Gregory Minard v. Sam's East, Inc.
21-11494
| 11th Cir. | Mar 23, 2022Background
- Gregory Minard, a 57-year-old African American, managed the Sam’s Club in Irondale, AL from 2003 and generated significant truckload wholesale sales but had two prior written warnings.
- Before and after a 2015 policy change requiring a deposit account for prepaid truckload orders, Minard pre-rang orders and sometimes used members’ credit cards without the member present, which deducted inventory prematurely.
- Inventory shortages from a supplier led to negative on-hand counts and an Ethics/HR investigation after Minard admitted to pre-ringing and misuse of cards; Minard was terminated for a financial-integrity policy violation.
- Two younger white employees who engaged in similar practices were treated differently: Nadine Smith (29), an assistant manager who also pre-rang and used members’ cards, was retrained but not fired; Elizabeth Bowler (50) pre-rang orders but did not misuse cards and received only training.
- Minard sued for race and age discrimination (Title VII, § 1981, ADEA, and Alabama ADEA); the district court granted summary judgment for Sam’s Club, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether employer terminated Minard because of race (Title VII, § 1981) | Minard: Fired while younger white employees who violated policy were not disciplined | Sam’s Club: Termination based on policy violations and Minard’s disciplinary history; comparators not similar | No discriminatory intent; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether employer unlawfully discharged Minard because of age (ADEA/Alabama ADEA) | Minard: He was older and treated worse than younger employees | Sam’s Club: Legitimate nondiscriminatory reason; ADEA disallows mixed-motive claims; no evidence of age bias | No ADEA violation; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether Smith and Bowler were "similarly situated" comparators | Minard: Both pre-rang orders and Smith used members’ cards like Minard | Sam’s Club: Material differences—Smith was assistant manager, Bowler didn’t misuse cards, neither had Minard’s prior warnings | Not similarly situated in all material respects; comparator evidence fails |
| Whether plaintiff produced direct evidence or a "convincing mosaic" of discrimination | Minard: Investigator Rushforth treated him differently and there were stray comments about age | Sam’s Club: Investigation followed Minard’s admissions and policy violations; comments too weak | Direct evidence insufficient; no convincing mosaic; summary judgment proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Jefferson v. Sewon Am., Inc., 891 F.3d 911 (11th Cir.) (summary judgment review standard)
- Cantu v. City of Dothan, 974 F.3d 1217 (11th Cir.) (summary judgment appropriate when movant entitled to judgment as a matter of law)
- Lewis v. City of Union City, 918 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir.) (McDonnell Douglas framework for Title VII and § 1981 claims)
- Lockheed-Martin Corp. v. Smith, 644 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir.) (direct-evidence and convincing-mosaic discussion)
- Quigg v. Thomas County School District, 814 F.3d 1227 (11th Cir.) (motivating-factor test discussion under Title VII)
- Sims v. MVM, Inc., 704 F.3d 1327 (11th Cir.) (ADEA burden-shifting and proof standards)
- Comcast Corp. v. Nat’l Ass’n of Afr.-Am.-Owned Media, 140 S. Ct. 1009 (U.S.) (limits on applying Title VII motivating-factor test to § 1981)