Court Opinion

ID: 9965700
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-03 14:00:50.231229+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:34.308417
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12327   Document: 38-1    Date Filed: 05/03/2024   Page: 1 of 3

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                              No. 22-12327
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       EVRETT JAMES,
       VERONICA ELLERBE,
                                                 Plaintiﬀs-Appellants,
       versus
       MARRIOTT VACATIONS WORLDWIDE CORPORATION,
       d.b.a. The Westin St. John,

                                                          Defendant,

       WESTIN ST. JOHN HOTEL COMPANY, INC.,
USCA11 Case: 22-12327           Document: 38-1         Date Filed: 05/03/2024     Page: 2 of 3

       2                            Opinion of the Court                   22-12327

                                                                Defendant-Appellee.

                                   ____________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the Middle District of Florida
                       D.C. Docket No. 6:20-cv-00429-WWB-GJK
                                ____________________

       Before WILSON, LUCK, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
             Evrett James and Veronica Ellerbe sued Westin St. John Ho-
       tel Company for racial discrimination and retaliation under section
                               1
       1981 and Title VII. The district court granted summary judgment
       for Westin on James and Ellerbe’s discrimination claims because:
       they did not present direct evidence of racial discrimination; they
       did not meet their burden to establish a circumstantial case of racial
                                                                    2
       discrimination under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting
       framework; and they did not establish a convincing mosaic of cir-
       cumstantial evidence that would allow a jury to infer intentional

       1
         James and Ellerbe raised hostile-work-environment, wage discrimination,
       and failure-to-promote claims for the first time in their response to Westin’s
       summary judgment motion, but “plaintiff[s] may not amend [their] complaint
       through argument in a brief opposing summary judgment.” See Gilmour v.
       Gates, McDonald & Co., 382 F.3d 1312, 1315 (11th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted).
       2
           McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).
USCA11 Case: 22-12327         Document: 38-1         Date Filed: 05/03/2024         Page: 3 of 3

       22-12327                   Opinion of the Court                                3

       discrimination. The district court granted summary judgment for
       Westin on the plaintiffs’ retaliation claims because: Ellerbe did not
       suffer an adverse employment action; James and Ellerbe did not
       show that any adverse action was a pretext for retaliation; and they
       did not establish that the desire to retaliate was the but-for cause of
       the adverse action.
              James and Ellerbe appeal the summary judgment for Wes-
       tin, but even giving their brief a liberal reading, as we are required
       to do, see Evans v. Ga. Reg’l Hosp., 850 F.3d 1248, 1253 (11th Cir.
       2017), they have failed to provide any arguments “specifically and
       clearly” explaining why the district court erred in its summary
       judgment order. See Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d
       1324, 1330 (11th Cir. 2004). They cite and quote a wide array of
       discrimination law, from this court and others, but their brief
       makes no attempt to connect those cases to this case. This is fatal
       because an “argument that has not been briefed before the court is
       deemed abandoned and its merits will not be addressed.” Id. So
                          3
       we must affirm.
               AFFIRMED.

       3
        James and Ellerbe’s brief also hints at new claims under Florida state law, the
       Equal Pay Act, and the Human Rights Act of 1977. But the plaintiffs “cannot
       amend the complaint by arguments made in an appellate brief.” Adams ex rel.
       Kasper v. Sch. Bd. of St. Johns Cnty., 57 F.4th 791, 799 n.2 (11th Cir. 2022) (en
       banc).