Alexander Zamora vs Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc. ( 2011 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-14174 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Non-Argument Calendar APRIL 26, 2011
________________________ JOHN LEY
CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 1:09-cv-21790-JLK
ALEXANDER ZAMORA,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff-Appellant,
versus
WILLIAMS-SONOMA STORES, INC.,
a California corporation,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllDefendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(April 26, 2011)
Before BARKETT, WILSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Alexander Zamora appeals from the district court’s grant of summary
judgment to his former employer, Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc. (“Williams-
Sonoma”), in his action alleging both discrimination and retaliation under: Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a) and 2000e-3(a); the
Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112(a) and 12203(a); and state
law.1 Zamora alleged that, during the course of his employment as an assistant
store manager, Williams-Sonoma discriminated against him on the basis of his
Cuban national origin and retaliated against him for opposing such discrimination.
He also alleged that Williams-Sonoma discriminated against him on the basis of a
disability, namely a chronic ankle condition, and retaliated against him for
requesting accommodations for this condition. The district court granted
Williams-Sonoma summary judgment on the ground that Zamora failed to make
out a prima facie case for any of his claims. We have carefully reviewed the
record, as well as the parties’ briefs, and we reach the same conclusion, finding no
genuine issues of material fact. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s grant of
summary judgment in favor of Williams-Sonoma.
AFFIRMED.
1
“This Court reviews de novo summary judgment rulings and draws all inferences and
reviews all evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Summary judgment is
appropriate only if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and
the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Moton v. Cowart, 631 F.3d 1337, 1341
(11th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted).
2