Court Opinion

ID: 9398676
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-31 20:01:55.504638+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:35.485581
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13805    Document: 22-1     Date Filed: 05/30/2023   Page: 1 of 7

                                               [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-13805
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       CHARLES C. TATUM, JR.,
                                                     Plaintiff-Appellant,
       versus
       JASPER WATER WORKS AND SEWER BOARD, INC.,

                                                   Defendant-Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Northern District of Alabama
                     D.C. Docket No. 6:21-cv-00153-LSC
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-13805        Document: 22-1        Date Filed: 05/30/2023        Page: 2 of 7

       2                         Opinion of the Court                     22-13805

       Before LAGOA, BRASHER, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Charles C. Tatum appeals the district court’s grant of sum-
       mary judgment in favor of Jasper Water Works and Sewer Board,
       Inc., (JWWSB) in Tatum’s lawsuit alleging JWWSB discriminated
       against him by denying his request for additional water and sewer
       taps. Tatum is African American and contends JWWSB denied him
       the same water and sewer services it routinely provided to Cauca-
       sian customers, violating 42 U.S.C. § 1981. After review, 1 we affirm
       the district court’s grant of summary judgment. 2
                                  I. BACKGROUND
              Tatum owns a commercial building located in the Down-
       town Business District of Jasper, Alabama. The building was a
       large open space, and Tatum decided to divide the space into two
       halves by placing a dividing wall down the middle. Tatum leased
       one half of the office space to Garve Ivey and Jolenta Barrentine,

       1 We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, with
       the evidence considered in the light most favorable to Tatum. See Rioux v.
       City of Atlanta, 520 F.3d 1269, 1274 (11th Cir. 2008).
       2 Tatum also alleged JWWSB breached its state law duty to treat citizens
       fairly. The district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
       this state law claim.
USCA11 Case: 22-13805      Document: 22-1       Date Filed: 05/30/2023     Page: 3 of 7

       22-13805                Opinion of the Court                          3

       and decided the building needed a second water and sewer tap for
       the subdivided office space.
              On January 18, 2019, Tina Martin, Ivey’s Office Manager,
       contacted JWWSB Account Manager Dianna Smith, explaining her
       employer had leased part of Tatum’s building and needed to have
       its own water and sewer tap connection installed behind the build-
       ing. 3 Smith told Martin that she was not sure JWWSB could do
       that “because all the work that had been done in the area,” but
       promised to call Martin back. Smith called Martin back later that
       day and explained JWWSB would not install new taps behind the
       building because the existing water meter and sewer tap were in
       the front of the building, the building was too old to do anything,
       and it would be too much work for JWWSB to put a new water
       line in the back. Martin told her boss, Ivey, what Smith had said
       and Ivey had Martin call JWWSB several more times. Each time
       Martin spoke with someone, they refused to install new taps be-
       hind the building. After the initial call, Smith updated the service
       order to state, “No more water taps are to be made here because
       of the sidewalks. The sewer is in the back so a tap can be made
       there for the sewer if needed.”
             On February 4, 2019, Tatum called and spoke with Smith to
       find out why he was denied a second water and sewer tap at his

       3 JWWSB disputes Martin’s account of the phone call with Smith. However,
       because we are reviewing a grant of summary judgment in favor of JWWSB,
       we view all facts and reasonable inferences in favor of Tatum.
USCA11 Case: 22-13805      Document: 22-1      Date Filed: 05/30/2023     Page: 4 of 7

