Case: 12-16145 Date Filed: 09/06/2013 Page: 1 of 7
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-16145
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:11-cv-61749-MGC
JAMES WOOLSEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
TOWN OF HILLSBORO BEACH,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(September 6, 2013)
Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-16145 Date Filed: 09/06/2013 Page: 2 of 7
James Woolsey appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in
favor of the Town of Hillsboro Beach (Town) in his suit brought under the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 623(a), and the Florida
Civil Rights Act (FCRA), Fla. Stat. § 760.10(1)(a). 1 On appeal, Woolsey argues
the Town’s proffered reasons for his demotion were generalized, conclusory, and
purely subjective. Even assuming the Town met its burden of articulating
legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for his demotion, Woolsey claims these
reasons were pretextual because the Town’s explanations were untrue, and a jury
could have reasonably inferred that the reason for his demotion was his age. For
the following reasons, we affirm.
I. Background
In 2008, the Town’s Chief of Police promoted Woolsey, almost 50 years-old
at the time, to Captain, or second-in-command. According to Woolsey, by 2010,
his relationship with the Chief was “becoming difficult” because he “had
implemented certain practices that [the Chief] did not agree with.” Woolsey
claimed the Chief twice demanded that he retire and was silent when he asked
why. The Chief also provided him with materials for the Florida Retirement
System’s Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP) around the same time they
1
Age discrimination claims brought under FCRA “have been considered within the same
framework used to decide actions brought pursuant to the ADEA.” Zaben v. Air Prods. &
Chems., 129 F.3d 1453, 1455 n.2 (11th Cir. 1997).
2
Case: 12-16145 Date Filed: 09/06/2013 Page: 3 of 7
were having a disagreement about disciplining an officer. Woolsey further
testified that the Chief told him that if he did not retire, he “was going to take [him]
down in an embarrassing ball of flames.”
That same year, the Chief, on behalf of the Town, demoted Woolsey from
Captain to Patrol Officer, citing the following reasons for his decision: lack of
loyalty, lack of supervisory skills, failure to perform at the level expected of
Captain, failure to support the Police Department’s accreditation process, and
disagreements about how the Department should have been run. In support of
these reasons, the Town submitted multiple letters of counseling/reprimand and
performance evaluations issued to Woolsey explaining his specific deficiencies and
what needed to be done for him to improve, including a warning of possible
demotion or termination if he did not. Throughout his testimony, Woolsey
conceded he did not know why the Chief wanted him to retire, but he believed it
was because of his age.
II. Standard of Review
We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing all
evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Owen v. I.C. Sys.,
Inc., 629 F.3d 1263, 1270 (11th Cir. 2011). However, a party opposing a properly
submitted motion for summary judgment may not rest upon mere allegations or
denials of his pleadings, but must set forth specific facts showing that there is a
3
Case: 12-16145 Date Filed: 09/06/2013 Page: 4 of 7
genuine issue for trial. FED. R. CIV. P. 56. “The mere existence of a scintilla of
evidence in support of the [nonmoving party’s] position will be insufficient.”
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2512 (1986).
III. Discussion
Where, as here, a plaintiff seeks to establish age discrimination through
circumstantial evidence, a court may use the burden-shifting framework
established in McDonnell Douglas.2 Chapman v. AI Transp., 229 F.3d 1012, 1024
(11th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Under this framework, if a plaintiff establishes a prima
facie case of discrimination, the defendant may articulate a legitimate, non-
discriminatory reason for the challenged employment action. Chapman, 229 F.3d
at 1024. The Supreme Court has held that the defendant’s explanation of its
legitimate reasons must be clear and reasonably specific for it to satisfy its burden.
Texas Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 101 S. Ct. 1089, 1094-96 (1981).
Although Woolsey claims the Town failed to articulate legitimate, specific,
non-discriminatory reasons for his demotion, the record indicates the Chief
demoted Woolsey because of his lack of loyalty, lack of supervisory skills, failure
to perform at the level expected of Captain, failure to support the Department’s
2
In Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 129 S. Ct. 2343 (2009), the Supreme Court held that
the language “because of” in the ADEA statute meant that a plaintiff had to prove that age
discrimination was the “but-for” cause of the adverse employment action. Id. at 2350. Since
Gross, we have reaffirmed that the evaluation of ADEA claims based on circumstantial evidence
under the McDonnell Douglas framework is appropriate. See Sims v. MVM, Inc., 704 F.3d 1327,
1332 (11th Cir. 2013).
4
Case: 12-16145 Date Filed: 09/06/2013 Page: 5 of 7
accreditation process, and disagreements with him about how the Department
should have been run. In support of these reasons, the Town submitted multiple
letters of counseling and reprimand and negative performance evaluations issued to
Woolsey. While Woolsey argues these are all subjective reasons for his demotion,
a subjective reason is a legally sufficient reason where the employer “articulates a
clear and reasonably specific factual basis upon which it based its subjective
opinion,” as the Town did here. See Chapman, 229 F.3d at 1034-35. Therefore,
the Town carried its burden of production by offering a clear explanation of its
legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the challenged employment action. See
Burdine, 101 S. Ct. at 1094-96.
Once a defendant articulates legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for an
employment decision, the plaintiff is afforded an opportunity to show the
employer’s stated reason is a pretext for discrimination. Chapman, 229 F.3d at
1024. To show pretext, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the proffered reasons
were not the true reasons for the employment decision. Brooks v. Cnty. Comm’n of
Jefferson Cnty., 446 F.3d 1160, 1162-63 (11th Cir. 2006). An employee can show
that the employer’s articulated reasons were not believable by pointing to
“weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions” in
the proffered explanation. Id. at 1163. However, a reason is not pretext for
discrimination “unless it is shown both that the reason was false, and that
5
Case: 12-16145 Date Filed: 09/06/2013 Page: 6 of 7
discrimination was the real reason.” Id. (quotations and emphasis omitted).
“Provided that the proffered reason is one that might motivate a reasonable
employer,” the plaintiff must meet the reason “head on and rebut it, and the
employee cannot succeed by simply quarreling with the wisdom of that reason.”
Chapman, 229 F.3d at 1030.
Woolsey failed to carry his burden to show that the Town’s legitimate, non-
discriminatory reasons were pretextual. In light of the evidence presented,
Woolsey did not successfully attack the Town’s reasons, “head on.” Chapman,
229 F.3d at 1030. He did not point to sufficient weaknesses or contradictions in
the Town’s explanation, but instead, corroborated it by agreeing that he had
disagreements with the Chief about how the Department should be run. Brooks,
446 F.3d at 1163. Even if Woolsey had shown that the Town’s reasons were false,
he failed to demonstrate that age discrimination was the real reason for his
demotion. Id. Woolsey’s testimony, taken against the weight of the evidence
presented by the Town, including Woolsey’s strained relationship with the Chief
and his negative performance evaluations, constitutes a scintilla of evidence
insufficient to support Woolsey’s contention that he was demoted based on his age.
Anderson, 106 S. Ct. at 2512. This is particularly true in light of the fact that the
Chief had previously promoted him to Captain at the age of 49. Moreover,
Woolsey failed to show that age was the but-for cause of his demotion for the same
6
Case: 12-16145 Date Filed: 09/06/2013 Page: 7 of 7
reasons he failed to show pretext. See Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 129 S. Ct.
2343, 2350 (2009). Based on the above, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
7