i n g s u m m ar y j u d g m e n tt o th e S e c r e t ar y.9 III . C ON CL USI ON Be ca u s e Thomas dec lined to appea l the merits of the district cour t’s summary -judg ment order , and bec ause the district court did not err in considering the evidence submi tted by the Secre tary , we AF F IRM the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s jud g me nt.