USCA11 Case: 20-12257 Date Filed: 02/10/2021 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________
No. 20-12257 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:19-cv-00385-PGB-GJK
CLYDE DANDRIDGE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida ________________________
(February 10, 2021)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, JORDAN and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 20-12257 Date Filed: 02/10/2021 Page: 2 of 6
Clyde Dandridge appeals the summary judgment entered in favor of
Walmart, Inc., and against his complaint of discrimination and retaliation under the
Florida Civil Rights Act. Walmart removed this action to the district court based
on diversity of citizenship. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, 1446. We affirm.
“We review a summary judgment ruling de novo, viewing the evidence and
all factual inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the party opposing
the motion.” Essex Ins. Co. v. Barrett Moving & Storage, Inc., 885 F.3d 1292,
1299 (11th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). Summary judgment should be granted
only when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A genuine issue of
material fact exists when “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a
verdict for the non-moving party.” Quigg v. Thomas Cty. Sch. Dist., 814 F.3d
1227, 1235 (11th Cir. 2016).
Dandridge argues that the district court erred when it granted summary
judgment against his claim of racial discrimination based on the failure to promote
him to several positions because he met the objective qualifications for the
promotions and the district court erroneously relied on Walmart’s subjective
evaluations to determine that he was unqualified for them. He also argues that he
proved that Walmart’s proffered reasons for failing to promote him were pretextual
2 USCA11 Case: 20-12257 Date Filed: 02/10/2021 Page: 3 of 6
because the promoted individuals were equally or less qualified than himself and
because Walmart systematically stifled the promotion of black employees while
advancing white employees.
Claims of discrimination under the Florida Act are reviewed using the same
analytical framework as used for claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964. Harper v. Blockbuster Entm’t Corp., 139 F.3d 1385, 1387 (11th Cir. 1998).
Both Title VII and the Florida Act prohibit employment discrimination based on
race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1); Fla. Stat.
§ 760(2). We do not consider “whether employment decisions are prudent or fair”
but instead determine “whether unlawful discriminatory animus motivates a
challenged employment decision.” Damon v. Fleming Supermarkets of Fla., Inc.,
196 F.3d 1354, 1361 (11th Cir. 1999).
The district court committed no error in granting summary judgment against
Dandridge’s claim of racial discrimination for any failure to promote him.
Dandridge presented no evidence that he was qualified for the positions or that the
individuals hired for those positions had lesser or equal qualifications. The job
description for the three store manager positions for which Dandridge applied
stated that an applicant must be proficient in the competency area of “Leads
Inventory Flow Process.” That is, the individual must manage the flow process “to
ensure merchandise is replenished and in-stock” as well as monitor and evaluate
3 USCA11 Case: 20-12257 Date Filed: 02/10/2021 Page: 4 of 6
the facility “to identify problems with inventory flow and signs of shrinkage, and
take[] appropriate corrective action.” Dandridge received a score of “Development
Needed” in the category of “Leads Inventory Flow Process” in his performance
evaluations in 2011, 2013, 2015, and 2016. And he had been coached for zoning
issues and shrinkage. Moreover, the individuals selected for the positions had
superior qualifications. For four of the six positions—manager of store #4142 and
the three fresh operations manager positions—the selected individuals all had
previous experience as a store manager of either Walmart or another “big-box
retailer,” and Dandridge admitted he lacked that experience. For the manager
position at store #3629, the selected individual, unlike Dandridge, was
recommended by other market managers and had no coaching issues. For the
manager position at store #649, the selected individual had three more years of
experience as a comanager than Dandridge.
