Opinion ID: 3063444
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Withdrawal of “Promised” SENSIAC Position

Text: The district court did not err by granting Georgia Tech’s motion for 18 summary judgment on Gerard’s retaliatory withdrawal of promised work claim. We conclude that Gerard’s December 2005 letter to Cross did not constitute statutorily protected expression, because it laid out a list of grievances, but did not indicate that he was discriminated against based on his membership in a protected group. In fact, his letter contained one mention of race, which, when taken in context, did not assert a claim for racial discrimination. This “scintilla of evidence” was insufficient to overcome Georgia Tech’s motion for summary judgment. See Young, 358 F.3d at 860. While Gerard’s other charges of discrimination, e.g., his GEOC complaints, were protected activity, the evidence does not show that Batchelor was aware of them when she decided to not offer Gerard a position in her department. Gerard speculates that Batchelor was aware of the complaints because she did not affirmatively deny knowing of them in her affidavit, but, as we previously have noted, speculation does not create a genuine issue of material fact. See Cordoba, 419 F.3d at 1181. Because the record evidence shows that Batchelor’s discomfort with Gerard stemmed largely from his comparison of Georgia Tech officials to the “brutal regime of Papa Doc, his Tonton Macoute and the Boogie Man,” and from his generally unbalanced and hostile tone in other correspondence with her, we find that she had a legitimate reason for refusing to hire him. See Elrod, 939 F.2d 19 at 1470. Moreover, the record does not show any evidence of, and Gerard does not argue, pretext. Because Gerard failed to show that (1) he engaged in protected activity in late 2005 and early 2006, (2) a causal connection existed between such activity and the alleged withdrawal of promised work by Batchelor, or (3) this act was retaliatory, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Georgia Tech on Gerard’s withdrawal of promised work claim.