[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 15

- 15198 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 4:14

- cv - 00584

- RH

- CAS

APRIL K. HOLMES , Plaintiff

- Appellant,

versus JEFFERSON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT , Defendant

- Appellee.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for t he Northern District of Florida

________________________ (July 29, 2016) Before WILSON , JORDAN , and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

Case: 15-15198 Date Filed: 07/29/2016 Page: 1 of 72 April Holmes appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the Jefferso n County School District in her e mployment disc rimination suit. T he district court concluded th at Ms. Holmes failed to show that the D istrict’s proffered reasons for the nonrenewal of her contract were pretext for race discrimination. After review of the record and consideration of the parties’ briefs , we affirm. I Ms. Holmes, a black female, began her work with the Information Technology d epartment of the D istrict in 2009 as an IT t echnician. In 2011, the D istrict hired Kenneth Mi tchell, a black male, as an IT t echnician. Soon after Mr. Mitchell’s hiring, substantial conflicts arose between Ms. Holmes and Kenneth Stubbs, a whi te male who had worked for the D istrict ’s IT department for roughly 30 years. These conflict s led to two meetings with the D istrict’s administration , including the then

- Super intendent , Bill Brumfield. The conflicts persisted, however, and in some instances escalated. In 2012, Albert Cooksey was elected as the new Superintendent of the D istrict. Mr. Cooksey was aware of the conflicts in the IT department and decided to “clean house.” Mr. Cooksey recommended that the school b oard not renew the annual contracts of Ms. Holmes and Mr. Mitchell, but did recommend that the b oard renew the contract of Mr . Stubbs based on his greater level of ex perience

Case: 15-15198 Date Filed: 07/29/2016 Page: 2 of 73 and Mr. Cooksey’s belief that he was not a part of the conflicts within the IT department. Ms. Holmes’ contract was not renewed, and her employment with the D istrict ended in 2013. Ms. Holmes sued the Dist rict under Title VII, alleging race discrimination. II The district court granted the D istrict’s motion for summary judg ment on Ms. Holmes’ Title VII claims . The court implemented the burden

- shifting framework set out in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green , 411 U.S. 792 (1973), and determined that, although Ms. Holmes had established a prima facie cas e for race discriminat ion, the D istrict had presented the following legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for Holmes’ nonrenewal: (1) Mr. Cooksey believed that he needed to “ clean house” to resolve the IT d epartment’s internal issues ; and (2) Mr. Cooksey was concerned with Ms. Holmes’ work ethic and job performance based on observations that Ms. Holmes and Mr. Mitchell often worked together rather than independen tly to best serve the needs of the D istrict, and his perception of problems with the maintenance of tec hnology equipment for which IT
t echnicians were responsible. The district court concluded that Ms. Holmes had failed to show that the proffered reasons w ere pretexts for race discrimination.

Case: 15-15198 Date Filed: 07/29/2016 Page: 3 of 74 II I We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo , applying the same legal standard used by the district court and drawing all factual inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Johnson v. Bd. o f Regents , 263 F.3d 1234, 1242

– 43 (11th Cir. 2001). Summary judg ment is appropriate when “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits . . . show that there is no genuine i ssue as to any material fact and that the nonm oving party is entitled to judg ment as a matter of law.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986) ( internal quotation omitted). In order to ove rcome a motion for summary judg ment, the nonmoving party must present more than a mere scintilla of evidence supporting its position, and instead must make a sufficient showing that a jury could reasonably find for that party. See Brooks v. Cnty. Comm’n of Jefferson Cnty., Ala. , 446 F.3d 1160, 1162 (11th Cir. 20 06). Title VII makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of

e mployment, in part because of such individual’s race . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e

2(a)(1). When a Title VII plaintiff relies on circumstantial evidence, courts may use the burden

- shifting framework established in Mc Donnell Douglas , 411 U.S.

Case: 15-15198 Date Filed: 07/29/2016 Page: 4 of 75 792 (1973). Under this framework, if a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of discrimination and the defendant

- employer produces a “legitimate nondiscriminatory reason” for the action taken against the plaintiff, the plaintiff must show that the employer’s proffe red reasons are merely pretextual. See Ezell v. Wynn , 803 F.3d 1217, 1226 (11th Cir. 2015). A reason is not pretextual unless the plaintiff shows it is false, and that discrimination was the true reason for the action against the employee

. See Brooks , 446 F.3d at 1163 . The employee must confront the employer’s seemingly legitimate reason “head on and rebut it.” Chapman v. AI Transp. , F.3d 1012, 1030 (11th Cir. 2000) ( en banc ). The inquiry is not whether an employee was guilty of misconduct, but whether the employer in good faith believed that the employee had done wrong and whether that belief was the reason for the termination. See Elrod v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. , 939 F.2d 1466, 1470 (11th Cir. 1991). IV Ms. Holmes is unable to show that the proffered reasons presented by the D istrict for the nonrenewal of her contract were pretextual. As to the D istrict ’ s first proffered reason for the nonrenewal

— that Mr. Cooksey needed to “cl ean house” in order to resolve the IT department’s performance and personnel problems, but decided to only retain Mr. Stubbs, the only white individual in the department

— Ms. Holmes does not dispute that there

Case: 15-15198 Date Filed: 07/29/2016 Page: 5 of 76 was conflict within the department. N or does s he dispute that Mr. Stubbs had more experience than she did

. As for the D istrict’s second proffered reason

— that Mr. Cooksey had issues with Ms. Holmes’ work ethic and job performance

— Ms. Holmes argues that Mr. Cooksey lacked sufficient knowledge about the job descriptions and day

- to

- day responsibilities of an IT t echnician in order to make such an as sessment. Ms. Holmes also maintains that she only had one job performance review and that it was positive. The inq uiry, however, is not whether Ms. Holmes’ work performance

was in fact deficient, but rather whether Mr. Cooksey in good faith believed that Ms. Holmes ’ work performance was poor and that such belief was the reason for her nonrenewal. See Elrod , 939 F.2d a t 1470. Ms. Holmes stated th at she had no reason to dispute that Mr. Cooksey believed that she had performance problems. With regards to the fact that all of the IT department employees displaced by the D istrict were Afri can - American and replaced with w hi te individuals , we agree with the district court that the sampl e size is too small to conclude without more that th is shows causation rather than coincidence. Further, the record demonstrates that the first person Mr. Cooksey recommen ded to fill one of the recently vacant IT
t echnician positions was African

- American.

Case: 15-15198 Date Filed: 07/29/2016 Page: 6 of 77 V Ms. Holmes failed to show that the D istrict’s proffered reasons for nonrenewal of her contract were pretextual. W e therefore affirm the district court’s grant of summary judg ment. AFFIRMED. Case: 15-15198 Date Filed: 07/29/2016 Page: 7 of 7