FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T NOVEMB ER 18, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 11 94 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 4 :0 9- cv -0 01 57 -CDL DYNESHIA D. JOSEPH, 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 COLUMBUS B ANK AND TRUST COMPANY, 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 urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (No ve m be r 18 , 20 11 ) Befo re BARKETT, HULL an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Dyne sh iaJo se ph , an Afr ic an -Am eri canfem al e, ap pe al s the di st ric t co urt’s gr an t o f de fen dantCo lu m bu s B an k a ndTrus t Co m pa ny’ s (“ CB& T”) m ot io n fo rsu m

m ary jud gm en t as to he r co m pl ai ntall eg in g ra ci al di sc riminat io n i n em pl oym en t, ra is edpu rs ua ntto Tit le VII of th e Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act o f 19 64 (“ Tit le VII”), 4 2 U.S.C. § 20 00 e-2 (a)( 1) . On ap pe al , Jo se ph , who was u lt im at el y fir edby 1 CB& T, all eg ed ly due to : (i ) he r fai lu re t o c on si st en tl y pe rfo rm th e sa le s as pe ctof he r job an d (i i) h er fre qu en t ab se nt eei sm , arg ue s tha t the di st ric t co urt fa il edto co ns tru e th e rec or d b efo re i t i n the li gh t m os t favo rab le to he r, th e n on -m ov an t, as itsh ou ldha ve un de r th e la w go ve rn in g m ot io ns forsu m m ary jud gm en t. J os ep h al so co nt en ds th atth e co urt erredby find in g t ha t Pe gg y Kenn on , a whi te fem al e co -wo rk er, was no t a c om pa rat or , as s he an d J os ep h h adex pe rie nc edsi m il ar di ffi cu lt ie s, an d Ken no n was pro m ot ed , whi le Jo se ph was fi red . Fin al ly, Jo se ph as se rts th atsh e d em on strat edth atCB&T’s arti cu la te d re as on s wer e p ret ex tu al , as he r im pr ov in g s al es be li edCB&T’s p oo r sa le s p erfo rm an ce ra ti on al e an d l it tl e ev id en ce was pre se nt edof h er at te nd an ce p ro bl em s. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t de no vo , vi ewin g al l ev id en ce an d drawi ng all reas on ab le in fere nc es infav orof the no nm ov in g pa rty. Ch ap man v. AI Tra ns po rt , 22 9 F .3d10 12 , 10 23 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ) ( en ba nc ).

J oseph also alleg ed cla ims for g ender discrimination and bre ach of contra ct. Howe ver, 1 the cour t later de emed these claims aba ndoned bef

ore a war ding summar

y judgme nt to CB&Tin these re spects. B eca

use Jos eph does not c halleng e this decision on appe al, any g ender discrimination or brea ch of c ontrac t claims areabandone d. See H orsley v. F

eldt , 304 F.3d 1125, 1131 n.1 (11th Cir. 2002) (holdingthat issue not argued on appe al dee med waive d). 2Su m

m ary jud gm en t i s ap pr op ria te wher e th e m ov in g p arty de m on st rat es th atno ge nu in e is su e o f m at eri al factex is ts , anditis en ti tl edto jud gm en t as a m at te r of law. Fed.R .Civ .P. 56 (c). “ A gen ui ne is su e o f m at eri al factdo es no t ex is t unl es s th ere i s s uf

fic ie ntev id en ce fa vo rin g t he no nm ov in g p arty fora reas on ab le jury to return ave rd ic t i n [h er] favo r.” Ch ap man , 22 9 F .3dat 1 02 3. Tit le VII pr oh ib it s an em pl oyer fro m

di sc riminat in g a ga in sta pe rs on ba se d on race . 42 U.S.C. § 2 00 0e -2 (a)( 1) . Whe re, as he re, the pl ai nt iff rel ie s o n ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce o f di sc riminat io n, we ap pl y th e b ur de n- sh ift in g fr am ewo rk art ic ul at edin McDo nn el l Do ug la s C or p. v. Gr een , 41 1 U.S. 7 92 , 93 S.Ct . 18 17 , 36 L.Ed.2 d 6 68 (19 73 ). Alva re z v. Ro ya l At l. Deve lo

pe rs , Inc
. , 61 0 F .3d12 53 , 12 64 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0) . Und er tha t fr am ewo rk , a pl ai nt iff is fir strequi redto est ab li sh a pr ima fa ci e cas e o f di sc riminat io n. Id. To d o t ha t, s he m ay sh ow, am on g o th er th in gs , th athe r em

pl oyer tre at edsi m il arl y

si tu at edem

pl oyees wh o wer e n ot m em be rs of h er p ro te ct edcla ss m or e fav or ab ly, orrep la cedhe r with s om eo ne ou ts id e o f he r pr ot ect edcla ss . May na rd v. Bd. o f Reg en ts of

