Boyan Subotic v. Jabil, Inc.
22-13880
11th Cir.Feb 27, 2024Background
- Boyan Subotic, a Serbian national, was employed by Jabil, Inc. as a Support Technician II at its Florida facility.
- Subotic received verbal and written warnings in July 2020 for failing to answer on-call duties and not carrying the required onsite phone.
- Subotic claimed he was unfairly disciplined and terminated due to his Serbian national origin and later reported alleged discrimination to HR.
- Jabil discovered that Subotic attempted to access a coworker's account without authorization, a violation of company policy.
- After an investigation confirmed these violations, Subotic was terminated. He then sued for discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, § 1981, the FCRA, and the Florida Whistleblower Act.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Jabil on all claims, and Subotic appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of improperly cited evidence | Court wrongly disregarded factual disputes he didn't properly cite | Court followed clear procedural requirements for summary judgment submissions | Court did not abuse discretion enforcing its rules |
| Discrimination under Title VII/FCRA | Disciplinary actions and termination were motivated by national origin | Actions based on documented policy violations; no knowledge of national origin bias | No evidence of discrimination; summary judgment affirmed |
| Retaliation under Title VII/FCRA/FWA | Firing was retaliation after reporting discrimination | Legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for termination (policy violations) | No pretext; Jabil had good-faith belief in violations |
| Attorney's fees under FRAP 38 | -- | Sought attorney’s fees, alleging appeal was frivolous | Denied; claims not "utterly devoid of merit" |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishing framework for burden-shifting in discrimination claims)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Chapman v. AI Transp., 229 F.3d 1012 (employee conduct; pretext analysis)
- Quigg v. Thomas Cnty. Sch. Dist., 814 F.3d 1227 (mixed-motive theory under Title VII)
- Rioux v. City of Atlanta, 520 F.3d 1269 (summary judgment, view of evidence)