Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-00083/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-00083-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

 MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

JAMES H. SHORTZ, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 2:05cv83-MHT

) (WO)

AUBURN UNIVERSITY AT )

MONTGOMERY, et al., )

)

Defendant. )

OPINION

Plaintiff James H. Shortz filed this lawsuit,

pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983, claiming racial

discrimination and violation of the first amendment.

This lawsuit is now before the court on the

recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge that

defendants' motion for summary judgment should be

granted. Also before the court are Shortz’s objections

to the recommendation. After an independent and de novo

review of the record, the court concludes that Shortz’s

objections should be overruled and the magistrate judge’s

Case 2:05-cv-00083-MHT-CSC Document 92 Filed 12/29/06 Page 1 of 3
2

recommendation adopted, with the following additional

comments.

Even if Shortz's comments to his supervisor touched

on matters of public concern, summary judgment is still

appropriate. There is no evidence that the decisionmaker

in this case was aware of any comments that may have

touched matters of public concern. In fact, Shortz

admitted in deposition that he did not tell Gardner, the

decisionmaker, about his comments to Robinson nor did

Shortz have any information that would suggest that

Gardner was aware of these comments before deciding to

terminate him. Moreover, the record does not suggest

that the conduct upon which the decisionmaker relied in

firing Shortz was in any way related to these comments.

As the decisionmaker, Gardner terminated Shortz for being

argumentative, responding poorly to criticism, and

repeatedly challenging his superior officers. In his

amended complaint, Shortz concedes that the response to

Case 2:05-cv-00083-MHT-CSC Document 92 Filed 12/29/06 Page 2 of 3
the EEOC that he was argumentative was “factually

accurate.” Amended Compl. at 4. 

An appropriate judgment will be entered.

DONE, this the 29th day of December, 2006.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00083-MHT-CSC Document 92 Filed 12/29/06 Page 3 of 3