Evans v. McClain of Georgia, Inc.

jury District.of grand A of the Southern at- appellant for promptly

Florida indicted after

tempting reenter the United States See 8 .U.S.C.A.

having deported. been (b)(2) (West 1326(b), Supp.1997). juryA

§§ and, charged, him after sentenc-

convicted as appeal.

ing, he took this

Appellant presents four claims of error. merit, only worthy and one is

None has appellant’s

comment: claim that the district jury refusing

court erred in to instruct the charged specific

that the offense is a intent

crime, general intent crime as the court In United States v. jury.

instructed Cir.1997),

Henry, we “specific intent is not an element of

held illegal reentry into the

the offense of United deportation after in violation of Title 8

States acknowledges Appellant, 1326.”

U.S.C. by Henry's holding are we bound distinguish ground it on the

seeks attempting charged

appellant was States, reentering.

reenter the United Reyes- Circuit, United States

The First

Medina, Cir.1995) (1st (unpub 53 F.3d 327

lished), found no merit in this distinction. Reyes-Medina persuasive adopt find

We holding.

its

AFFIRMED. EVANS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

Aric GEORGIA, INC., McClain

McCLAIN OF

Industries, Inc., Defendants-

Appellees. 96-9004.

No. Appeals,

United States Court

Eleventh Circuit.

Dec. Worley, Slawsky, Ja- Norman J.

David J. Atlanta, GA, P.A., Plain- Slawsky, cobs & tiff-Appellant. Jaffe, Williams, Raitt, Heuer &

Thomas H. MI, Georgia Weiss, Detroit, for McClain of Industries. and McClain Plowden, Jr., Jones, plant manager, Cork in line to be the Hall stormed & W. Warren Macon, Georgia, GA, plant saying out of the would Miller, for McClain of McClain, up- “nigger.” who was work Inc. Hall, prospect losing sent anoth- set and, return, upon employee find him er allegedly promised Hall that he would manager Appel- next trained as the DUBINA, EDMONDSON Before incident, plant. Appel- lees’ Texas After *, LIMBAUGH Senior Judges, and Circuit placed Hall was over him in lant claims Judge. District managerial hierarchy. plant’s PER CURIAM: proved incompetent manager Cole to be an on November terminated Plaintiff-Appellant (“Appel- Aric Evans Flowers, manag- replaced was Neal He lant”) from the district court’s appeals Appellees’ plants. from one of Oklahoma er of race summary on his claims in Appellees brought claim was to Flowers Title VII of the Civil under discrimination plant’s in to a new assist the conversion (“Title VTI”),. 42 U.S.C. Rights Act of n product line. § seq. § and 42 et U.S.C.. 2000e (“ 1981”) compensation § and for overtime Contemporaneous all of events with these Fair Labor Act under the Standards campaign organize to union at the was (“FLSA”), For seq. 201 et the 29 U.S.C. Appellant a man- plant. Whether or not was forth, we reverse and remand. reasons set perceived by agement employee, he was level everyone part of integral as an the union’s Background and Procedural

