Case Name: Adam SAPP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF the UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-08-24
Citations: 613 F. App'x 916
Docket Number: No. 14-13313
Parties: Adam SAPP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF the UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before JORDAN and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges, and ROBREÑO, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 613
Pages: 916–917

Head Matter:
Adam SAPP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF the UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 14-13313.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Aug. 24, 2015.
Jami McFatter Kimbrell, Marie A. Mat-tox, Marie A. Mattox, PA, Tallahassee, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Pamela Adele Moine, Robert G. Davies, Kristen A. Fiore, Erica Ashley Hixon, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Pensacola, FL, Pam Bondi, Stephen M. Kunz, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tallahassee, FL, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before JORDAN and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges, and ROBREÑO, District Judge.
Honorable Eduardo C. Robreño, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Adam Sapp appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Attorney General of the United States on his claims of gender discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Mr. Sapp alleges that his employer, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, subjected him to discriminatory treatment based upon his gender, and that he suffered retaliation when he voiced opposition to the treatment. After reviewing the parties' briefs and the record, and with the benefit of oral argument, we affirm in part and reverse in part. As to Mr. Sapp's gender discrimination claim, we affirm the grant of summary judgment in favor of the BOP for the reasons stated in the district court's order. With respect to Mr. Sapp's retaliation claim, however, we reverse.
The district court ruled that Mr. Sapp met the requirements' to establish a prima facie case of retaliation, and that the BOP met its burden of putting forth a nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment actions. Mr. Sapp argued, however, that the BOP's stated non-discriminatory reason for denying him overtime and further restricting his job duties was pretextual, and he presented evidence to support his arguments. The district court did not address these arguments on pretext, and this constituted error. See Kragor v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Inc., 702 F.3d 1304, 1307 (11th Cir.2012) ("If the employer produces evidence of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse action, the plaintiff is afforded an opportunity to show that the employer's stated reason is a pretext for discrimination."). We therefore reverse and remand for the district court to address Mr. Sapp's pretext arguments. We leave it to the district court on remand whether to allow supplemental briefing on the issue.
Affirmed In Part, Reversed In Part, And Remanded.