Div. o f Un ivs. o f Fla. Dep ’t o f Ed uc . , 34 2 F .3d12 81 , 12 89 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). If th e p la in ti ff p res en ts a pr ima fa ci e cas e an d the em pl oyer off

ers leg it im at e, no n- di sc riminat ory reas on for th e adve rs e em

pl oym en t ac ti on , th e b ur de n s hi fts ba ck to th e p la in ti ff t o s ho w th at th e st at edreas on s ar e m ere p ret ex ts forun lawfu l d is cri m in at io n. Alva re z , 61 0 3F.3 d a t 1 26 4. A rea so n i s n otpre te xtfor di sc riminat io n u nl es s i t i s s ho wn bo th th atth e rea so n was fal se an d tha t d is cri m in at io n was th e rea l re as on . St . Mar y’s Hon or Cen te r v. Hi cks , 50 9 U.S. 5 02 , 51 5, 1 13 S.Ct . 27 42 , 27 52 , 12 5 L.Ed .2d40 7 (1 99 3) . Ult im at el y , an e m

pl oyee m us t m eetth e em

pl oyer’s st at edreas on “ he adon an d re bu t i t, an d [s he ] can no t s uc ceedby sim pl y qu arre li ng with the wis do m of th atreas on .” Alva re

z , 61 0 F .3dat 1 26 6. To sh ow p ret ex t, the pl ai nt iff m us t

“ co m e fo rwardwith e vi de nc e, in cl ud in g t he pre vi ou sl y pro du cedev id en ce es tabl is hi ng th e p rima facie cas e, su ffi ci en t t o p erm ita reas on ab le fact fin de r to co nc lu de th atth e rea so ns gi ve n b y th e em pl oyer were n otth e rea l re as on s fo r th e adve rs e em

pl oym en t d eci si on .” W

as cu ra v. Cit

y o f S ou th Mia mi , 25 7 F .3d12 38 , 12 43 (11 th Cir .20 01 ) (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . The in qu iry int o wh ethe r anem pl oyer’s pro ffer edreas on s wer e m erel y pr et ex tu al cen te rs onth e em pl oyer’s bel ie fs , no t the be li efs of t he em pl oyee or ev enth e o bjec ti ve real ity . Alva re z , 61 0 F .3dat 1 26 6. Co nc lu so ry all eg at io ns or un supp orte d a ss ert io ns , witho utm or e, “ are n otsu ffi ci en t t o ra is e anin fere nc e o f pr et ex t[.]” May

fi eld v . Pat te rs on Pump Co
. , 10 1 F .3d13 71 , 13 76 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ). If th e p la in ti ff “ do es no t p ro ffersu ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o c reat e a g enui ne is su e o f m at eri al factreg ard in g wh ethe r eac h o f th e d efen da ntem pl oyer’s 4art ic ul at edreas on s i s p ret ex tu al , th e em pl oyer is en ti tl edto su m

m ary jud gm en t o n th e p la in ti ff’s cl ai m .” Ch ap man v. AI Tra ns po rt , 22 9 F .3d10 12 , 10 24 -2 5 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 00 ); se e a ls o C

ra wf ord v . Cit y o f Fa ir bu rn , Ga. , 48 2 F .3d13 05 , 13 09 (11 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (h ol di ng th atpl ai nt iff who fai le d t o re bu t ea chleg it im at e no nd is cri m in at ory

reas on of the de fen da ntfai le d t o ra is e a g enui ne is su e o f m at eri al factab ou t wh ethe r th os e rea so ns were p ret ex t fo r di sc riminat io n) . Upo n re vi ew of

th e rec or d a ndco ns id erat io n o f th e p art ie s’ bri efs , we affi rm . The rec or d h ere s up po rte d e ach of t he reas on s g iv enforterm in at io n. Fi rs t, Jo se ph pro vi de d C B&T wi th su ffi ci en t re as on to be li ev e th atsh e was un wil li ng to pe rfo rm th e sa le s as pe ctof h er job , bas edon he r: ( 1) in co ns is te ntan d g en eral ly po orsal es effo rts ; (2 ) fai lu re t o fo ll ow up o n h er s up erv is or s’ pl anforhe r to im pr ov e h er s al es ; (3 ) st at em en t t o asupe rv is orth atsh e d idno t wi sh to pe rfo rm th atasp ectof h er job ; an d (4 ) st at em en ts to he r supe rv is or s tha t s he was “ th ro win g in th e to wel,” an d tha t s he di d n otwis h t o b e co ns id eredforany up co m in g op po rtu ni ti es , th athe r job wasn ’t forhe r, an d t ha t s he was ju stwait in g t o m ov e o n to othe r op po rtu ni ti es . Seco nd , Jo se ph pre se nt edno ev id en ce t o s up po rt h er cl ai m th atsh e n ev er h adth e at te nd an ce p ro bl em s tha t CB &T as cri be d t o h er, wh il e CB& T pre se nt edev id en ce tha t J os ep h h adbe enco un se le d fo r la te ne ss an d ab se nt eei sm

as e arl y as 2 00 3, was oft enlat e to work , hadbe enin fo rm edth athe r

5de ve lo pm en t as anem pl oyee was b ei ng im

pa ire d b y he r rat e o f ab se nt eei sm , and ha d b eento ldth atsh e n eed edto m ak e arra ng em en ts forth e car e o f he r ch il dr en th atdi d n otin vo lv e h er b ei ng ab se ntfro m work . She , th eref

or e, fai le d t o m eet th es e rea so ns “ he adon an d re bu t [t he m ]. ” Se e Alva re z , 61 0 F .3dat 1 26 6. Furth erm or e, Jo se ph di d n otde m on st rat e p ret ex t thr ou gh CB&T’s treat m en t o f Ken no n, b ecau se th ere was no ev id en ce p res en te d t ha t Ken no n was tre at ed di ffer en tl y , as J os ep h was als o o ffer edth e o pp ortu ni ty to b eco m e a p ers on al ba nk er. May na rd , 34 2 F .3dat 1 28 9. Insu m , bec au se Jo se phdi d n otpre se ntev id en ce t o s ho w th atCB&T’s reas on s fo r he r te rm in at io n wer e b ot h fa ls e an d d is cri min at ory , we affi rm . AFFIRMED.

6