Facts fact, counsel, Thomas effort. In Georgia, Defendants-Appellees Williams, Appellant McClain of in- H. met with and Industries, (collectively Inc. engage Inc. and McClain him that he not to in formed was operate an industrial “Appellees”) activity own and an further union because he was Macon, Georgia, Appellant and fabricate there plant plant manager. in denied assistant compactors. status, and Prior large noting trash bins management steel his that he was discharge, Appellant worked at employed hourly wage had to his as an earner. plant approximately for Appellees’ Macon thereafter, Shortly Appellant became a sal- eight years. Although being he employee. aried admits manager,- plant the Ken July In supervisory responsibility, he charged with Graham, replaced on resigned. He was hour- that he was still treated as an contends plant temporary by the assistant man- basis ly position, Appel- employee. support To his appears to be ager, There no A Buckalew. he in the lant claims that was included Buckalew, dispute assisting in Appellant, meetings, make plant’s management did not He in command. contends that was second report had assignments, and still work plant. he employees. Appel- hourly am- 6:00 was^running only given a sala- lant maintains that he was 3, 1994, McClain, Kenneth On October in ry bargaining him from the unit remove president and chairman of board organization union’s attempt an to thwart the Industries, Inc., named Ken Cole as McClain effort. manager. Buckalew remained plant the new plant manager and as an unofficial assistant 22, 1996, day February On before was, purportedly, next in line. Appellant election, union McClain asked fired, keys, even an incident told him During this time there was plant, Appellant threatening to shoot leadmen accused involving one Appellees now con- plant. at the that when someone Appellant Tim Hall. contends tend, however, aetual- was not Appellant was next told Hall that Buckalew ^[*] Honorable District Judge Stephen N. Eastern District Mis- Limbaugh, Senior U.S. souri, sitting by designation. 24,1995, day Finally, the district court concluded that February after ly fired until ineligible for overtime com- election. the union he was pensation under the FLSA because Appel- Appellees claim that McClain fired capacity working in an executive and was a , disruptive he had become a lant because n employee. salaried intentionally creat- force in the and was 1) points appeal: Appellant raises four among lower level ing tensions racial analyzing court erred in his dis- Ap- They further contend that employees. an- crimination claims under the standard negligent performing his pellant was Green, Douglas in McDonnell nounced white em- duties and had threatened certain 93 S.Ct. 36 L.Ed.2d ployees. (1973), presented direct evidence because he that after the incident Appellant claims 2) discrimination; court erred the district Hall, him began to harass with Tim McClain concluding that his circumstantial attempt resign. him to He in an to force as a matter of law on the was insufficient changed continually explains that McClain promote and discriminato- issues of failure responsibili- job and reduced his duties 3) ry discharge; the district court erred pro- that he was denied ties. He insists concluding that no reasonable trier of fact ultimately terminated because motions and conclude that he had established failure could maintains that he was his race. He also promote discriminatory discharge-in compensation in wrongfully overtime denied light subsequent decision of the Na- violation of the FLSA. (“NLRB”) in a tional Labor Relations Board 4) ease; and the district court erred related granted summary judg The district exempt-from fconeluding that he was claims. Ev against Appellant on both ment Inc., requirements of the FLSA. F.Supp. overtime Georgia, 934 ans v. McClain of (M.D.Ga.1996). 1383 Review Standard of es- concluding Appellant In that could not This' reviews de novo a district Court discriminatory prima case of tablish facie summary judgment, applying court’s of promote, court' com- failure to the district legal standards that bound the the same probative value of the pletely discounted the court, viewing all facts and involving Tim The court stated: incident Hall. light in the inferences therefrom reasonable racially or not Tim Hall made Whether party. non-moving most favorable to the him, attributed to offensive statement 1579, County, 50 Tallapoosa F.3d Hale Hall suggests record that nothing (11th Cir.1995); Oil Co. v. McGuire 1581 that preferential promotion or received a (11th Inc., 1552, F.2d 1557 Cir Mapco, 958 . position greater placed in a Hall was .1992) Summary judgment appropriate is than Plaintiff en- responsibility prestige genuine of mate only “there is no issue when fails to describe joyed. the record While moving party ... is entitled rial fact and scope of position HalTs or the the nature of Fed. a matter of law.” to as authority, suggest that his it does 56(c). R.Civ.P. Plaintiff, but position in a above Hall each that Plaintiff and rather shows Evidence Direct separate phase of responsibility for a had that there is direct evidence “When assistant plant’s operations, and were motivating in the factor discrimination was equal status. managers' approximately decision, appro challenged Evans, F.Supp. at 1388. 934 em analysis different from that priate is only where circumstantial ployed that in a case concluded Although the district court Board Trotter v. evidence is available.” prima ease could establish Appellant Alabama, University 91 F.3d he Trustees discriminatory discharge, it held that (11th Cir.1996); Birming Bell v. 1453 overcome showing pretext made no Service, 1556 715 F.2d non-discriminatory rea- ham Linen legitimate, denied, Cir.), 104 467 U.S. sons for his termination. 962 (1984). satisfy Appellant’s regard. 344 The basis burden in this L.Ed.2d S.Ct. 81 Waterhouse, plaintiff pro that once a analysis is Price See 490 U.S. at

