69 F.4th 796
11th Cir.2023Background
- Clyde Anthony, a Black Georgia state trooper, was placed on paid administrative leave after colleagues reported possible intoxication; preliminary alco-sensor tests showed .016 and .014, but a later breath test at a facility read .000.
- Troop C Commander Renfroe investigated, recommended continued leave, a fitness-for-duty alcohol evaluation, and counseling; Major Waldrop approved those recommendations. Anthony was on administrative leave about six months and later returned to duty.
- Renfroe also reviewed Anthony’s social-media post marketing an at-home breathalyzer; that prompted an Internal Affairs referral that produced no discipline.
- Anthony says Corporal Chad Harris told him not to be involved in Department matters while on leave; Anthony therefore did not take the corporal promotion exam while on leave.
- Anthony identified Corporal John McMillan (white) as a comparator: McMillan had an alco-sensor .019, admitted drinking on duty, was placed on leave, and ultimately was demoted to a civilian position.
- At summary judgment the district court excluded a purported EEOC document as unauthenticated/hearsay/improper expert/legal conclusions; it granted summary judgment for the Department on both Title VII claims. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether investigation of Anthony was racially discriminatory (Title VII) | Anthony: he and white comparator McMillan were similarly situated during the investigation and were treated differently (longer leave, required fitness-for-duty and counseling). | Dept: investigators, supervisors, facts, and outcomes differed; McMillan was not a proper comparator; investigatory length depends on case facts and Anthony had medical leave and a separate social-media inquiry. | Affirmed for Dept: Anthony failed to identify a comparator similarly situated in all material respects for the investigation stage. |
| Whether Dept.’s failure to promote Anthony to corporal during leave violated Title VII | Anthony: Harris’s instruction deterred him from taking the required corporal exam, denying promotion opportunity; this discrimination was race-motivated. | Dept: Anthony never took the exam and so was not qualified; no evidence Harris’s remark was racially motivated. | Affirmed for Dept: Anthony did not make prima facie showing because he did not take the exam and produced no evidence of racial intent. |
| Admissibility at summary judgment of a purported EEOC document | Anthony: the document need not be authenticated at summary judgment and hearsay is admissible if declarant will testify at trial. | Dept: document is unauthenticated hearsay that also contains legal conclusions and unsupported expert assertions. | Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion excluding the document; Anthony forfeited challenge to some exclusion grounds by not arguing them on appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (establishes burden‑shifting framework for circumstantial Title VII claims)
- Lewis v. City of Union City, 918 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir. 2019) (en banc) (comparator must be similarly situated in all material respects)
- Ave. CLO Fund, Ltd. v. Bank of Am., N.A., 723 F.3d 1287 (11th Cir. 2013) (summary judgment review; view facts in light most favorable to nonmovant)
- Vessels v. Atlanta Indep. Sch. Sys., 408 F.3d 763 (11th Cir. 2005) (prima facie elements for failure‑to‑promote claims)
- Goldsmith v. Bagby Elevator Co., 513 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir. 2008) (appellate standard for evidentiary admissibility rulings: abuse of discretion)
- Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678 (11th Cir. 2014) (issues not properly raised on appeal are abandoned)