[ DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________
No. 12

- 10934 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:10

- cv

- 02459

- TWT

BRUCE M. SAVAGE, llllllllllll lllllllllllllllllllllllllll l Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v ersus

GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, l lllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant

- Appellee.

________________________ Appeal from the United St ates District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________ (September 20, 2012)

Before TJOFLAT

, BARKETT and KRAVITCH , Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Bruce Savage appeals the district court ’ s grant of summary judgment in

favor of the Georgia Department of Transportation ( “ GDOT ” ) in his employment

Case: 12-10934 Date Filed: 09/20/2012 Page: 1 of 32 discrimination suit challenging a demotion as improperly based on his race under

Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e

- 2(a). On appeal, Savage argues that the court erred

in finding that he did not establish a prima facie case of race discrimination.

First, he argues that he and his comparator were similarly situated because they

were both accused of violating GDOT policy. Second, Savage claims that pretext

is evident because, despite committing the same vio lation, GDOT treated his

comparator less harshly. 1

We review the grant of summary judgment de novo

, Rioux v. City of Atlanta,

Ga. , 520 F.3d 1269, 1274 (11th Cir. 2008 ), view ing all the evidence and all factual

inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to the

nonmoving party, and must resolve all reasonable doubts about the facts in favor of

the nonmovant. Id.

Up on review of the record and consideration of the parties ’ briefs, we affirm.

S avage failed to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination because he

could not show that his comparator and he were similarly situated. Specifically,

while GDOT demoted the comparator for simple misconduct, it demoted Savage

for unfitness to perform assigned duties as team leade r and his misconduct.

1 Although one of Savage ’ s claims below alleged that GDOT discriminated against him based on race for its refusal to interview him for another team leader position, on appeal, he explicitly does not pursue his claim. Accordingly, this claim is abandoned. See Wilkerson v. Grinnel l Corp. , 270 F.3d 1314, 1322 (11th Cir. 2001).

Case: 12-10934 Date Filed: 09/20/2012 Page: 2 of 33 Evidence showed that Savage and a subordinate had an intimate relationship,

which led Savage to permit her working on school work during office hours and

caused Savage to yell at the subordinate during an office meeting. The

compara tor ’ s misconduct caused no workplace disruption while Savage ’ s

misconduct negatively affected his ability to manage a subordinate ’ s work. Even

if Savage had established a prima facie case, GDOT artic ulated legitimate,

nondiscriminatory reasons for his dem otion, namely, his unfitness to perform his

assigned duties and his misconduct for fai lure to comply with GDOT policy

regarding relationships with subordinates. Savage had not shown that GDOT ’ s

proffered reasons were pretextual. Therefore, the district c ourt did not err in

granting summary judgment in favor of GDOT.

AFFIRMED. Case: 12-10934 Date Filed: 09/20/2012 Page: 3 of 3