Reginald D. Marable, Sr. v. Marion Military Institute
595 F. App'x 921
11th Cir.2014Background
- Marable sued Marion Military Institute (MMI) and supervisor Tate under Title VII, §1981, and §1983 for employment discrimination.
- District court granted summary judgment; monetary relief barred by judicial estoppel due to failure to disclose EEOC charge and current lawsuit in bankruptcy.
- Court allowed consideration of injunctive relief, not monetary relief, under judicial estoppel.
- District court found no genuine issues on retaliation, race discrimination in promotion, or hostile-work-environment claims; all resolved in MMI’s favor on summary judgment.
- Marable abandoned his racially discriminatory failure-to-promote claim on appeal; even if not abandoned, the record does not show a prima facie case or pretext regarding promotion.
- Marable admitted satisfactory job performance; evidence of racial animus by supervisor did not establish pretext for non-renewal or hostile environment per the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judicial estoppel bars monetary damages? | Marable seeks monetary damages for discrimination. | Bankruptcy disclosure omission shows intentional concealment. | District court did not abuse; monetary claims barred. |
| Retaliation claim viability | Marable alleges retaliation for opposing discrimination. | MMI's reasons for non-renewal are legitimate and non-retaliatory. | No pretext; summary judgment on retaliation granted. |
| Racially discriminatory failure-to-promote prima facie case | Admissions Counselor role promoted race discrimination. | Position not a true promotion and Marable failed prima facie case. | Non-promotion not proven as prima facie case; judgment affirmed. |
| Racially hostile work environment | Harassment based on race was severe or pervasive. | Harassment was isolated; not severe/pervasive. | No prima facie hostile-work-environment; judgment affirmed. |
| Abandonment of claims on appeal | Abandonment of failure-to-promote claim; upheld on alternative grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- De Leon v. Comcar Indus., Inc., 321 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 2003) (intentional concealment supports judicial estoppel in monetary claims)
- Burnes v. Pemco Aeroplex, Inc., 291 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2002) (injunctive-relief claims not barred by judicial estoppel)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (Supreme Court 2000) (pretext requires both falsity of reasons and retaliatory intent)