FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T APR 20, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 18 7

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 6 :0 8- cv -0 07 49 -J A-GJK THOMAS C. RIDLEY, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff - App el la nt , vers us SEARS HOME IM PROVEMENT PRODUCTS, INC., d.b .a. Sear s, Ro eb uc k An d C o., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt- App el le e.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ap ril 20 , 20 11 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, W ILSON an d S EYMOUR, Cir cu itJu dg es . * PER CURI AM:

Honora ble Stephanie K. Sey

mour, United States Circuit J udg e for the Tenth Circuit, * sitti ngby designation.Tho m as C. Rid le y ap pe al s the di stric t co urt’s en try of p art ia l s umm ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of

Sear s o n h is sex ua l h aras sm en t, ra ce d is cri m in at io n, an d co ns tru ct iv e d is ch arg e cl ai m s, as well as ajury ve rd ic t fo r Sears onhi s re ta li at io n cl ai m , all bro ug htpu rs ua ntto Tit le VII of th e Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act o f 19 64 , 42 U.S.C. § 2 00 0e et

seq . Rid le y , an Afr ic anAm eri canm al e, cl ai m edhe was s ex ua ll y ha ras se d b y

hi s m al e supe rv is or , who di sp la y edpi ctur es an d v id eo s o f hi m se lf en ga gi ng insex act s wi th Rid le y ’s fem al e co -wo rk ers . Rid le y als o c la im edth e sa m e supe rv is orass ig ne d s al es lea ds ina raci al ly dis cri m in at ory m an ne r, gi vi ng Ri dl ey fewer “pr im e” l ead s tha n h is no n- Afri can -Am eri canco -wo rk ers . Afte r rec ei vi ng ev id en ce fr om bo thparti es , th e d is tri ctco urt en te red su m m ary jud gm en t fo r Sears onall gro un ds , exc ep t Ri dl ey ’s ret al ia ti on cla im . At tri al , th e p art ie s s ti pu la te d t ha t Ri dl ey en ga ge d i n p ro te ct edact iv it y ; thu s, h e wou ldno t i nt ro du ce ev id en ce o f hi s und erl y in g c la im s. Th e jury ult im at el y fou nd Sear s d idno t re ta li at e ag ai ns t Ri dl ey . Ri dl ey rai se s fo uris su es on ap pe al . Firs t, h e arg ue s the di stric t co urt ap pl ie d a n i napp ro pr ia te leg al st an da rdinde te rm in in g t ha t h e was no t s ex ua ll y ha ras se d. Se co nd , he c on te nd s the di st ric t co urt erro ne ou sl y co nc lu de d t ha t h e was no t s ub

jecte d t o ra ci al di sc riminat io n, d es pi te di rectan d c irc um st an ti al ev id en ce t o t he co nt rary. Thi rd , he a rg ue s h is worken vi ro nm en t was so 2in to le rab le th athe was fo rcedto ab an do n h is job , andth e d is tri ctco urt erredin

co nc lu di ng ot he rwis e. Andfin al ly, he co nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt u nf ai rly ex cl ud edev id en ce o f hi s u nd erl y in g s ex ua l h aras sm en t an d ra ci al di sc riminat io n cl ai m s fr om

tri al , dep riv in g h im

of t he ab il it y

to pre se ntth e “ fu ll weig htof ev id en ce” s up po rti ng hi s re ta li at io n c la im . 1 Afte r car efu l co ns id erat io n o f th e p art ie s’ bri efs an d t he reco rdinth is cas e, an d h av in g t he be ne fitof o ral arg um en t, we fi ndno m eri t t o t he is su es Rid le y rai se s o n app eal . Accor di ng ly, we affi rm . AFFIRMED.

Ridley does not alleg e in his initi al brief that the evidenc e introduce d at trial wa s 1 insufficient to support a ve rdict in favor of Sear s on his retaliation claim. Ac cording ly , he has abandone d this argument, and wedecline to a ddress it. See D avis v. Coca- Cola Bottl ing Co. Consol. , 516 F.3d 955, 972 ( 11th Cir. 2008). 3