450 F. App'x 860
11th Cir.2012Background
- Jones, a black male, appeals district court grant of summary judgment for SPS on 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claim.
- Jones also appeals district court denial of his May 25, 2011 motion to vacate or reconsider the summary judgment.
- Court examines whether the district court’s grant of summary judgment was timely appealed and whether the motion to vacate tolled the appeal period.
- Rule 59(e) motion to alter judgment was untimely, treated as Rule 60(b) motion; filing after deadline did not toll the appeal period.
- Court concludes the appeal of the summary judgment is untimely, but retains jurisdiction to review the denial of the motion to vacate.
- On the merits, Jones failed to show a prima facie case for discriminatory compensation or that SPS’s proffered discharge reason was pretextual.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the appeal of the summary judgment timely? | Jones asserts timely notice of appeal as to both decisions. | Deadline expired before notice; Rule 59(e) tolling did not apply. | No; untimely for the summary judgment appeal. |
| Did Jones establish a triable claim of discriminatory compensation or pretext for discharge? | Jones argues he proved discriminatory compensation and that discharge reasons were pretextual. | Jones failed to show similarly situated comparators or pretext; no valid discriminatory compensation claim. | Denied; no viable prima facie case or pretext shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pinion v. Dow Chemical, U.S.A.,, 928 F.2d 1522 (11th Cir. 1991) (jurisdictional timeliness of notices of appeal; mandatory 30-day period)
- Mahone v. Ray,, 326 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2003) (untimely Rule 59(e) treated as Rule 60(b) motion for vacatur)
- O’Neal v. Kennamer,, 958 F.2d 1044 (11th Cir. 1992) (abuse of discretion standard for Rule 59/60 motions)
- Arthur v. King,, 500 F.3d 1335 (11th Cir. 2007) (relitigation restriction on motions to alter or amend)
- Michael Linet, Inc. v. Village of Wellington,, 408 F.3d 757 (11th Cir. 2005) (burden shifting framework and Rule 60(b) considerations)
- Burke-Fowler v. Orange County, Fla.,, 447 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir. 2006) (statistics must show circumstances of individuals, not aggregate data)
- Springer v. Convergys Customer Mgmt. Group Inc.,, 509 F.3d 1344 (11th Cir. 2007) (McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework in discrimination claims)
- Cooper v. Southern Co.,, 390 F.3d 695 (11th Cir. 2004) (employees' compensation comparisons; context of discrimination)
- Howard v. BP Oil Co., Inc.,, 32 F.3d 520 (11th Cir. 1994) (importance of concrete factual showing beyond area statistics for discrimination)
- Burke-Fowler v. Orange County, Fla.,, 447 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir. 2006) (statistics without context do not prove discriminatory intent)