Dandridge also failed to present any evidence that Walmart’s proffered
reasons for its hiring decisions were false and a pretext for discrimination. That is,
Dandridge failed to prove that Walmart’s proffered reasons were so implausible,
inconsistent, and contradictory that a reasonable factfinder could find them
unworthy of credence, and he failed to present evidence that the true motivation for
any lack of promotion was racial discrimination. Dandridge argues that he is more
qualified than the individuals selected because he has a bachelor’s degree, but he
4 USCA11 Case: 20-12257 Date Filed: 02/10/2021 Page: 5 of 6
presented no evidence that the successful applicants lacked college degrees. And
the job descriptions for the manager positions did not mention a college degree as a
minimum or preferred qualification. Dandridge also provided no evidence to
support his self-serving assertion that Walmart stifled the promotion of black
employees.
Dandridge argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment
against his claims of retaliation. He contends that he presented sufficient evidence
of a casual nexus between his protected activities and the alleged retaliatory
actions. And he argues that Walmart’s proffered reasons for its actions were a
pretext for retaliation. The Florida Act prohibits an employer from retaliating
against an employee for opposing any practice made unlawful by the Act. See Fla.
Stat. § 760.10(7). That prohibition too is patterned after the prohibition in Title
VII, and claims of retaliation are reviewed using the same framework. Wilbur v.
Corr. Servs. Corp., 393 F.3d 1192, 1195 n.1 (11th Cir. 2004).
The district court again did not err. For Count Two, Dandridge failed to
establish a prima facie case of retaliation because he did not prove a causal
connection between the protected activity and the adverse action. An almost three-
year gap separated Dandridge’s complaint of January 2013 and the refusal to
promote him in September 2015. And he presented no evidence that Walmart’s
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
USCA11 Case: 20-12257 Date Filed: 02/10/2021 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________
No. 20-12257 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:19-cv-00385-PGB-GJK
CLYDE DANDRIDGE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida ________________________
(February 10, 2021)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, JORDAN and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 20-12257 Date Filed: 02/10/2021 Page: 2 of 6
Clyde Dandridge appeals the summary judgment entered in favor of
Walmart, Inc., and against his complaint of discrimination and retaliation under the
Florida Civil Rights Act. Walmart removed this action to the district court based
on diversity of citizenship. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, 1446. We affirm.
“We review a summary judgment ruling de novo, viewing the evidence and
all factual inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the party opposing
the motion.” Essex Ins. Co. v. Barrett Moving & Storage, Inc., 885 F.3d 1292,
1299 (11th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). Summary judgment should be granted
only when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A genuine issue of
material fact exists when “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a
verdict for the non-moving party.” Quigg v. Thomas Cty. Sch. Dist., 814 F.3d
1227, 1235 (11th Cir. 2016).
Dandridge argues that the district court erred when it granted summary
judgment against his claim of racial discrimination based on the failure to promote
him to several positions because he met the objective qualifications for the
promotions and the district court erroneously relied on Walmart’s subjective
evaluations to determine that he was unqualified for them. He also argues that he
proved that Walmart’s proffered reasons for failing to promote him were pretextual
2 USCA11 Case: 20-12257 Date Filed: 02/10/2021 Page: 3 of 6
because the promoted individuals were equally or less qualified than himself and
because Walmart systematically stifled the promotion of black employees while
advancing white employees.
Claims of discrimination under the Florida Act are reviewed using the same
analytical framework as used for claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964. Harper v. Blockbuster Entm’t Corp., 139 F.3d 1385, 1387 (11th Cir. 1998).
Both Title VII and the Florida Act prohibit employment discrimination based on
race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1); Fla. Stat.
§ 760(2). We do not consider “whether employment decisions are prudent or fair”
but instead determine “whether unlawful discriminatory animus motivates a
challenged employment decision.” Damon v. Fleming Supermarkets of Fla., Inc.,
196 F.3d 1354, 1361 (11th Cir. 1999).
The district court committed no error in granting summary judgment against
Dandridge’s claim of racial discrimination for any failure to promote him.
