Court Opinion

ID: 9375639
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-28 16:00:52.87053+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:00.604277
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 21-14157    Document: 45-1     Date Filed: 02/28/2023   Page: 1 of 2

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 21-14157
                          ____________________

       DAWN WEIHER,
                                                     Plaintiff-Appellant,
       versus
       LINCARE PROCUREMENT, INC.,

                                                   Defendant-Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 8:20-cv-02569-VMC-AEP
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 21-14157         Document: 45-1         Date Filed: 02/28/2023   Page: 2 of 2

       2                          Opinion of the Court                  21-14157

       Before WILSON, JORDAN, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Dawn Weiher filed a two-count complaint against Lincare
       Procurement, Inc. (Lincare), her former employer, alleging dis-
       crimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities
       Act (ADA). The district court granted summary judgment to Lin-
       care on both counts, applying the McDonnell-Douglas1 burden-
       shifting framework to review her attempt to prove intentional dis-
       crimination through circumstantial evidence. After careful review
       of the briefs and the record, and with the benefit of oral argument,
       we agree with the district court that Weiher failed to identify suffi-
       cient evidence in the record for a reasonable jury to find that Lin-
       care’s proffered, non-discriminatory reasons for the adverse em-
       ployment actions she complains of were false or pretextual. And
       we agree that the record lacks a “convincing mosaic” 2 of discrimi-
       nation. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s well-reasoned
       decision.
               AFFIRMED.

       1 McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).
       2 See Jenkins v. Nell, 26 F.4th 1243, 1250 (11th Cir. 2022).