Case ID: f-appx_461/html/0909-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Emma MOORE, Gregory Fitts, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Mike HALE, in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as Sheriff of Jefferson County, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 10-14786.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    March 19, 2012.
    Richard J. Ebbinghouse, Wiggins Childs Quinn & Pantazis, LLC, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    Keith Jackson, Kallie C. Lunsford, James Edward Murrill, Jr., Robert R. Riley, Jr., Riley & Jackson, PC, Tammy Cecile Woolley, Woolley Law Firm, LLC, Birmingham, AL, for Defendant-Appellee.
    
      Before BARKETT and HULL, Circuit Judges, and HUNT, District Judge.
    
      
       Honorable Willis B. Hunt, Jr., United States District Judge for the Northern District of Georgia, sitting by designation.
    
   PER CURIAM:

Police officers Emma Moore and Gregory Fitts, a black female and black male, respectively, (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), appeal an adverse summary judgment issued in favor of Mike Hale, the Sheriff of Jefferson County, Alabama, on their claim that Hale violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when he denied them promotions from sergeant to lieutenant twice and later disciplined Fitts, actions which they claimed were the result of race and sex discrimination. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), 3(a). Moore’s and Fitts’ claims on appeal relate to three events: Hale denying them promotions from sergeant to lieutenant in 2004 and again in 2005 and Hale disciplining Fitts in 2007.

Having reviewed this record, and considered the oral argument of counsel, we do not find reversible error in the rulings of the district court that: (1) the Plaintiffs’ Title VII claims regarding the denial of promotions in 2004 were untimely because Plaintiffs failed to prove prior to summary judgment that their complaint was filed within the requisite 90-day period; (2) the Plaintiffs’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims regarding the 2004 and 2005 denial of promotions must be dismissed because, regardless of whether a two-year or four-year statute of limitations applied, Hale was entitled to qualified immunity; and (3) Fitts’ Title VII and § 1983 claims of discrimination based on a reprimand in 2007 must be dismissed because Fitts failed to adequately rebut the legitimate reason presented by Hale for the reprimand.

AFFIRMED. 
      
      . 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides the exclusive vehicle for the Plaintiffs to bring their claims that a state actor, Hale, discriminated against them in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. See
      
     
      
      . Plaintiffs also claim that Hale is not immune from their demands for equitable relief. However, the Plaintiffs fail to explain why they are even eligible for equitable relief. Baker v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 531 F.3d 1336, 1337 (11th Cir.2008).