Dandridge presented no evidence that he was qualified for the positions or that the
individuals hired for those positions had lesser or equal qualifications. The job
description for the three store manager positions for which Dandridge applied
stated that an applicant must be proficient in the competency area of “Leads
Inventory Flow Process.” That is, the individual must manage the flow process “to
ensure merchandise is replenished and in-stock” as well as monitor and evaluate
3 USCA11 Case: 20-12257 Date Filed: 02/10/2021 Page: 4 of 6
the facility “to identify problems with inventory flow and signs of shrinkage, and
take[] appropriate corrective action.” Dandridge received a score of “Development
Needed” in the category of “Leads Inventory Flow Process” in his performance
evaluations in 2011, 2013, 2015, and 2016. And he had been coached for zoning
issues and shrinkage. Moreover, the individuals selected for the positions had
superior qualifications. For four of the six positions—manager of store #4142 and
the three fresh operations manager positions—the selected individuals all had
previous experience as a store manager of either Walmart or another “big-box
retailer,” and Dandridge admitted he lacked that experience. For the manager
position at store #3629, the selected individual, unlike Dandridge, was
recommended by other market managers and had no coaching issues. For the
manager position at store #649, the selected individual had three more years of
experience as a comanager than Dandridge.
Dandridge also failed to present any evidence that Walmart’s proffered
reasons for its hiring decisions were false and a pretext for discrimination. That is,
Dandridge failed to prove that Walmart’s proffered reasons were so implausible,
inconsistent, and contradictory that a reasonable factfinder could find them
unworthy of credence, and he failed to present evidence that the true motivation for
any lack of promotion was racial discrimination. Dandridge argues that he is more
qualified than the individuals selected because he has a bachelor’s degree, but he
4 USCA11 Case: 20-12257 Date Filed: 02/10/2021 Page: 5 of 6
presented no evidence that the successful applicants lacked college degrees. And
the job descriptions for the manager positions did not mention a college degree as a
minimum or preferred qualification. Dandridge also provided no evidence to
support his self-serving assertion that Walmart stifled the promotion of black
employees.
Dandridge argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment
against his claims of retaliation. He contends that he presented sufficient evidence
of a casual nexus between his protected activities and the alleged retaliatory
actions. And he argues that Walmart’s proffered reasons for its actions were a
pretext for retaliation. The Florida Act prohibits an employer from retaliating
against an employee for opposing any practice made unlawful by the Act. See Fla.
Stat. § 760.10(7). That prohibition too is patterned after the prohibition in Title
VII, and claims of retaliation are reviewed using the same framework. Wilbur v.
Corr. Servs. Corp., 393 F.3d 1192, 1195 n.1 (11th Cir. 2004).
The district court again did not err. For Count Two, Dandridge failed to
establish a prima facie case of retaliation because he did not prove a causal
connection between the protected activity and the adverse action. An almost three-
year gap separated Dandridge’s complaint of January 2013 and the refusal to
promote him in September 2015. And he presented no evidence that Walmart’s
proffered reasons for not promoting him in September 2015 were a pretext for
5 USCA11 Case: 20-12257 Date Filed: 02/10/2021 Page: 6 of 6
discrimination. For Count Three, Dandridge failed to establish a prima facie case
of retaliation because he failed to prove that he had engaged in protected activity.
Dandridge alleged that he was issued a written coaching on July 28, 2015, because
he sent an email on July 1, 2015, about not being promoted, but his email failed to
mention any alleged discrimination, racial or otherwise. Dandridge also presented
no evidence that the individual who issued the written coaching was aware of his
email or of any protected activity. Dandridge’s claim under Count Four fails
because he presented no evidence that Walmart’s proffered reason for issuing a
written coaching on August 23, 2016, was false. Dandridge received the written
coaching for failing to zone the store properly, for leaving consumable areas not
completely worked, and for failing to ensure that carts were stored away. For
Count Five, even if we were to assume that his transfer to another store following
the incident on November 1, 2016, qualified as an adverse employment action,
Dandridge’s claim would fail as a matter of law. Dandridge presented no evidence
that the decisionmaker knew of Dandridge’s earlier EEOC charge. So Dandridge
failed to establish a causal connection between the protected activity and the
alleged adverse action.
AFFIRMED.