[DO NOT PUBLISH]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 lPlaintiff-Appellant,

versus

GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, l

lllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllll

Defendant-Appellee.

________________________ 

Appeal from the United States 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 3 
2

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 violation, 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), viewing 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.

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

Savage 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 leader 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. 

Grinnell Corp., 270 F.3d 1314, 1322 (11th Cir. 2001).

Case: 12-10934 Date Filed: 09/20/2012 Page: 2 of 3 
3

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 

comparator’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 articulated legitimate, 

nondiscriminatory reasons for his demotion, namely, his unfitness to perform his 

assigned duties and his misconduct for failure to comply with GDOT policy 

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

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

granting summary judgment in favor of GDOT.

AFFIRMED.

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