for the (O’Connor, J., discriminatory of a mo evidence S.Ct. 1804-05 concur duces direct accepts trier of facts this testi tive, ring)(“Thus, stray workplace in the remarks issue is ultimate of discrimination justify requiring ... cannot mony “the such, Bell, F.2d at 1556. As proved.” prove hiring that or promotion decisions its. finding may avoid a of liabili legitimate “the defendant can based criteria. Nor were by proving preponderance of the ty only by nondecisionmakers....”); by statements made (same). it would have the same Trotter, that evidence at 1453-54 More [illegiti it had taken even if over, argument decision assuming for the sake of that account.” Price into Water criterion] mate promotion resulted in Hall’s outburst his 228, 258, Hopkins, 490 house v. demotion, there is no evi and/or (1989). L.Ed.2d S.Ct. proves directly that dence which McClain discriminatory Price acted with motive. argues that Appellant McClain’s Waterhouse, U.S. at conduct, statements, and attitudes are direct (O’Connor, J., concurring)(“What is re discriminatory motive. See of his evidence quired ... is direct evidence decision- Corp., Packaging v. Alton EEOC placed negative makers substantial reliance Cir.1990) racially (general discrimi illegitimate in reaching on an criterion their natory constitute direct evidence of remarks added). decision.”)(emphasis promote failure black em decisionmakers’ reasons). At his ployees for argues presented that he further testified deposition, McClain undisputed talk McClain would employees white “strut.” intimidated employees employ- but ignore white black Appellant, very “a He further testified n ees, employees that he laid off black very strong, very muscular black large, experience comparable than white em- more man,” attempting to intimidate “three ployees, promoted that employees he white overweight men.” or white smaller seniority comparable less than with black in statements others These give he employees and that would white em- be, brief, they may inappropriate however loans, ployees privileges, such as were that discriminatory of a not direct evidence are employees. Additionally, given not to black respect Appellant’s to claims of with motive that Appellant contends one of local tem- promote discriminatory or dis failure to porary agencies it not indicated that would v. Burrell Board Trustees charge. See of of to applicants send black because 1390, Military College, 125 F.3d Georgia employees did want in McClain black Cir.1997)(“Direct (11th evidence is evi 1393 positions. office believed, dence,, proves if exis [the] which in issue without inference or of fact tence correctly dismissed The omitted). quotation presumption.”)(internal significantly probative” this as “not evidence merely best, suggest a At these statements gossip, it based because on common which, by definition, discriminatory motive knowledge, hearsay and the statement of an evidence.1 Id. at makes them circumstantial in representative. unidentified There is no 1393-94. any of dication this evidence can be Similarly, involving Tim at the incident reduced admissible evidence trial. See Services, a discriminato v. 92 F.3d Hall is not direct evidence of Pritchard Southern Co. (11th Cir.)(inadmissible 1130, ry hearsay with claims 1135 respect motive judg promote discriminatory summary a motion for of failure to dis cannot defeat Hall, charge. As a decisionmaker ment when it is reducible admissible was not trial), reh’g, respect of at amended F.3d to either these form 102 Cir.1996). decisions, discriminatory comment cannot 1118 Packaging. finding comments made Alton See 1. this is our conclusion Implicit 1393, narrowly specif- Burrell, aré tailored to a these comments ic event 125 F.3d at n. 7. and, therefore, distinguishable are from Burdine, Finally, Appellant (quoting argues that F.3d at 1528 450 U.S. at 1094). (650 254-55, 101 at history Appellees’ operations em S.C.t only eight plants), been ployees in there have If the meets this bur Appel supervisory employees. three black production, having presumption, “[t]he den however, pro has argue, lees of forcing fulfilled its role the defendant to (i.e., other whether vided no information response, simply come with some forward supervisory employees applied ever black picture.” drops Mary’s out of the Honor