USCA11 Case: 21-13680 Date Filed: 07/26/2022 Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-13680 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

RICHARD CHEATWOOD, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus CITY OF VESTAVIA HILLS,

Defendant-Appellee,

CHIEF OF POLICE, City of Vestavia Hills,

Defendant. USCA11 Case: 21-13680 Date Filed: 07/26/2022 Page: 2 of 4

2 Opinion of the Court 21-13680

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama D.C. Docket No. 2:17-cv-00984-MHH ____________________

Before ROSENBAUM, LUCK, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Richard Cheatwood is a former police officer for the City of Vestavia Hills, Alabama (the “City”). After he was denied a pro- motion to the position of Patrol Corporal and later terminated for conduct unbecoming an officer, among other things, he filed a law- suit claiming age discrimination and retaliation. See Age Discrim- ination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1), (d). The district court granted summary judgment to the City, and Cheatwood appeals. We affirm for the reasons stated in the district court’s thor- ough and well-reasoned order granting summary judgment (dated September 22, 2021). 1 We summarize these reasons briefly below.

1 We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Cheatwood and resolving all reasonable inferences in his favor. Alvarez v. Royal Atl. Developers, Inc., 610 F.3d 1253, 1263–64 (11th Cir. 2010). USCA11 Case: 21-13680 Date Filed: 07/26/2022 Page: 3 of 4

21-13680 Opinion of the Court 3

First, Cheatwood was not qualified for a promotion to Pa- trol Corporal under the City’s rules because, when he applied, he was under investigation by internal affairs for alleged misconduct. While there was evidence to support the view that the City waited to solicit applications until the internal-affairs investigation began in order to derail Cheatwood’s ability to pursue a promotion, no reasonable jury could conclude that his age motivated his superiors to stymie him from qualifying for the position or that the investi- gation was baseless. Rather, ample and uncontroverted evidence established that the investigation stemmed from legitimate con- cerns about Cheatwood’s attitude and conduct and not his age. See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 148 (2000) (stating that summary judgment may be granted “if the plaintiff created only a weak issue of fact as to whether the employer’s rea- son was untrue and there was abundant and uncontroverted inde- pendent evidence that no discrimination had occurred”). Second, Cheatwood failed to establish a genuine issue of ma- terial fact that the City’s proffered reasons for his termination were pretextual. As the district court explained, even if Cheatwood did not make the serious comment attributed to him—that he was planning to get an AK-47 and bring it to a City Council meeting— no reasonable jury could conclude that the City did not honestly believe Cheatwood made the comment, based on a report and tes- timony by a fellow officer. See Gogel v. Kia Motors Mfg. of Ga., Inc., 967 F.3d 1121, 1149 (11th Cir. 2020) (en banc) (“What matters in this inquiry is what the employer in good faith believes the USCA11 Case: 21-13680 Date Filed: 07/26/2022 Page: 4 of 4

4 Opinion of the Court 21-13680

employee to have done, not whether the employee actually en- gaged in the particular conduct.”). Cheatwood claims that the City’s response shows that it did not honestly believe he had made the alleged threat, but we disa- gree. Cheatwood does not dispute that, after the report of the AK- 47 threat, the Chief of Police ordered Cheatwood to leave the premises immediately, deactivated his access card to the building, added security to the City Council meeting that evening, and in- creased security at City Council meetings and work sessions for the next couple of months. Cheatwood’s arguments that the City could have taken other actions, such as initiating a criminal prose- cution, amount to mere second-guessing or quarreling with the wisdom of the City’s response and are not sufficient to establish pretext. See Alvarez v. Royal Atl. Developers, Inc., 610 F.3d 1253, 1266 (11th Cir. 2010) (“We do not sit as a ‘super-personnel depart- ment,’ and it is not our role to second-guess the wisdom of an em- ployer’s business decisions—indeed the wisdom of them is irrele- vant—as long as those decisions were not made with a discrimina- tory motive.”). For these and other reasons explained in more detail by the district court, we affirm the grant of summary judgment against Cheatwood on his claims of age discrimination and retaliation un- der the ADEA. AFFIRMED.