Gary Lamar v. Secretary, US Department of T

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Gary Lamar. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam.

Case: 12-16424

Date Filed: 07/23/2013

Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-16424
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cv-01307-RLV

GARY LAMAR,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SECRETARY, US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(July 23, 2013)
Before HULL, WILSON, and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Gary Lamar, an African-American male, filed a complaint against Ray
LaHood, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation, who oversees

Case: 12-16424

Date Filed: 07/23/2013

Page: 2 of 3

Lamar’s employer, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Lamar asserts that
he applied for a promotion to the position of National Aerospace Systems
Operation Manager. Despite his superior qualifications, three other candidates
were selected over him. He alleges that his non-selection was based on race and
age discrimination as well as retaliation. The district court granted summary
judgment, finding that the Secretary stated a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason
for why Lamar was not selected for the promotion: the three selectees were more
qualified. And Lamar presented no evidence of pretext other than conclusory
statements that he was more qualified.
After considering the briefs and the record, we find that summary judgment
was properly entered. 1 The district court correctly found that disparities between
Lamar and the three applicants selected were not “of such weight and significance
that no reasonable person, in the exercise of impartial judgment, could have
chosen” them over Lamar. See Brooks v. Cnty. Comm’n of Jefferson Cnty., 446
F.3d 1160, 1163 (11th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). We note that
one of the three persons selected over Lamar was an African-American, and two of
the three-members of the selection committee were African-American.

1

The district court concluded that Lamar abandoned his age and retaliation claims
because his response to the Secretary’s motion for summary judgment addressed only his race
discrimination claim. As Lamar does not challenge this ruling on appeal, his age discrimination
and retaliation claims are deemed abandoned. See N. Am. Med. Corp. v. Axiom Worldwide, Inc.,
522 F.3d 1211, 1217 n.4 (11th Cir. 2008).
2

Case: 12-16424

Date Filed: 07/23/2013

Page: 3 of 3

Because Lamar failed to meet his burden of showing that the Secretary’s
reason for failing to promote him was a pretext for race discrimination, the district
did not err in granting the motion for summary judgment.
AFFIRMED.

3