St. positions) to make otherwise anecdotal Hicks, 502, 510-11, v. Center e.g., significant. information See Howard 2742, (1993); L.Ed.2d 407 see S.Ct. Inc., 520, Co., 3 BP Oil Burdine, 10, 450 U.S. n. at 255 & also Cir.1994)(“ relevant, .. for this fact Still, & n. 10. the elements of at 1095 present have evidence plaintiff would had to Combs, facie n prima case remain. many applied and were as to how blacks Moreover, accompanied F.3d at 1528. whén rejected evidence success rate of of the pretext or disbelief qualified applicants.”). equally white We proffered explanation, in defendant’s some analytic founda agree. Statistics without an instances, may permit they finding for the “virtually meaningless.” are Brown v. tion 1529; Hicks, plaintiff. Id. at see Co., Honda American Motor plaintiff 113 S.Ct. at The U.S. at (11th Cir.), denied, 502 U.S. 952-53 however, always ulti employee, retains the (1992). 112 S.Ct. 117 L.Ed.2d proving mate burden Hicks, of intentional victim discrimination. Accordingly, appropriate- the district court 2747-48; Bur 509 U.S. S.Ct. at ly analyzed Appellant’s claims discrimination dine, 450 U.S. 101 S.Ct. at 1093-94. Douglas standard. under the McDonnell Discussion Douglas The McDonnell Standard Failure to Promote A. Douglas Under McDonnell Aprima ease of facie standard, plaintiff initial burden has the promote requires plaintiff to failure to establishing prima case discrimi protected that he is member of a show Douglas, 411 U.S. at nation. McDonnell class; qualified applied for he was for and 1824; Department Texas Com 93 S.Ct. at rejected; he was and other promotion; Burdine, munity 450 U.S. Affairs qualified employees equally or less who were & n. 67 253-54 & n. 101 S.Ct. 1094 protected class were not members Patterns, 207; Combs Plantation L.Ed.2d Combs, 106 n. 11. promoted. F.3d at 1539 (11th Cir.1997), 1519, 1527-28 — — denied, Ap -, that The district court concluded U.S. 118 S.Ct. - (1997) (No. 97-361). prima not establish case pellant If the could a L.Ed.2d facie discriminatory successfully prima promote failure to because plaintiff a establishes fa- ease, legal did not indicate that he was actu presumption a of unlawful the record cie Evans, F.Supp. ally promotion. a arises and the burden shifts denied discrimination (“The was employer legiti a record shows that Plaintiff defendant to articulate at 1388 the mate, salary chal and the title of assistant man nondiscriminatory given reason for the a and, manager, despite argu employment ager McDonnell stock his lenged action. or 1824; only, promotion in name at at that the was Douglas, 411 U.S. 93 S.Ct. ment 1094; deposition in Burdine, that at at the Plaintiffs own states 450 U.S. 101 S.Ct. Cole, Combs, satisfy shakeup firing that after the of Ken 106 F.3d at “To the 1528. acquired managerial responsi new production, need Plaintiff defendant ‘[t]he burden .job.”). actually beyond previous those of his persuade the that it was bilities court nothing proffered It is court also concluded that the reasons. The district motivated suggested “re a that Tim Hall if the defendant’s evidence raises in the record sufficient promotion that preferential [he] as it genuine issue of fact to whether discrim ceived ” Combs, position greater responsi- in against plaintiff.’ placed the was inated basis,for [Appellant] enjoyed.” the district court’s of sum- than prestige bility or granted mary judgment, the district court must re- its decision be Accordingly, Id. Appellees. in favor of summary versed.2 record, however, the reveals review of Our Discriminatory Discharge B. concerning Appellant’s the facts additional discriminatory prima ease A Three of promotion. lack of facie discharge requires plaintiff to show that he plant, worked at the testi- nephews, who class; protected of a he was was member meeting held a with that McClain certain fied job; de qualified for the he was terminated shortly after incident involv- employees his and after termi spite qualifications; his All three ing testified Hall occurred. that open position remained nation the putting that he Hall announced McClain applicants to seek of sim continued They further that Appellant. testified over Mayfield qualifications. v. Patterson ilar joke tell an off-color proceeded McClain Co., Pump Cir. F.3d employees compared certain at

