Sunny O. Ekokotu v. Federal Express Corporation
408 F. App'x 331
11th Cir.2011Background
- Ekokotu, appearing pro se, sues FedEx in district court for Title VII retaliation/retaliatory hostile work environment, FLSA travel time, wages, overtime, and Georgia state-law claims (negligent retention, unjust enrichment, implied contract).
- Plaintiff alleges retaliation after a prior August 2006 discrimination suit, with actions by managers Boyle and Wood alleged to deter him.
- Alleged acts include denied overtime (Nov–Dec 2007), a Dec 2007 customer complaint resulting in a warning, reallocation of Saturday overtime, and May 2008 start-time change reducing hours.
- On July 16, 2008, an untimely airport badge renewal led to him being sent home as unexcused, affecting overtime and travel-time claims; travel related to badge renewal also contested.
- FedEx moved for summary judgment; Ekokotu moved to strike Perrine’s declaration and sought discovery motions; district court adopted magistrate judge’s R&R and denied relief, then granted summary judgment to FedEx on all claims; Ekokotu appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Evidentiary and discovery rulings. | Ekokotu argues Perrine’s declaration lacks personal knowledge and discovery should be compelled. | FedEx contends Perrine is competent; discovery rulings were appropriate and no abuse occurred. | No abuse; rulings affirmed. |
| Disqualification of the magistrate judge. | Bias due to prior involvement in a 2006 case warrants recusal. | Rulings show no personal bias; recusal not required. | No abuse; disqualification denied. |
| Title VII retaliation merits for summary judgment. | Evidence shows causal link and pretext for retaliatory actions. | FedEx offered legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons; no pretext shown. | FedEx entitled to summary judgment on Title VII retaliation claims. |
| FLSA overtime and travel/time wages claims. | Ekokotu did not receive overtime and was inadequately compensated. | No evidence of entitlement to additional overtime or travel compensation; actions lawful. | FedEx entitled to summary judgment on FLSA claims. |
| Georgia state-law claims (negligent retention, unjust enrichment, implied contract). | FedEx breached duties or enriched itself unjustly; implied contracts existed. | No genuine issue on elements; no compensable loss under Georgia law. | FedEx entitled to summary judgment on state-law claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Corwin v. Walt Disney World Co., 475 F.3d 1239 (11th Cir. 2007) (evidentiary abuse of discretion and admissibility standards)
- Sanderlin v. Seminole Tribe of Fla., 243 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2001) (abuse of discretion in discovery rulings)
- Burks v. Am. Cast Iron Pipe Co., 212 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 2000) (discontinuance/continuance in discovery and discovery deadlines)
- McCarthy v. Barnett Bank of Polk Cnty., 876 F.2d 89 (11th Cir. 1989) (protective orders and balancing interests under Rule 26(c))
- Burlington N. Santa Fe Ry. Co., 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2006) (retaliation standard; material adversity in context)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (U.S. 1993) (hostile work environment standard requiring severe or pervasive conduct)
- LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745 (11th Cir. 1988) (de novo review standard under § 636(b)(1))
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (U.S. 2000) (pretext and burden-shifting framework in summary judgment context)