Case: 18-13285 Date Filed: 05/29/2019 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 18-13285
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 9:17-cv-80572-KAM
MICHAEL IBEZIM,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
THE GEO GROUP, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(May 29, 2019)
Before WILSON, JILL PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 18-13285 Date Filed: 05/29/2019 Page: 2 of 3
Michael Ibezim appeals from the district court’s order granting summary
judgment in favor of his former employer, The GEO Group, Inc. (GEO), in his
lawsuit alleging race and national origin discrimination and retaliation, in violation
of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), and the Florida
Civil Rights Act (FCRA),
Fla. Stat. § 760.10(1)(a); and interference and retaliation
in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA),
29 U.S.C. § 2612.1
Ibezim, a Nigerian-American, was terminated from his employment as an
administrator with GEO, a company that operates correctional facilities. He
alleges that he was passed over for promotions and was pressured to transfer from
one GEO facility to another to make room for a less qualified white employee; that
GEO reprimanded him based on false accusations when he filed an internal
complaint; that he was reprimanded and terminated following accusations of
unprofessional conduct and for his involvement in employment with outside
organizations, which violated company policy; and that GEO violated his FMLA
rights by firing him while he was out on FMLA leave.
The district court granted summary judgment finding that Ibezim failed to
establish a prima facie case of race or national origin discrimination, and that he
could not establish that he was terminated for requesting FMLA leave.
1
Ibezim also cited the Florida Whistleblower Act,
Fla. Stat. § 448.102, in his complaint,
but he has not discussed that law on appeal, so the issue is abandoned. See Sapuppo v. Allstate
Floridian Ins. Co.,
739 F.3d 678, 680 (11th Cir. 2014).
2
Case: 18-13285 Date Filed: 05/29/2019 Page: 3 of 3
We review a district court’s order granting summary judgment de novo,
“viewing all the evidence, and drawing all reasonable inferences, in favor of the
non-moving party.” Vessels v. Atl. Indep. Sch. Sys.,
408 F.3d 763, 767 (11th Cir.
2005) (per curiam). Summary judgment is only proper if there are no genuine
issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.
Id.
We have read the briefs, reviewed the record, and carefully considered the
district court’s thorough order. Ibezim has not shown that the district court erred in
granting GEO’s motion for summary judgment on his discrimination and
retaliation claims. Ibezim only quarrels with the wisdom of his reprimands and
termination, but has not cited to sufficient evidence to establish that discrimination,
rather than unmet performance expectations, was the true reason for them.
Nor has Ibezim established that the district court erred in granting summary
judgment as to his FMLA claims. The record establishes that GEO had already
begun the process of terminating his employment before he submitted his FMLA
leave request, demonstrating that he would have been terminated even if he had not
made the request.
Accordingly, the summary judgment is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
3