which he 1996). body concluding parts, to various compared to an anus. being Appellant dispute is There no Additionally, Appellant testified that in the prima case of discrimina established a Hall, involving following incident months Accordingly, tory discharge. district changed weekly. job assignments his almost legitimate, non Appellees’ court considered frequently given that he was He contends several, It in found reasons. demeaning e.g., and menial tasks. See cluding for “intimi was fired Sharrett, they McCabe dating telling employees employees, given who was fewer re Cir.1994)(employee fired, failing targeted to to order were more sponsibilities perform and was made time, insubordination, parts making adverse menial tasks suffered Evans, at The F.Supp. threats.” action). properly Ap determined district court production. pellees their met burden Finally, Appellant maintains that he was salary him from the only given to remove then looked to the issue The district court attempt an bargaining unit thwart although pretext. It concluded there organization evidence on union’s effort. The dispute may have been some as to the credi Certainly is best inconclusive. point at bility legitimate, nondiscrimina Appellants discrepancies assign- between reasons, Appellant prevail un tory could managers, of the other as ments and those presented less the evidence also indicated delayed manner well which as discrimination that intentional race employee, support could Evans, a salaried became discharge. for his true reason finding. Hicks, such a F.Supp. (citing at 1389 2751-52).

Accordingly, we conclude that preliminary respect, In this burden of es Appellant met case in error. Under the established rule tablishing prima a of discriminato was Circuit, plaintiff a can survive a ry promote. to As this was the sole law failure theory giving recovery. Although precise to that is court not to address rise All the district chose Complaint prop Appellant's required on to of whether is that defendant be notice as the issue against erly being claim failure to asserted a him and the the claim asserted prop promote, it it was we will consider because grounds v. Food on which it rests.” Sams United parties pure it erly by Union, and involves a raised 866 F.2d & Comm’l Workers Int’l Dean, question Narey See 32 F.3d of law. (11th Cir.1989); Dussouy see Gulf 1994). (11th Cir. (5th Corp., 660 Coast Investment Cir.1981)(“The sig complaint is form of the require Rules Civil Procedure The Federal alleges upon which relief can nificant if it facts plain "a and only pleading that a contain short categorize correctly granted, to even if it fails showing be pleader that the statement of the claim claim.”). legal theory giving We relief, rise to the judgment is for entitled to and demand Appellant’s Complaint pleader conclude that satisfies Fed.R.Civ.P. for the relief the 8(a). seeks.” complaint specify in these liberal standards. "A need not detail the er, narrowly. judg- are to construed Nicholson summary judgment for or motion Network, Inc., Business 105 F.3d v. World simply by presenting a matter of law ment as — denied, Cir.), genuine to sufficient demonstrate (1997). -, 139 L.Ed.2d 287 falsity or material fact as to the truth issue of Indeed, has the burden employer’s legitimate, nondiscrimina- of the showing exemption. that it is entitled to the Combs, 1530-32; 106 F.3d at tory reasons. Sox, Inc., Jeffery v. Sarasota 64 F.3d White Howard, 527-28; Hairston v. 32 F.3d Cir.1995). Co., Publishing Gainesville Sun (11th Cir.1993). Ap The court concluded that exempt pellant was from the overtime com appears Appel it On our review pensation requirements of FLSA because to create a presented lant sufficient evidence working capacity in an executive and he was respect genuine of material fact with issue $35,000.00. salary paid an annual Ev was falsity or of each of the truth (“29 ans, F.Supp. at 1391 C.F.R. nondiscriminatory reasons. Ac legitimate, 541.1(f) employee § an who is provides ‘that Appellant’s of the facts as cepting version compensated salary basis at a rate of [on] true, conclude that he was fired on we must week, per than ... and whose less $250 February 1995. The record indicates management of primary duty consists of the date, that, yet McClain had not as of that employee is em enterprise in which the by anyone was informed been customary ... ployed and includes up racial tensions at the attempting to stir regular of the of two or more discretion work Ap indication that plant. Nor is there require employees therein’ meets the other negligent or insubordinate pellant had been 213(a) exempt from ments of section and is contrary, it performing his duties. On pay requirements.”). Accord the overtime capable em appears granted summary ingly, the district court frequently upon relied ployee who was claim for overtime immediately compensation months day day operations of the for the assist in the discharge. preceding his plant. Appellees’ explanations ad hoc actual date arguments regarding Appellant’s court Appellant argues that the district at this simply are insufficient of termination considering employee him a erred in salaried proceedings. stage of the salary only given a in an because he was attempt requirements to “obviate concerning Appel- Appellees’ assertions further Relations Act.” He National Labor similarly insuffi- “veiled threats” are lant’s with man- contends that he was not endowed recognized Even the district cient. responsibility he could not agerial because subject question these “were hire, reward, fire, suspend, or even promote, Evans, F.Supp. at 1389. trier of fact.” employees. grant time off for other court’s Accordingly, the district employer’s that an do not believe We Appellant’s claim of summary judgment on to the subjective are relevant motivations discriminatory discharge must be/reversed.3 employee not an inquiry of whether or salary regula basis. The compensated on a Compensation Overtime objective speak purely terms. tions exempts from its The FLSA 213(f)(“The ‘employee em term U.S.C. * * * “any employee requirements pay overtime capaci ployed in a bona fide executive executive, adminis employed 13(a)(1) in a bona fide mean ty’ in of the act shall section trative, capacity” re who professional compensated is any employee: ... [w]ho salary basis-”)(empha- basis. 29 U.S.C. payment salary on a ceives on a his services added). 213(a)(1)(1994); Nevertheless, that Avery City v. conclude § see also we sis of summary judg- 1337, grant of Cir. court’s 24 1340 the district Talladega, F.3d for overtime com- FLSA, Appellant’s claim 1994). ment on the howev- Exemptions under proceed- conclusion, subsequent and collateral the NLRB in ing light we deem it unneces- this 3. In of extent, whether, a for recon- a court on motion district sary to what bind and to consider of.summary judgment. grant credibility sideration of its findings determinations of and factual 966 8, employ was to raise the bar for defendant

