Silah Williams v. Gallup, Inc.
709 F. App'x 567
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Silah Williams, an African American male, worked as a Client Service Manager (CSM) for Gallup in Atlanta from 2011 until his termination in March 2014.
- Williams alleged he was passed over for projects and ultimately terminated because of race and sex, and that he was retaliated against for complaining about being "treated differently."
- Gallup cited low performance ratings and low billable client hours during a revenue decline as the reasons for discharge.
- After discovery Gallup moved for summary judgment; a magistrate judge recommended granting it, the district court adopted that recommendation, and neither party objected to the R&R.
- Williams’ attorneys moved to withdraw; the magistrate judge granted withdrawal, denied Williams’ motion for appointed counsel, and refused to compel production beyond counsel’s work product. Williams did not properly object to those nondispositive orders.
- Williams appealed pro se; the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the summary judgment de novo but applied waiver/plain-error doctrines where Williams failed to raise issues below.
Issues
| Issue | Williams' Argument | Gallup's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discrimination via terminating him for race/sex | Williams says he was passed over for projects and replaced/overlooked because he is African American and male; identifies comparators on appeal | Gallup contends legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons (poor ratings, low billable hours) and that presented comparators were not similarly situated or were not timely asserted | Affirmed: Williams failed to establish a prima facie case; comparators raised for first time on appeal not considered; no demonstrated pretext |
| Retaliation for complaining about being "treated differently" | Williams asserts he told supervisors he was treated differently and was later given ultimatums and terminated in retaliation | Gallup argues Williams did not communicate a complaint amounting to opposition to unlawful discrimination, and decisionmakers lacked knowledge of any protected complaint | Affirmed: Williams did not show he engaged in statutorily protected activity (no evidence he conveyed discrimination complaint), so retaliation fails |
| Challenge to magistrate’s nondispositive orders (counsel withdrawal, appointment of counsel, client file) | Williams argued his attorneys withdrew over his objection and withheld files; sought appointed counsel and sanctions | Gallup relied on magistrate’s factual findings that counsel produced client file (minus work product) and withdrawal was justified | Dismissed/Waived on appeal: Williams failed to timely/object properly to magistrate’s nondispositive orders, so appellate review not permitted |
| Review standard given pro se status and failure to object to R&R | Williams proceeded pro se and did not object to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation | Gallup relies on waiver rule; court notes limited liberal construction for pro se but not de facto counsel | Court reviewed for plain error where appropriate and found no plain error; affirmed summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination cases)
- Burke-Fowler v. Orange Cty., Fla., 447 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir. 2006) (elements of prima facie case and similarly-situated analysis)
- Raney v. Vinson Guard Serv., Inc., 120 F.3d 1192 (11th Cir. 1997) (standard for reviewing summary judgment)
- Goldsmith v. City of Atmore, 996 F.2d 1155 (11th Cir. 1993) (retaliation elements under Title VII)
- Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2004) (issues not raised below generally will not be considered on appeal)