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

Heading: Refusal to Hire (Project Coordinator I) Claim

Text: We also conclude that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Georgia Tech on Gerard’s refusal to hire claim. Although Gerard contends that Bridges, the decision maker, knew of his protected retaliation claim – because he forwarded to Bridges copies of his February 2006 letter to Neely, in which he clearly laid out his claim for retaliation – we find that the Neely letter cannot be construed as protected activity because, although it mentioned retaliation, it did not mention race, color, or national origin, nor did it allege that Gerard was subjected to discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin. See Exh. Folder, Exh. 27 at 1-2. Moreover, there is no evidence that Bridges knew of Gerard’s GCEO charges prior to making his hiring decision. Additionally, even if Gerard established that his qualifications were equal to those 20 of Smith, Georgia Tech provided legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for hiring Smith, namely, that she had experience both in a university setting and “working closely with contracts, including monitoring and closing out contracts,” and that she “possessed the ability to interpret contracts as they relate to property.” R3-61, Exh. C at 3. Finally, Gerard provided no evidence that Georgia Tech’s reasons for not hiring him were pretextual. Although Gerard filed his GCEO complaints in late 2005 and early 2006, shortly before Georgia Tech’s refusal to hire him in April 2006, we conclude that this temporal proximity alone does not show pretext. See Wascura, 257 F.3d at 1247. While Gerard attempts to rebut Georgia Tech’s contention that his qualifications were inferior to those of Smith by attacking Smith’s education, experience, grammar, and resume, he ultimately fails to meet Georgia Tech’s reason for hiring Smith head on, and rebut it, as required by our precedent in this area. See Chapman, 229 F.3d at 1030. Further, he presents no arguments, and there is no evidence, that Georgia Tech’s reasons for hiring Smith instead of him were not legitimate.