pensation under FLSA erroneous. application the record whether in the traditional of It all clear from ers Fed. is at 56(c). actually Liberty in a bona execu- Lob Appellant acted fide R.Civ.P. See Anderson v. administrative, Inc., tive, 242, 249, 2505, professional capacity or by, 477 106 U.S. S.Ct. (1986) (the immediately preceding 2510-11, his dis- in months 91 L.Ed.2d 202 nonmov- charge. setting forth ing party bears the burden of specific showing facts that there is sufficient

Conclusion jury in its to allow to return evidence favor a it); Catrett, Corp. a for verdict Celotex v. 477 opinion, in this we For the reasons stated 324, 2553, 106 S.Ct. 91 U.S. summary court’s of reverse the district (same). (1986) 265 In L.Ed.2d Appellant’s dis- judgment on claims race cases, question “the ultimate compensation discrimination crimination and overtime Hicks, is non.” 509 discrimination vel U.S. court for further and to the district remand Aikens, 518, 113 (quoting at S.Ct. at 2753 460 proceedings. 1481). 714, 103 at at U.S. S.Ct. and REMANDED. REVERSED than plausible reading A more of the facts LIMBAUGH, Judge, Senior District amply problem case this demonstrates the concurring: analysis in with the offered Combs. Assume prima Appellant establishes a case of analysis I concur with both the and discriminatory discharge. Assume further in case Elev- result this under established Appellees legitimate, advance several presiding precedent. enth As Circuit nondiscriminatory employer’s reasons for the judge in the bench trial of the Hicks i.e., actions, Appellant disrup- had become case, however, compelled sepa- I feel to write by in intentionally force creat- tive my rately, respectfully, disagree- to note and among ing racial the lower tensions level propounded rule of law in ment with the duties, negligently performing employees, his Patterns, 106 1519 Combs Plantation threatening employees. certain white Cir.1997). Finally, presents Appellant assume evidence Supreme unequivocally In Hicks the Court genuine sufficient to of materi- create issue (as here) stated, though say rejec we “[e]ven falsity Appellees’ al as to the truth or fact proffered reasons is tion of the defendant’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory Un- reasons. enough finding at law to sustain discrim existing Circuit, der rule of law in this ination, finding must discrimi there summary can survive a motion for Hicks, 113 nation.” U.S. at 511 n. judgment or for as matter of law. (emphasis original). n. 4 The S.Ct. however, recognized Suppose, explicitly virtually that “trial courts Court there is indicating no reviewing [not] courts should treat dis dis differently charge by ulti his crimination from other motivated race. On the they contrary, -suppose questions of fact. Nor should the evidence overwhelm mate by discharged inquiry ingly suggests make even more difficult their participation organization in a applying legal rules which were devised union plant. govern at the motivation the basic allocation of burdens effort While this is deciding clearly unlawful presentation proof order of under National Labor Id., Act, Inc., Georgia, at Relations question.” ultimate S.Ct. see McClain of (1996), way it in (quoting Postal N.L.R.B. 367 no violates Service Gover Bd. of Aikens, §or See 42 nors v. 460 U.S. 103 S.Ct. Title VII U.S.C.2000e- (1983)) (internal 2(a); U.S.C.1981(a); see Hazen 75 L.Ed.2d 403 Pa omitted). 