Opinion ID: 3043478
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Gender Discrimination Under Title VII

Text: When, as here, a Title VII plaintiff’s employment discrimination claim is based on circumstantial evidence, courts apply the burden-shifting framework set out in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S. Ct. 1817 (1973). Kidd v. Mando Am. Corp., 731 F.3d 1196, 1202 (11th Cir. 2013). Under this framework, the plaintiff must first set out a prima facie case of disparate treatment by showing that: (1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he was qualified for the position he held; (3) he was subject to an adverse employment action; and (4) his employer treated similarly situated employees outside his class more favorably. Smith v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 644 F.3d 1321, 1325 (11th Cir. 2011). 9 Case: 15-10503 Date Filed: 08/04/2015 Page: 10 of 17 If the plaintiff presents evidence of a prima facie case, the burden of production shifts to the defendant to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. Alvarez v. Royal Atl. Developers, Inc., 610 F.3d 1253, 1264 (11th Cir. 2010). If the defendant satisfies this burden, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to show that the articulated reason is merely a pretext for discrimination. Id. Here, the district court concluded that Reynolds failed to establish the fourth prong of his prima facie case. Generally, when a plaintiff alleges discriminatory discipline, the plaintiff must show that the employer disciplined the similarly situated employee differently, and to be considered similarly situated, the comparator employee must have been “‘involved in or accused of the same or similar conduct.’” Smith, 644 F.3d at 1326 n.17 (quoting Holifield v. Reno, 115 F.3d 1555, 1562 (11th Cir. 1997)). This Court’s “same or similar conduct” standard is high, requiring that “the quantity and quality of the comparator’s misconduct be nearly identical to prevent courts from second-guessing employers’ reasonable decisions and confusing apples with oranges.” Burke-Fowler v. Orange Cnty., Fla., 447 F.3d 1319, 1323 & n.2 (11th Cir. 2006) (citing Maniccia v. Brown, 171 F.3d 1364, 1368 (11th Cir. 1999)). The district court correctly found that Todd was not a sufficient comparator to establish the fourth prong of Reynolds’s prima facie case. First, Reynolds and 10 Case: 15-10503 Date Filed: 08/04/2015 Page: 11 of 17 Todd did not engage in “nearly identical” misconduct. The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Reynolds, shows that Reynolds believed that Medicaid would cover all incidentals related to surgery performed during the coverage period. Based on this belief, Reynolds changed the date of C.J.’s prescription in the pharmacy’s computer system from January 14, 2013 to December 30, 2012 to ensure coverage. Once the Medicaid claim was adjudicated, Reynolds then printed labels for the medications, ordered the out-of-stock medication, and left the task of dispensing the medications to C.J.’s sister for Todd to complete the next day. Todd, on the other hand, simply finished what Reynolds had started and handed the medications to C.J.’s sister without realizing what Reynolds had done. Arguably, Todd should have been more aware of the prescription, given that two days earlier she had told C.J.’s sister that the medications were not covered by Medicaid. Nonetheless, Todd’s dispensing medication for which coverage has already been adjudicated (as evidenced by the printed labels) and Reynolds’s changing the date of the prescription in the computer system to ensure coverage are not the same conduct. Reynolds’s assertions that Todd was equally culpable are unavailing. 4 4 In the district court, Reynolds alternatively argued that, even if Todd was not a proper comparator, he could still prevail on his Title VII gender discrimination claim because he presented “a convincing mosaic of circumstantial evidence” from which a jury could infer intentional discrimination. See Smith, 644 F.3d at 1328. The district court rejected this argument. On appeal, Reynolds does not advance this alternative “convincing mosaic” argument 11 Case: 15-10503 Date Filed: 08/04/2015 Page: 12 of 17 Also unavailing is Reynolds’s argument that he, unlike Todd, did not actually engage in any misconduct at all. The question is not whether Reynolds’s conduct was in fact wrong, but whether Winn-Dixie in good faith believed that it was wrong. See Alvarez, 610 F.3d at 1266 (stating that the “question is whether her employers were dissatisfied with her for . . . non-discriminatory reasons, even if mistakenly or unfairly so”); Elrod v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 939 F.2d 1466, 1470 (11th Cir. 1991) (limiting the inquiry to whether the employer believed the plaintiff was guilty of misconduct and if so, whether that was the reason behind the discharge and concluding that whether the employee actually engaged in the misconduct is irrelevant). Accordingly, even if Winn-Dixie wrongly believed that Reynolds’s handling of the prescription constituted misconduct, the district court properly found that Reynolds did not satisfy the fourth prong of the prima facie case.5 For these reasons, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to Winn-Dixie on Reynolds’s Title VII gender discrimination claim. with respect to his Title VII gender discrimination claim. Thus, we do not address it. See Holland v. Gee, 677 F.3d 1047, 1066 (11th Cir. 2012) (explaining that issues not briefed before this Court are deemed abandoned and are not addressed). 5 Because we affirm the district court’s ruling that Reynolds failed to establish a prima facie case of gender discrimination, we need not address Reynolds’s argument that he presented evidence that Winn-Dixie’s reason for terminating him was pretext. 12 Case: 15-10503 Date Filed: 08/04/2015 Page: 13 of 17