       4                       Opinion of the Court                 22-13805

       building when his neighbors in the Downtown Business District
       had received water and sewer taps when requested. According to
       Tatum, Smith said the decision was not hers and was made by her
       supervisors. Smith made a note for her supervisors to contact Ta-
       tum. That evening, Tatum emailed Jim Brakefield, JWWSB’s Gen-
       eral Counsel, to communicate his belief that Tatum’s neighboring
       white property owners were receiving better treatment. The fol-
       lowing morning, Brakefield responded and apologized “for any
       misinformation or miscommunication.” Brakefield stated JWWSB
       would treat Tatum the same as other business owners whose water
       and sewer services were moved to the alley behind their buildings
       and water meters set. Brakefield stated Tatum would have to pay
       for any new water tap and water meter and provide plumbing to
       the meter. However, Tatum did not attempt to obtain service after
       receiving Brakefield’s email.
                                 II. DISCUSSION
              Tatum contends he was discriminated against by JWWSB
       on account of his race when JWWSB refused “to provide water and
       sewer utilities to his business property, while contracting with and
       providing the same benefits, privileges, and services to similarly sit-
       uated white business property owners.” Tatum asserts the district
       court erred in finding he failed to offer any proof of this claim.
             42 U.S.C. § 1981 “protects the equal right of all persons
       within the jurisdiction of the United States to make and enforce
       contracts without respect to race.” Domino’s Pizza, Inc. v.
       McDonald, 546 U.S. 470, 474-75 (2006) (quotation marks and
USCA11 Case: 22-13805      Document: 22-1     Date Filed: 05/30/2023     Page: 5 of 7

       22-13805               Opinion of the Court                         5

       alteration omitted). The phrase “make and enforce contracts” is
       defined as “the making, performance, modification, and termina-
       tion of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges,
       terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.” 42 U.S.C.
       § 1981(b). “To state a claim of race discrimination under § 1981, a
       plaintiff must allege facts establishing: (1) that he is a member of a
       racial minority; (2) that the defendant intended to discriminate on
       the basis of race; and (3) that the discrimination concerned one or
       more of the activities enumerated in the statute.” Moore v. Grady
       Memorial Hosp. Corp., 834 F.3d 1168, 1171-72 (11th Cir. 2016)
       (quotation marks and alterations omitted).
              The McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework applies
       to claims under § 1981. Lewis v. City of Union City, 918 F.3d 1213,
       1220 n.5 (11th Cir. 2019) (en banc). To make a prima facie case of
       discrimination, the plaintiff must point to comparators of a differ-
       ent race who were “similarly situated in all material respects.” Id.
       at 1229.
              We agree with the district court that Tatum has failed to
       identify a comparator who is “similarly situated in all material re-
       spects.” See id. All of Tatum’s proffered comparators signed up
       for and paid for service with JWWSB. While Tatum claims that his
       neighboring white property owners were not initially refused
USCA11 Case: 22-13805        Document: 22-1         Date Filed: 05/30/2023        Page: 6 of 7

       6                         Opinion of the Court                      22-13805

       service, he offers no proof of this claim. Tatum has failed to make
       a prima facie case of discrimination.4
              Even if Tatum were able to identify a similarly situated com-
       parator, summary judgment would still be appropriate. “[A] viable
       § 1981 claim in the retail context ‘must allege that the plaintiff was
       actually prevented, and not merely deterred, from making a pur-
       chase.’” Lopez v. Target Corp., 676 F.3d 1230, 1234 (11th Cir.
       2012). Tatum cannot show that he was prevented, rather than de-
       terred, from receiving water and sewer services at his property.
       While Tatum argues that Smith denied services to him and the
       analysis should end there—we disagree. After Smith denied ser-
       vice, Tatum declined the opportunity to receive water and sewer
       services despite Brakefield’s statement that JWWSB would treat
       Tatum the same as other business owners whose water and sewer
       services were moved to the alley behind their buildings and water
       meters set. This is similar to our holding in Lopez where we con-
       cluded that after initially being denied service, “Lopez was able to
       complete his transaction at the same Target store, buying his de-
       sired goods at the same price and using the same payment method

       4 To the extent Tatum argues he demonstrated a convincing mosaic of evi-
       dence that would allow a jury to infer discrimination, his argument also fails.
       A convincing mosaic may be established by pointing to evidence of (1) suspi-
       cious timing, ambiguous statements, and other bits and pieces from which an
       inference of discriminatory intent might be drawn, (2) systematically better
       treatment of similarly situated business owners, and (3) pretext. Lewis, 934
       F.3d at 1185. Tatum’s evidence does not establish a convincing mosaic.
USCA11 Case: 22-13805    Document: 22-1     Date Filed: 05/30/2023   Page: 7 of 7

       22-13805              Opinion of the Court                     7

       as any other customer.” Id. The evidence shows Tatum would
       have been able to complete his transaction had he signed up and
       paid for service with JWWSB.
             The district court did not err in granting summary judgment
       on Tatum’s § 1981 claim.
             AFFIRMED.