Court Opinion

ID: 9385851
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-10 15:00:49.304621+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:47.537458
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-11998    Document: 39-1     Date Filed: 04/10/2023   Page: 1 of 2

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-11998
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       MARCUS BODIE,
                                                     Plaintiff-Appellant,
       versus
       TOWNE PARK SERVICES, LLC,

                                                   Defendant-Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 8:21-cv-01097-SDM-CPT
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-11998         Document: 39-1         Date Filed: 04/10/2023       Page: 2 of 2

       2                          Opinion of the Court                     22-11998

       Before WILSON, JILL PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Marcus Bodie, an African American, filed a complaint
       against Towne Park Services, LLC (Towne), alleging Towne failed
       to hire him because of his race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The
       district court granted summary judgment to Towne, finding Bodie
       failed to prove intentional discrimination through circumstantial
       evidence under either the McDonnell Douglas 1 burden-shifting
       framework or the “convincing mosaic” 2 avenue.
               After careful review of the briefs and the record, we agree
       with the district court that Bodie failed to show Towne’s proffered,
       non-discriminatory reason for not hiring him—administrative
       oversight—was pretextual. 3 And we agree that the record lacks a
       “convincing mosaic” of discrimination. 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).
       3 Bodie also argue that his race was the “but-for” cause for Towne’s failure to
       hire him. But Bodie pointed to no evidence to suggest that his race was the
       reason. In fact, the evidence shows an administrative oversight by Towne’s
       talent acquisition team was the reason for the non-hire.