Opinion ID: 772395
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Title VII Direct Evidence Contention Based on Chief Moody's Statements

Text: 28 First, Bass contends that a statement made to him by Chief Moody - the chief of the Fire and Rescue Division at the time of the decision not to offer Bass one of the Training Instructor positions during the 1995 reorganization - constitutes direct evidence of discrimination. Bass testified that he confronted Chief Moody about the promotion of employees who lacked the necessary qualifications for the Training Instructor position, and Moody responded that the County would continue to promote based on color. We agree with the district court that this statement does not rise to the level of direct evidence of discrimination by the Division. 29 Direct evidence of discrimination is evidence which, if believed, would prove the existence of a fact [in issue] without inference or presumption. Earley v. Champion Int'l Corp., 907 F.2d 1077, 1081 (11th Cir. 1990) (citation and emphasis omitted). [O]nly the most blatant remarks, whose intent could be nothing other than to discriminate on the basis of [race] . . . constitute direct evidence of discrimination. Damon v. Fleming Supermarkets of Fla., Inc., 196 F.3d 1354, 1358 (11th Cir. 1999) (citations omitted). For statements of discriminatory intent to constitute direct evidence of discrimination, they must be made by a person involved in the challenged decision. Trotter v. Bd. of Trustees, 91 F.3d 1449, 1453-54 (11th Cir. 1996). [R]emarks by non-decisionmakers or remarks unrelated to the decisionmaking process itself are not direct evidence of discrimination. Standard v. A.B.E.L. Servs., Inc., 161 F.3d 1318, 1330 (11th Cir. 1998). 30 Bass argues that Chief Moody's statement - made close in time to the decision to offer the Training Instructor positions to other candidates and against the backdrop of the County's affirmative action plans - constitutes direct evidence of discrimination. However, Bass presented no evidence showing that Moody was a decisionmaker or involved in the selection of the Training Instructors. Although Bass attaches significance to the fact that Moody was the chief at the time of the decision, the fact remains that Moody was not a member of the interview panel and was not involved in the selection process. Only statements by the persons involved in the decisionmaking process, here the interview panel members, could constitute direct evidence of discrimination. Therefore, although Moody's statements may provide significant circumstantial support for Bass' claims, they do not constitute direct evidence of discrimination. See Standard, 161 F.3d at 1330. 31