Arthur C. Johnson v. Coffee County Commissioner
714 F. App'x 942
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Arthur C. Johnson, an African-American Equipment Operator (EO) at Coffee County Highway Department, sued under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 alleging race-based denial/delay of promotions, pay disparities, and retaliation after filing an EEOC charge and this suit.
- Hired 2004 as laborer; promoted to EO I (2005) and EO II (2007); obtained a CDL in October 2009; promoted to EO III in May 2014.
- Johnson claimed he should have been promoted to EO III in 2008–2010 ahead of less senior white employees (comparators: Philip Norwood, Louie Byrd, Donald Beagles) and alleged pay disparities vis-à-vis Norwood, Byrd, Beagles, Joey Donaldson, and Steven Findley.
- Retaliation claims: reassignment to an older truck/removed from prior equipment after his 2011 EEOC charge, and denial of one hour of overtime in July 2013 after filing suit.
- District court granted summary judgment for defendants; Eleventh Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed, finding Johnson failed to establish prima facie cases or pretext for promotions/pay and failed to show causation or material adversity for retaliation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discriminatory failure to promote | Johnson: was qualified and more senior; comparators were less qualified white males promoted earlier | Defs: promotions based on CDL possession, equipment-specific skills, and greater experience; Johnson lacked CDL/experience at relevant times | Affirmed — Johnson failed to make prima facie showings or rebut legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons (Norwood, Byrd, Beagles) |
| Pay disparity | Johnson: longer tenure warranted higher pay than white comparators | Defs: pay influenced by CDL, step level, specialized duties (e.g., mechanic, one-man patch crew), not solely seniority | Affirmed — comparators either had same pay in like positions or had legitimate reasons for higher pay (specialized skills/step differences) |
| Retaliation — truck/equipment reassignment | Johnson: reassignment occurred after EEOC filing and was adverse retaliation | Defs: timing unclear; no temporal link; no evidence causally connecting reassignment to protected activity | Affirmed — Johnson failed to prove causal connection (timing speculative) |
| Retaliation — overtime denial | Johnson: he was denied overtime after filing suit | Defs: legitimate nondiscriminatory reason — Johnson was at a different job site and could not reach overtime site in time | Affirmed — the lost hour (<$20) was not materially adverse and Defs met burden; Johnson failed to show pretext |
Key Cases Cited
- Furcron v. Mail Ctrs. Plus, LLC, 843 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2016) (summary judgment review standard and burdens)
- Boyle v. City of Pell City, 866 F.3d 1280 (11th Cir. 2017) (nonmoving party must show specific facts raising genuine issue)
- Springer v. Convergys Customer Mgmt. Grp. Inc., 509 F.3d 1344 (11th Cir. 2007) (pretext requires showing employer’s reasons are unworthy of credence; better qualifications alone insufficient)
- Brown v. Ala. Dep’t of Transp., 597 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. 2010) (prima facie elements for failure-to-promote and comparator similarity)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (definition of materially adverse action in retaliation context)
- Higdon v. Jackson, 393 F.3d 1211 (11th Cir. 2004) (temporal proximity standard for causation in retaliation claims)