Thomas W. Holmes v. Alabama Board of Pardons & Paroles, 591 F. App'x 737

Holmes, a white male Probation and Parole Officer, sues the Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles alleging race and gender discrimination in promotions under Title VII.
The Board uses a merit-based promotion system with separate registers for Senior Officer (PO III) and District Manager (PO IV) promotions; Senior Officer is a continuous register, while District Manager is a closed register.
The Board’s 2009 promotion protocol lists objective and subjective criteria and restricts decision-making to evaluators with access to candidate files; Board retains final promotion discretion.
Holmes was promoted to Senior Officer in June 2013 in the Montgomery Central Office Pardon Unit, after years of applying and being passed over for Senior Officer positions.
In 2011 Holmes was interviewed for three Montgomery Senior Officer promotions but was not selected; Planer (white female), Carter (African-American male), and Causey (African-American male) were promoted; all four fell within the same rank band.
The EEOC charge (filed Aug. 9, 2011) asserted race and sex discrimination for Senior Officer promotions and age discrimination for District Manager promotions; Holmes later claimed a race-based District Manager promotion claim, which the district court found potentially outside the EEOC scope.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether summary judgment on Holmes’s Senior Officer claims was proper	Holmes argues he showed a prima facie case and pretext.	Board asserts legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons and lack of evidence of pretext.	Yes; Board’s reasons (disciplinary record and pardon-work specialization) were legitimate and Holmes failed to show pretext.
Whether Holmes exhausted his Race-based District Manager claim	Holmes contends the race claim was within the EEOC charge scope.	Claim concerned a discrete, later act and centered on age, not race; outside scope.	Yes; race claim for District Manager promotion was outside the EEOC charge and properly not considered.
If exhausted, whether Holmes showed he was qualified for the District Manager Chambers promotion	Holmes was qualified; he had experience and a degree.	Holmes lacked evidence that he was listed on the specific District Manager register used for Chambers’s promotion.	Affirmed summary judgment; Holmes did not show he was on the relevant register or equally/less qualified for the Chambers promotion.

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (Sup. Ct. 1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination)
Brown v. Ala. Dep’t of Transp., 597 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. 2010) (prima facie case and burden-shifting in employment discrimination)
Walker v. Mortham, 158 F.3d 1177 (11th Cir. 1998) (no requirement that comparator be equally qualified for prima facie case)
Kidd v. Mando Am. Corp., 731 F.3d 1196 (11th Cir. 2013) (requires objective qualifications; rebutting pretext must address each proffered reason)
Chapman v. AI Transport, 229 F.3d 1012 (11th Cir. 2000) (new level of specificity required to show pretext)
Rioux v. City of Atlanta, 520 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2008) (comparators must be similarly situated in all relevant respects)
Earley v. Champion Int’l Corp., 907 F.2d 1077 (11th Cir. 1990) (requires concrete evidence of pretext, not mere conclusions)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (Sup. Ct. 1986) (logically supports summary judgment when movant shows lack of evidence)
Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (Sup. Ct. 2002) (discrete acts of discrimination are individually actionable)
Gregory v. Ga. Dep’t of Human Res., 355 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2004) (administrative exhaustion requirement for Title VII claims)