Court Opinion

ID: 9890539
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-13 15:01:33.013362+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:26:26.180990
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-11892    Document: 48-1     Date Filed: 10/13/2023   Page: 1 of 5

                                                 [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-11892
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       GILBERT SAINT-CYR,
                                                     Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       WALGREEN CO.,
       a Foreign for-Proﬁt Corporation,
       CHRIS GULLICKSON,

                                                 Defendants-Appellees.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
USCA11 Case: 22-11892         Document: 48-1        Date Filed: 10/13/2023         Page: 2 of 5

       2                         Opinion of the Court                       22-11892

                        D.C. Docket No. 9:21-cv-82066-WPD
                             ____________________

       Before NEWSOM, GRANT, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Gilbert Saint-Cyr appeals the district court’s dismissal of his
       suit against Walgreen Co. (Walgreens), alleging racially disparate
       treatment and retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights
       Act of 1964 (Title VII), 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the Florida Civil Rights
       Act (FCRA), Fla. Stat. § 760.10(1)(a) and (7). Saint-Cyr contends the
       district court erred in dismissing his complaint because he ade-
       quately pled his discrimination and retaliation claims. After re-
       view, 1 we affirm the district court.
               To state a prima facie case of racial discrimination2 a plaintiff
       may allege that: (1) he belongs to a protected class; (2) he was qual-
       ified to do the job; (3) he was subjected to adverse employment
       action; and (4) his employer treated similarly situated employees
       outside his class more favorably. Crawford v. Carroll, 529 F.3d 961,
       970 (11th Cir. 2008). To state a claim for racial discrimination, a

       1 We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a claim under Rule 12(b)(6),

       accepting the allegations in the complaint as true and construing them in the
       light most favorable to the plaintiff. Am. United Life Ins. Co. v. Martinez, 480
       F.3d 1043, 1056-57 (11th Cir. 2007).
       2 Discrimination claims brought under Title VII, § 1981, and the FCRA are

       analyzed under the same framework. See Surtain v. Hamlin Terrace Found., 789
       F.3d 1239, 1245 n.6 (11th Cir. 2015).
USCA11 Case: 22-11892         Document: 48-1          Date Filed: 10/13/2023          Page: 3 of 5

       22-11892                   Opinion of the Court                                  3

       complaint need not allege facts sufficient to make out a classic
       prima facie case, but must provide enough factual matter to plausi-
       bly suggest intentional discrimination. Surtain v. Hamlin Terrace
       Found., 789 F.3d 1239, 1246 (11th Cir. 2015). Even if a plaintiff need
       not plead a prima facie case to survive dismissal, the complaint must
       satisfy the “plausible on its face” standard, and the allegations must
       be sufficient to “raise a right to relief above the speculative level.”
       See Edwards v. Prime, Inc., 602 F.3d 1276, 1300 (11th Cir. 2010).
              The district court found Saint-Cyr had failed to plead allega-
       tions sufficient for an adverse employment action. 3 To show an
       adverse employment action, an employee must allege a serious
       and material change in the terms, conditions, or privileges of his
       employment. Davis v. Town of Lake Park, 245 F.3d 1232, 1238-39
       (11th Cir. 2001), overruled on other grounds by Burlington N. & Santa
       Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (holding a job performance
       memorandum did not constitute an adverse employment action).
       Not all conduct by an employer negatively affecting an employee
       constitutes adverse employment action in a discrimination context.
       Id. at 1238. “[T]he employee’s subjective view of the significance
       and adversity of the employer’s action is not controlling; the em-
       ployment action must be materially adverse as viewed by a reason-
       able person in the circumstances.” Id. at 1239.

       3 The district court also found that Saint-Cyr failed to sufficiently allege a sim-

       ilarly situated comparator. Because we agree with the district court’s analysis
       on adverse employment action, it is unnecessary to address the similarly situ-
       ated comparator.
USCA11 Case: 22-11892         Document: 48-1          Date Filed: 10/13/2023          Page: 4 of 5

       4                          Opinion of the Court                         22-11892

               Saint-Cyr failed to allege a serious and material change in the
       conditions of his employment. 4 See Davis, 245 F.3d at 1238-39. In
       his Sixth Amended Complaint, he alleged Walgreens moved him
       to a different section and then to a different department following
       his altercation with Carlos Saavedra. However, he did not allege
       that either of these transfers involved a reduction in pay, prestige,
       or responsibility. See Doe v. DeKalb Cty. Sch. Dist., 145 F.3d 1441,
       1452 (11th Cir. 1998) (holding a transfer to a different position can
       be adverse if it involves a reduction in pay, prestige, or responsibil-
       ity). Although Chris Gullickson wrote a disciplinary report adverse
       to Saint-Cyr after the altercation with Saavedra, such a written
       warning, by itself, cannot be said to materially affect the terms, con-
       ditions, or privileges of employment. See Davis, 245 F.3d at 1239-
       40.
               With respect to Saint-Cyr’s retaliation claim, the district
       court did not err in determining that Saint-Cyr conceded that claim
       by failing to address Walgreens’ protected activity and causal con-
       nection arguments in his response to the motion to dismiss. See
       Gennusa v. Canova, 748 F.3d 1103, 1116 (11th Cir. 2014) (explaining

       4 The district court construed the description of Saint-Cyr’s discrimination

       claim in his Sixth Amended Complaint as challenging the August 2018 incident
       with Carlos Saavedra and Walgreens’ actions thereafter, but not Saint-Cyr’s
       diminishing “EP percentage,” a benchmark of meeting performance stand-
       ards. Saint-Cyr does not challenge this on appeal, so we limit our analysis to
       the incident with Saavedra and the actions thereafter. Additionally, Saint-Cyr’s
       reliance on the “convincing mosaic” framework fails, as he made no attempt,
       at the district court or on appeal, to connect that analysis to the facts at issue.
       See Gennusa v. Canova, 748 F.3d 1103, 1116 (11th Cir. 2014).
USCA11 Case: 22-11892      Document: 48-1       Date Filed: 10/13/2023      Page: 5 of 5

       22-11892                Opinion of the Court                           5

       to preserve a claim or argument, a party must first present it to the
       district court in a manner that gives the court an opportunity to
       recognize and rule on it). He also fails to adequately challenge this
       finding on appeal, and thus has abandoned any challenge to the dis-
       trict court’s dismissal of his retaliation claim. See Greenbriar, Ltd. v.
       City of Alabaster, 881 F.2d 1570, 1573 n.6 (11th Cir. 1989)
           The district court did not err in dismissing Saint-Cyr’s Sixth
       Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim, and we affirm.
              AFFIRMED.