George Dagnesses v. Target Media Partners
711 F. App'x 927
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Dagnesses was hired by Target Media Partners (TMP) as a sales manager in 2008; his offer letter described employment as at-will and included commission and bonus terms.
- He was promoted in 2013 and reported to Linda Coffman, whom he alleges treated him poorly because he is a man (belittling comments, physical poke, differential treatment).
- TMP documents and Coffman say Dagnesses had performance, communication, and insubordination problems; Coffman warned him and offered assistance.
- TMP altered his compensation plan, paid and later sought return of some commissions, and Dagnesses claims TMP still owes $16,500.
- TMP terminated Dagnesses in 2014, stating he was not a fit due to performance and behavior.
- Dagnesses sued asserting Title VII sex discrimination and retaliation, the Florida Whistleblower Act, and breach of contract; the district court granted summary judgment for TMP on all claims. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part, vacated and remanded on the breach of contract claim only.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Title VII sex discrimination (failure to warn/allow correction before firing) | Coffman’s conduct and disparate discipline show sex-based discrimination; comparators received warnings | TMP contends Dagnesses wasn’t treated differently from similarly situated female managers; offered non‑discriminatory reasons for discharge | Affirmed — Dagnesses failed to identify valid similarly‑situated female comparators; no prima facie case |
| Title VII retaliation | He opposed discriminatory treatment/contractor classification and was fired in retaliation | TMP says termination was for performance/behavior; plaintiff did not prove pretext | Affirmed — Dagnesses abandoned pretext challenge on appeal; failure to show pretext defeats claim |
| Florida Whistleblower Act claim | TMP retaliated for his complaints about contractor classification/assignments | TMP opposed; district court awarded summary judgment | Affirmed — Court declined to consider argument raised first in reply brief |
| Florida breach of contract (commissions/bonuses) | Offer letter created an enforceable contract entitling him to commissions/bonuses; TMP breached by withholding/pay-back demand | TMP relied on disclaimer language that the letter is not a contract for a specific period and thus nonbinding | Vacated and remanded — the offer letter could be an enforceable at‑will contract; disclaimer ambiguous such that a jury could find a contract existed |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden‑shifting framework for circumstantial employment discrimination)
- Burke‑Fowler v. Orange Cty., 447 F.3d 1319 (comparator misconduct must be nearly identical)
- Holifield v. Reno, 115 F.3d 1555 (similarly situated standard)
- Holland v. Gee, 677 F.3d 1047 (elements of prima facie discrimination case)
- Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (plaintiff retains ultimate burden to prove discrimination)
- Kidd v. Mando Am. Corp., 731 F.3d 1196 (application of McDonnell Douglas in Eleventh Circuit)
- Big Top Koolers, Inc. v. Circus‑Man Snacks, Inc., 528 F.3d 839 (arguments raised first in reply brief not considered)
- Little v. T‑Mobile USA, Inc., 691 F.3d 1302 (same)
- Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins., 739 F.3d 678 (failure to challenge a ground on appeal constitutes abandonment)
- Richey v. Modular Designs, Inc., 879 So. 2d 665 (at‑will employment letters can be enforced for earned commissions)
- Murciano v. Garcia, 958 So. 2d 423 (elements of breach of contract under Florida law)
- Jericho All‑Weather Opportunity Fund, LP v. Pier Seventeen Marina & Yacht Club, LLC, 207 So. 3d 938 (offer, acceptance, consideration, and essential terms for contract formation)