604, 608-14, per Biggins, Simply put, citation quotations and Co. U.S. (1993) 1701, 1705-08, Douglas shifting burden 123 L.Ed.2d 338 the McDonnell -S.Ct. Age progressively (employer “is intended does not violate the Discrimi framework Act, Employment sharpen inquiry factual nation in 29 U.S.C. into elusive question discrimination,” seq., terminating employees et older intentional Bur dine, pension from prevent n. their benefits at 255 n. at 1094 order employer, though engaging plaintiff action for the even if vesting, even such JAML evidence, pretext evidence of if that Employee under the Retirement has some is unlawful 1974, another, Security Act 29 U.S.C. for one reason or falls short of Income discrimination”). seq.). proving indi- intentional et Absent some evidence by motivated a cating that the animus, have no author- “[w]e liability impose alleged ... discrim-

ity to Hicks, practices.”

inatory employment 514, Accordingly, 113 S.Ct. at

U.S. at 2751.

judgment granted as a matter of law must employer.

in favor of these reasons for the reasons For Petitioner, WAKEFIELD, D. Fred therein, I analysis offered mentioned find Knight-Ridder Newspaper Isenbergh v. v. (11th Cir.), Sales, Inc., 97 F.3d 440-44 RETIREMENT RAILROAD — denied, U.S. -, cert. S.Ct. BOARD, Respondent. (1997), per more 138 L.Ed.2d 1014 to be a No. 96-2267. reading and accurate of Hicks. See suasive Agen Hidalgo v. Ins. Overseas Condado Appeals, United States Court of Cir.1997) (1st cies, Inc., 120 F.3d Eleventh Circuit. (“In summary judgment context of a requires the em proceeding, Hicks that once Dec. a ployer legitimate has advanced nondiscrim inatory for its de basis adverse

cision, plaintiff, becoming entitled before fact, bring the case before the trier of evidence sufficient for the factfin-

must show reasonably employ to conclude that the

der discharge him .... was

er’s decision criteri

wrongfully illegitimate [an based on

on].”) (internal omitted); quotation Fisher (2d College, 114 Cir.

Vassar

1997) (en banc) (“a prima meeting facie case Douglas standard of

the minimal McDonnell

(even acknowledged elements are where defendant), together finding necessarily up add to a sus

pretext, do discrimination”), de case of

tainable — — -, nied S.Ct.

L.Ed.2d - (1997) (No. 97-404); Rhodes Tools, 75 F.3d

Guiberson Oil banc)

Cir.1996) (en (“The employer, of

course, summary judgment will be entitled to taken would

if the evidence as whole infer reason jury that the actual

allow discriminatory.”); discharge was 832, 848

Ryther v. RARE

Cir.) J., (Loken, partial separate concur Eighth commanding majority

rence — denied, U.S. -, banc), en cert Circuit (“[a] (1997) L.Ed.2d may grant summary

Case Details

Case Name: Evans v. McClain of Georgia, Inc.

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Date Published: Dec 18, 1997

Citation: 131 F.3d 957

Docket Number: 96-9004

Court Abbreviation: 11th Cir.