[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-11892

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

GILBERT SAINT-CYR, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

WALGREEN CO., 

a Foreign for-Profit Corporation,

CHRIS GULLICKSON, 

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

USCA11 Case: 22-11892 Document: 48-1 Date Filed: 10/13/2023 Page: 1 of 5
2 Opinion of the Court 22-11892

D.C. Docket No. 9:21-cv-82066-WPD

____________________

Before NEWSOM, GRANT, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Gilbert Saint-Cyr appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 

suit against Walgreen Co. (Walgreens), alleging racially disparate 

treatment and retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights 

Act of 1964 (Title VII), 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the Florida Civil Rights 

Act (FCRA), Fla. Stat. § 760.10(1)(a) and (7). Saint-Cyr contendsthe 

district court erred in dismissing his complaint because he adequately pled his discrimination and retaliation claims. After review,1 we affirm the district court. 

To state a prima facie case of racial discrimination2 a plaintiff 

may allege that: (1) he belongs to a protected class; (2) he was qualified to do the job; (3) he was subjected to adverse employment 

action; and (4) his employer treated similarly situated employees 

outside his class more favorably. Crawford v. Carroll, 529 F.3d 961, 

970 (11th Cir. 2008). To state a claim for racial discrimination, a 

1 We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), 

accepting the allegations in the complaint as true and construing them in the 

light most favorable to the plaintiff. Am. United Life Ins. Co. v. Martinez, 480 

F.3d 1043, 1056-57 (11th Cir. 2007). 

2 Discrimination claims brought under Title VII, § 1981, and the FCRA are 

analyzed under the same framework. See Surtain v. Hamlin Terrace Found., 789 

F.3d 1239, 1245 n.6 (11th Cir. 2015).

USCA11 Case: 22-11892 Document: 48-1 Date Filed: 10/13/2023 Page: 2 of 5
22-11892 Opinion of the Court 3

complaint need not allege facts sufficient to make out a classic 

prima facie case, but must provide enough factual matter to plausibly suggest intentional discrimination. Surtain v. Hamlin Terrace 

Found., 789 F.3d 1239, 1246 (11th Cir. 2015). Even if a plaintiff need 

not plead a prima facie case to survive dismissal, the complaint must 

satisfy the “plausible on its face” standard, and the allegations must 

be sufficient to “raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” 

See Edwards v. Prime, Inc., 602 F.3d 1276, 1300 (11th Cir. 2010).

The district court found Saint-Cyr had failed to plead allegations sufficient for an adverse employment action.3 To show an 

adverse employment action, an employee must allege a serious

and material change in the terms, conditions, or privileges of his

employment. Davis v. Town of Lake Park, 245 F.3d 1232, 1238-39

(11th Cir. 2001), overruled on other grounds by Burlington N. & Santa 

Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (holding a job performance

memorandum did not constitute an adverse employment action). 

Not all conduct by an employer negatively affecting an employee

constitutes adverse employment action in a discrimination context. 

Id. at 1238. “[T]he employee’s subjective view of the significance

and adversity of the employer’s action is not controlling; the employment action must be materially adverse as viewed by a reasonable person in the circumstances.” Id. at 1239.

3 The district court also found that Saint-Cyr failed to sufficiently allege a similarly situated comparator. Because we agree with the district court’s analysis 

on adverse employment action, it is unnecessary to address the similarly situated comparator.

USCA11 Case: 22-11892 Document: 48-1 Date Filed: 10/13/2023 Page: 3 of 5
4 Opinion of the Court 22-11892

Saint-Cyr failed to allege a serious and material change in the 

conditions of his employment.4 See Davis, 245 F.3d at 1238-39. In 

his Sixth Amended Complaint, he alleged Walgreens moved him 

to a different section and then to a different department following 

his altercation with Carlos Saavedra. However, he did not allege 

that either of these transfers involved a reduction in pay, prestige, 

or responsibility. See Doe v. DeKalb Cty. Sch. Dist., 145 F.3d 1441,

1452 (11th Cir. 1998) (holding a transfer to a different position can 

be adverse if it involves a reduction in pay, prestige, or responsibility). Although Chris Gullickson wrote a disciplinary report adverse 

to Saint-Cyr after the altercation with Saavedra, such a written 

warning, by itself, cannot be said to materially affect the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. See Davis, 245 F.3d at 1239-

40.

With respect to Saint-Cyr’s retaliation claim, the district 

court did not err in determining that Saint-Cyr conceded that claim 

by failing to address Walgreens’ protected activity and causal connection arguments in his response to the motion to dismiss. See 

Gennusa v. Canova, 748 F.3d 1103, 1116 (11th Cir. 2014) (explaining 

4 The district court construed the description of Saint-Cyr’s discrimination 

claim in his Sixth Amended Complaint as challenging the August 2018 incident 

with Carlos Saavedra and Walgreens’ actions thereafter, but not Saint-Cyr’s

diminishing “EP percentage,” a benchmark of meeting performance standards. Saint-Cyr does not challenge this on appeal, so we limit our analysis to 

the incident with Saavedra and the actions thereafter. Additionally, Saint-Cyr’s 

reliance on the “convincing mosaic” framework fails, as he made no attempt, 

at the district court or on appeal, to connect that analysis to the facts at issue. 

See Gennusa v. Canova, 748 F.3d 1103, 1116 (11th Cir. 2014). 

USCA11 Case: 22-11892 Document: 48-1 Date Filed: 10/13/2023 Page: 4 of 5
22-11892 Opinion of the Court 5

to preserve a claim or argument, a party must first present it to the 

district court in a manner that gives the court an opportunity to 

recognize and rule on it). He also fails to adequately challenge this 

finding on appeal, and thus has abandoned any challenge to the district court’s dismissal of his retaliation claim. See Greenbriar, Ltd. v. 

City of Alabaster, 881 F.2d 1570, 1573 n.6 (11th Cir. 1989)

The district court did not err in dismissing Saint-Cyr’s Sixth 

Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim, and we affirm. 

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 22-11892 Document: 48-1 Date Filed: 10/13/2023 Page: 5 of 5