Theodoric F. Oliver v. National Beef Packing , 294 F. App'x 455 ( 2008 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
SEPT 18, 2008
No. 07-14927 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 07-00110-CV-WLS-7
THEODORIC F. OLIVER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
NATIONAL BEEF PACKING COMPANY, LLC,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
_________________________
(September 18, 2008)
Before BARKETT, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Theodoric F. Oliver, proceeding pro se on appeal, challenges the district
court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of his former employer, National Beef
Packing Company, LLC (“National Beef”), in his employment discrimination suit
under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. In his
complaint, Oliver raised three claims of race discrimination regarding: (1) a written
job performance counseling document received for being in the maintenance shop
without any work gear, indicating that he had not initially reported to the
production floor to obtain the gear as required; (2) National Beef’s termination of
his employment after he left work early without permission from a supervisor; and
(3) National Beef’s failure to promote him to a lead employee position. The
district court found that he failed to present a prima facie case of discrimination
regarding any of these claims and granted summary judgment to National Beef on
all claims.1
On appeal, Oliver argues that the court erred in finding a failure to establish
a prima facie case of discrimination.2 Regarding the second claim, he specifically
1
Although the parties do not address the issue on appeal, we note that the district court
failed to give Oliver proper Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c) notice regarding the motion for summary
judgment. See Griffith v. Wainwright, 772 F.2d 822, 824 (11th Cir. 1985). Nevertheless,
counsel represented Oliver before the district court and he responded to the motion with a
memorandum and supporting affidavits. Accordingly, the record indicates that he had the
opportunity to make all the arguments and submit all the documents he would have presented
with proper Rule 56(c) notice, and any error in that regard was harmless. See Denis v. Liberty
Mut. Ins. Co., 791 F.2d 846, 850 (11th Cir. 1986).
2
We liberally construe pro se briefs. Finch v. City of Vernon, 877 F.2d 1497, 1504 (11th
Cir. 1989).
2
argues that National Beef’s explanation for not promoting him – that the candidate
chosen was better qualified – was pretextual. We address Oliver’s three
discrimination claims in turn.
I.
A plaintiff may establish a claim of race discrimination under Title VII by
direct or circumstantial evidence. When only the latter is relied on, we use the
three-step burden shifting framework established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.
Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1973). See Wilson v. B/E
Aerospace, Inc., 376 F.3d 1079, 1087 (11th Cir. 2004) (Title VII); Crawford v.
Western Electric Co., 745 F.2d 1373, 1376 (11th Cir. 1984) (§ 1981).
Under this framework, the plaintiff first has the burden of establishing a
prima facie case of race or gender discrimination, which “creates a rebuttable
presumption that the employer acted illegally.” Wilson, 376 F.3d at 1087. A
plaintiff can establish a prima facie case by showing that: (1) he was a member of a
protected class; (2) he was qualified to do the job; (3) he was subjected to an
adverse employment action by his employer; and (4) similarly situated employees
outside of the protected class were treated more favorably. Id. Nevertheless, the
prima facie case formulation is flexible and often dependent on the particular facts
of a case. Id.
3
In this case the district court did not err in finding that Oliver did not
demonstrate a prima facie claim of race discrimination based on his receipt of a
written job performance counseling document. Initially, it is not clear that the
counseling document even constitutes an adverse employment action. Both Oliver
and a white employee were given the counseling document on the basis that neither
employee had initially reported to the production floor as required. In both cases,
the document was discarded when both employees gave an adequate explanation
for the failure. Even if the action could be construed as an adverse employment
action, the district court correctly determined that Oliver did not show that any
similarly situated employee outside of the protected class was treated more
favorably. Oliver only identified one additional employee, Mark Ayers, as
allegedly engaged in similar misconduct but treated more favorably. However,
Ayers’s supervisor understood that, unlike Oliver, Ayers had reported first to the
production floor as required by the policy, as reflected in the fact that Ayers had
his helmet, hairnet, jacket and frock and was only missing his tools. Thus, Ayers
was not a proper comparator. Oliver did not present a prima facie case of race
discrimination with regard to the counseling write-up.
II.
With respect to his termination claim, Oliver had the burden of showing,
4
among other things, that: (1) he was a member of a protected class; (2) he was
qualified to do the job; (3) he was subjected to an adverse employment action by
his employer; and (4) similarly situated employees outside of the protected class
were treated more favorably. Wilson, 376 F.3d at 1087.
Oliver was terminated because he left work during the middle of his shift
without the permission of supervisor and after a Maintenance Lead specifically
told him to seek the permission. In addition, he called the plant manager ten
minutes after he left complaining about his supervisors and hung up without letting
the plant manager speak. We find no error. The district court properly found that
Oliver did not establish a prima facie case of race discrimination regarding his
termination claim because he did not satisfy the fourth element of the prima facie
case – identification of a proper comparator. Oliver identifies on appeal one
possible comparator: Todd Rearick.3 However, Rearick was a temporary employee
at the Moultrie facility on loan from another facility as a Maintenance Lead and
fled from the facility in order to avoid an impending physical confrontation with
other employees. Rearick was not a proper comparator and Oliver did not
3
Oliver identified two other possible comparators, Mark Ayers and Dennis Law, before
the district court, but he neglects to mention them in his brief on appeal. Accordingly, he has
abandoned any argument in that regard. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228
n.2 (11th Cir. 2005). Even assuming, arguendo, that he preserved the issue, we conclude that
Ayers and Law were not proper comparators. Specifically, the record does not demonstrate that
National Beef management was aware of any misconduct by Ayers and Law that was nearly
identical to that engaged in by Oliver.
5
establish a prima facie case of race discrimination regarding his termination.
III.
To establish a prima facie case of race discrimination for a failure to
promote claim, a plaintiff may show: (1) he was a member of a protected class;
(2) he was qualified and applied for the promotion; (3) he was rejected despite his
qualifications; and (4) the employer continued to seek applicants for the position or
promoted another employee who was not a member of the protected class. Walker
v. Mortham, 158 F.3d 1177, 1191-92 (11th Cir. 1998). For the purposes of a
failure to promote claim, an employee’s qualification for the promotion is judged
at the time the promotion decision was made. See Hill v. Seaboard Coast Line R.
Co., 767 F.2d 771, 774 (11th Cir. 1985). Because a promotion in the employment
context is understood to occur when an employer hires an in-house employee for a
higher position, a plaintiff must have been employed by the defendant employer to
bring a failure to promote claim. See Davis v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 516 F.3d
955, 961 n.4 (11th Cir. 2008).
Here Oliver failed to presented a prima facie case of discrimination
regarding his failure to promote claim because National Beef had terminated his
employment prior to making the decision and filling the lead maintenance worker
position at issue. As he was not employed by National Beef, he has no claim
6
against them for failing to promote.
AFFIRMED.
7