to rehire her for a new position because of her race. This 'claim is also governed by the McDonnell Douglas bürden-shifting framework. See, e.g., Walker v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 286 F.3d 1270, 1274 (11th Cir.2002). The defendants have asserted that Lewis’s work was unsatisfactory, and Lewis has not come forward with sufficient evidence to show that that explanation is a pretext for race discrimination. Indeed, as for the opening that Lewis applied for and that was initially given to Culverhouse (thus causing outrage in the community), it ultimately went to a black applicant. While there are certainly circumstances in which a failure-to-hire claim may be supported despite the position going to a person of the same race as the plaintiff, see, e.g., Howard, 726 F.2d at 1534-35 (<HOLDING>), Lewis has not provided any evidence
holding that the burden is on the plaintiff holding that a plaintiff had established a primafacie failuretohire case notwithstanding evidence that the position sought by the plaintiff was ultimately filled with a person of the same race as the plaintiff holding that where an express contract was in place between plaintiff and defendant that governed the compensation sought by plaintiff plaintiff may not recover under a theory of unjust enrichment holding that the plaintiff established a right to a slogan based on evidence of public recognition of its use by the plaintiff holding plaintiff failed to raise inference of discrimination where only evidence plaintiff adduced was fact that decisionmaker was different race