Opinion ID: 61297
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: floyd’s title vii claims

Text: Floyd’s initial complaint with the EEOC was filed on April 9, 2004 and alleged that Home Depot had violated his rights under the ADA because they had refused to accommodate his disability. On November 1, 2004, Floyd filed an 4 amended complaint with the EEOC and alleged that Home Depot had discriminated against him on the basis of race and disability, and had retaliated against him. Floyd’s amended complaint was not filed for the purpose of either curing an error in his initial complaint or to clarify the issues therein. Furthermore, the issue of racial discrimination did not even come up until Floyd filed his amended EEOC complaint. Thus, the district court did not err when it found that Floyd’s allegations of racial discrimination did not relate back, and thus, were time barred. In his brief in opposition to Home Depot’s motion for summary judgment, Floyd failed to respond to Home Depot’s argument that he could not state a prima facie case of hostile environment harassment because he could not show that the alleged conduct was severe or pervasive or altered the terms and conditions of his employment. Therefore, even if his claim were not time barred, he has waived this argument. Moreover, to establish a prima facie case of disparate impact, Floyd had to show, among other things, that his employer treated similarly-situated employees outside of his protected class more favorably. Knight v. Baptist Hosp. of Miami, Inc., 330 F.3d 1313, 1316 (11th Cir. 2003). Floyd alleged that Home Depot had treated two white individuals more favorably than him. The district court found 5 that the two comparators were not similarly situated to Floyd, thus, Floyd could not make out a prima facie case of disparate treatment. Because the record supports the district court’s conclusion, it did not err in granting Home Depot summary judgment on Floyd’s disparate treatment claim. Upon careful review of the record on appeal and consideration of the parties’ briefs, we discern no error. AFFIRMED. 6