Mitchell v. Bellsouth Advertising & Publishing Corporation, 8:10-cv-01421

Mitchell, a white former BellSouth Area Sales Manager, was terminated for emailing sexual jokes/images in violation of BellSouth’s Code of Business Conduct; the code prohibits sending sexual messages via email and warns it can create a hostile environment.
BellSouth investigated a sexual-email incident involving three managers, including Mitchell; all three were terminated.
During the investigation, BellSouth also reviewed allegations that three African-American DASRs ran a competing internet advertising business; those employees were not terminated due to policy coverage issues, union status, and disciplinary practices.
Mitchell’s discharge occurred after Gregory Meineke, BellSouth’s VP for Sales, concluded termination was warranted for the email policy violation; two white managers replaced the terminated individuals.
Mitchell sued BellSouth alleging reverse race discrimination under Title VII, § 1981, and the FCRA; BellSouth moved for summary judgment, and Mitchell did not timely respond.
The court assessed whether Mitchell could establish a prima facie case of reverse discrimination and whether BellSouth’s reasons for termination were pretextual; BellSouth’s motion was granted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prima facie case of reverse race discrimination	Mitchell argues a similarly situated African-American DASR was treated more leniently.	Mitchell cannot show a comparable non-white or non-class member treated more favorably.	BellSouth entitled to judgment as a matter of law; no valid prima facie case.
Similarity of comparators	DASRs’ conduct and discipline show discrimination against Mitchell.	Mitchell’s conduct (email policy violation) is not like the DASRs’ (conflict of interest); they are different roles and contexts.	No sufficiently similar comparator; no prima facie discrimination.
Pretext for discriminatory termination	Termination was a pretext for race discrimination.	BellSouth’s proffered reason (email policy violation) is non-discriminatory and honest.	No evidence of discriminatory motive; and the reason is non-pretextual.
McDonnell Douglas framework applicability	Prima facie case plus pretext show discrimination.	Even with prima facie case, record supports legitimate, non-discriminatory reason.	Applied framework; no triable issue on discrimination.

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (Supreme Court 1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Chapman v. AI Transport, 229 F.3d 1012 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc; employer’s proffered reason must be addressed head-on to avoid pretext)
Holifield v. Reno, 115 F.3d 1555 (11th Cir. 1997) (similarly-situated analysis requires nearly identical misconduct and discipline)
Jones v. Gerwens, 874 F.2d 1534 (11th Cir. 1989) (identifies comparator requirements in disciplinary cases)
Maniccia v. Brown, 171 F.3d 1364 (11th Cir. 1999) (comparator must be similar in all relevant respects)
Young v. General Foods, 840 F.2d 825 (11th Cir. 1988) (emphasizes employer’s honesty of proffered reasons)