Leroy White v. Crystal Mover Services, Inc.
675 F. App'x 913
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Leroy White, an African-American former employee of Crystal Mover Services, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for race discrimination and retaliation after not being promoted to an engineer position in February 2014.
- Crystal’s five decision-makers interviewed six candidates and selected Christopher Hite (white), citing nondiscriminatory reasons: superior supervisory experience, an electrical contractor’s license (as related experience), perceived hard work and initiative, and better interview performance.
- White argued he had relevant online coursework, general contractor supervisory experience, and that another African-American candidate (Edward Austin) had stronger formal education.
- White also pointed to three racially derogatory remarks by employees (one remark made by a decision-maker, Mihalco, years earlier and not in White’s presence; the others by non-decisionmakers and unrelated to the promotion).
- The district court granted summary judgment for Crystal; the Eleventh Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed, concluding White failed to show pretext under McDonnell Douglas.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Crystal’s stated reasons for not promoting White were pretext for race discrimination | White contends reasons (lack of supervisory experience, weaker education, poorer interview) were pretext; emphasizes comparable credentials and derogatory remarks | Crystal insists reasons were legitimate: Hite had directly relevant supervisory experience, a class A electrical contractor’s license as related experience, stronger interview, and higher scores on multiple criteria | Held: No pretext. White merely quarreled with employer judgment; evidence insufficient for a jury to find pretext |
| Whether White established a prima facie retaliation claim tied to prior EEOC activity | White argues non-selection was retaliation for his 2011 EEOC charge and Hopkins’s participation in a 2013 lawsuit | Crystal disputes causal connection and points to legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for hiring Hite | Held: Court assumed arguendo a prima facie case but found no pretext; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether isolated racial slurs by employees established pretext | White points to three derogatory comments (one by a decision-maker, others by non-decisionmakers) to show discriminatory animus | Crystal notes comments were isolated, temporally remote, not made to or in presence of White, and unconnected to the 2014 promotion decision | Held: Comments insufficient to show pretext because they were isolated and unrelated to the adverse action |
| Whether district court erred in excluding part of Hopkins’s deposition | White argues district court abused discretion for not considering unfiled transcript pages; Crystal had filed the full deposition elsewhere | Crystal defends procedural enforcement of local rules | Held: Court declined to decide error because, even if Hopkins’s testimony were considered, White still failed to show pretext |
Key Cases Cited
- Brooks v. County Commission, 446 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. 2006) (de novo review of summary judgment)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (framework for burden-shifting in circumstantial discrimination cases)
- Springer v. Convergys Customer Mgmt., 509 F.3d 1344 (11th Cir. 2007) (§ 1981 and Title VII use same analytical framework)
- Chapman v. AI Transport, 229 F.3d 1012 (11th Cir. 2000) (plaintiff may not merely quarrel with employer’s business judgment to prove pretext)
- Combs v. Plantation Patterns, 106 F.3d 1519 (11th Cir. 1997) (evidence required to show pretext at summary judgment)
- Scott v. Suncoast Beverage Sales, Ltd., 295 F.3d 1223 (11th Cir. 2002) (isolated derogatory remarks unrelated to adverse action insufficient to prove pretext)