Timothy Blue v. Dunn Construction Company, Inc, 453 F. App'x 881

Blue, African American, sued Dunn for Title VII and §1981 discrimination and retaliation.
Dunn’s policy: acting foreman for an indeterminate trial period prior to permanent promotion; Blue remained acting foreman for 15 months with overtime and higher pay.
Two white acting foremen were promoted earlier, after nine months and less than a year, respectively.
District court granted summary judgment, holding Blue’s delayed promotion not an adverse action and finding Dunn’s reasons non-pretextual; later, Blue was demoted from foreman to operator after a permanent promotion.
Court adopts McDonnell-Douglas framework; adverse action includes demotion, and substantiality requires a real change in terms/conditions; Blue’s evidence of delay and demotion is evaluated under this framework.
Blue’s 2007 evaluation showed poor performance and loss of crew control; supervisor warned of possible demotion; Blue argues these reasons are pretext but the court finds them non-pretextual and not clearly false.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a delayed promotion can be an adverse action	Blue argues delay changed terms/conditions of employment	Dunn contends no adverse action since no policy breach and delay short	Not clearly an adverse action under facts; substantial doubt but ultimately not established
Whether Dunn’s reasons for delaying promotion were pretextual	Blue argues reasons were pretext to mask discrimination	Dunn’s reasons (2006 eval, comparator performance, crew-management) credible	Reasons not pretextual; district court proper on summary judgment
Whether Dunn’s demotion after promotion was pretextual	Blue asserts demotion due to race	Demotion based on poor performance and failure to control crew	No pretext; no unlawful discriminatory animus shown; summary judgment affirmed

Crawford v. Carroll, 529 F.3d 961 (11th Cir. 2008) (McDonnell-Douglas framework application in discrimination case)
St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993) (Pretext requires true discrimination; burden-shifting framework)
Pennington v. City of Huntsville, 261 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2001) (Adverse action prong; whether delay constitutes adverse action)
Holifield v. Reno, 115 F.3d 1555 (11th Cir. 1997) (Similarly situated requirement for comparators)
Rioux v. City ofAtlanta, 520 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2008) (Comparator relevance; identical misconduct should be compared)
Wilson v. B/E Aerospace, Inc., 376 F.3d 1079 (11th Cir. 2004) (Comparator proximity to plaintiff’s conduct needed)
Maniccia v. Brown, 171 F.3d 1364 (11th Cir. 1999) (Pretext and comparator considerations)
Cleveland v. Home Shopping Network, Inc., 369 F.3d 1189 (11th Cir. 2004) (Evidence of shifting reasons; re: pretext)
Calloway v. Partners Nat’l Health Plans, 986 F.2d 446 (11th Cir. 1993) (Time-bar issues/§1981 relation to Title VII)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (Supreme Court 1973) (Foundation of burden-shifting framework)