Court Opinion

ID: 9401338
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-12 20:01:40.648197+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:52.217181
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-10248    Document: 30-1     Date Filed: 06/12/2023   Page: 1 of 4

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-10248
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       MONICA TAYLOR,
       a.k.a. Stormy M,
                                                     Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,

                                                   Defendant-Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Southern District of Alabama
                    D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cv-00583-CG-N
USCA11 Case: 22-10248      Document: 30-1      Date Filed: 06/12/2023     Page: 2 of 4

       2                      Opinion of the Court                  22-10248

                            ____________________

       Before JILL PRYOR, LAGOA, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Monica Taylor appeals the district court’s grant of summary
       judgment to United States Department of the Treasury (“the De-
       partment”) because she failed to file her employment discrimina-
       tion complaint within 90 days of receiving the Equal Employment
       Opportunity Commission’s (“EEOC”) final decision. On appeal,
       Taylor argues that we should overturn the district court’s decision
       and rule in her favor, and she reiterates the substantive claims she
       made in her complaint that she suffered discrimination based on
       her race, age, and disability. The Department responds by moving
       for summary affirmance of the district court’s judgment, and it ar-
       gues that Taylor does not argue in her initial brief that she filed her
       district court complaint within 90 days of receiving the EEOC’s fi-
       nal decision, and so she has abandoned any timeliness argument
       and the district court’s judgment is due to be affirmed. Alterna-
       tively, the Department argues that the district court’s judgment
       was indisputably correct as a matter of law because Taylor did not
       meet the procedural requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–5(f)(1) and
       did not meet the 90-day filing requirement.
              Summary disposition is appropriate either where time is of
       the essence, such as “situations where important public policy is-
       sues are involved or those where rights delayed are rights denied,”
       or where “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a
USCA11 Case: 22-10248      Document: 30-1      Date Filed: 06/12/2023     Page: 3 of 4

       22-10248               Opinion of the Court                          3

       matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the
       outcome of the case, or where, as is more frequently the case, the
       appeal is frivolous.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158,
       1161-62 (5th Cir. 1969).
               We review de novo a lower court’s grant of summary judg-
       ment, using the same legal standards applied by the lower court.
       Alvarez v. Royal Atl. Developers, Inc., 610 F.3d 1253, 1263 (11th Cir.
       2010). Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that
       there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant
       is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). In
       determining whether the movant has met this burden, courts must
       view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant.
       Alvarez, 610 F.3d at 1263–64.
              Issues not briefed on appeal are deemed forfeited and will
       not be addressed absent extraordinary circumstances. United States
       v. Campbell, 26 F.4th 860, 871–72 (11th Cir. 2022) (en banc), cert. de-
       nied, 143 S. Ct. 95 (2022). Additionally, to reverse a district court
       order that is based on multiple, independent grounds, a party must
       convince us that every stated ground for the judgment against her
       is incorrect. Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680
       (11th Cir. 2014). When an appellant fails to challenge properly on
       appeal one of the grounds on which the district court based its judg-
       ment, she is deemed to have abandoned any challenge of that
       ground, and it follows that the judgment is due to be affirmed. Id.
       Issues must be raised plainly and prominently on appeal. See id. at
       680–81.
USCA11 Case: 22-10248     Document: 30-1     Date Filed: 06/12/2023   Page: 4 of 4

       4                     Opinion of the Court                22-10248

              We conclude that summary affirmance is warranted here
       because Taylor made no argument in her brief concerning the basis
       of the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the De-
       partment—the timeliness of her complaint after receiving the
       EEOC’s final decision. Accordingly, she forfeited any argument re-
       garding the timeliness of her complaint, and the Department is cor-
       rect as a matter of law that the district court’s judgment adopting
       the report and recommendation and granting summary judgment
       to the Department is due to be affirmed. Campbell, 26 F.4th at
       871–72; Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 680.
             Accordingly, because the government’s position is correct as
       a matter of law, we GRANT the Department’s motion for sum-
       mary affirmance. Groendyke Transp., Inc., 406 F.2d at 1162.
             AFFIRMED.