[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-11846

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 7:12-cv-00800-LSC

TERESA D. SCOTT-BOLTON, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

 versus

STATE OF ALABAMA BOARD OF 

PARDONS & PAROLES, 

 Defendant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Alabama

________________________

(January 8, 2014)

Before MARCUS, MARTIN and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 13-11846 Date Filed: 01/08/2014 Page: 1 of 4 
2

Teresa Scott-Bolton appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment 

to the Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles (“the Board”) for her claim of 

discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). On 

appeal, she argues that the district court erred when it determined that the Board 

did not have a duty to hire her for the probation specialist position. After careful 

review, we affirm.

We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, 

considering the evidence and reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving 

party. Ellis v. England, 432 F.3d 1321, 1325 (11th Cir. 2005). Summary judgment 

is appropriate if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled 

to judgment as a matter of law. Id.; see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. Additionally, “the 

law is by now well settled in this Circuit that a legal claim or argument that has not 

been briefed before the court is deemed abandoned and its merits will not be 

addressed.” Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1330 

(11th Cir. 2004).

The Rehabilitation Act provides the following protection for persons facing 

a disability:

No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States . . . 

shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the 

participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination 

under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance or under 

any program or activity conducted by any Executive agency or by the United 

States Postal Service.

Case: 13-11846 Date Filed: 01/08/2014 Page: 2 of 4 
3

29 U.S.C. § 794(a). To establish a prima facie case for discrimination under the 

Rehabilitation Act, the plaintiff must show: “(1) she had a disability; (2) she was 

otherwise qualified for the position; and (3) she was subjected to unlawful 

discrimination as the result of her disability.” Garrett v. Univ. of Ala. at 

Birmingham Board of Trustees, 507 F.3d 1306, 1310 (11th Cir. 2007). If an 

individual is deemed disabled but not otherwise qualified for the position during 

the relevant time frame, the employer is not required to create a new position as a 

way to accommodate the disability. Sutton v. Lader, 185 F.3d 1203, 1210 (11th 

Cir. 1999) (“employers are not required to create positions specifically for the 

handicapped employee”) (quotation omitted).

Here, Scott-Bolton has abandoned almost all of her arguments on appeal, 

because she did not raise those arguments in her brief. See Access Now, 385 F.3d 

at 1330. Thus, the only issue before us is whether the Board was required to hire 

her in the position as a probation specialist. As the record shows, however, the 

district court determined that although Scott-Bolton was disabled, it was 

undisputed that Scott-Bolton resigned her position on October 6, 2011, and that the 

probation specialist position was not announced until October 26, 2011. Because 

the position was not in existence at the time Scott-Bolton resigned, the Board was 

not obligated to notify or hire her in that position, or create the position for her as a 

way to accommodate her disability. Sutton, 185 F.3d at 1210.

Case: 13-11846 Date Filed: 01/08/2014 Page: 3 of 4 
4

AFFIRMED.

Case: 13-11846 Date Filed: 01/08/2014 Page: 4 of 4