Brenda Morgan v. Lawrence County Commission

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Brenda Morgan. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 16-15047

Date Filed: 05/01/2017

Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-15047
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:14-cv-01823-CLS

BRENDA MORGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
LAWRENCE COUNTY COMMISSION,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
________________________
(May 1, 2017)
Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, ROSENBAUM and HIGGINBOTHAM, *
Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
*

Honorable Patrick E. Higginbotham, United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit,
sitting by designation.

Case: 16-15047

Date Filed: 05/01/2017

Page: 2 of 3

Brenda Morgan appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment on
her retaliation claim in favor of her former employer, the Lawrence County
Commission. Morgan contends that after she filed an EEOC discrimination charge
the Lawrence County Commission retaliated against her, engaging in several
adverse actions.
We evaluate retaliation claims like Morgan’s that are based entirely on
circumstantial evidence under the framework established by the Supreme Court in
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 511 U.S. 792, 93 S. Ct. 1817 (1973). See
Furcron v. Mail Ctrs. Plus, LLC, 843 F.3d 1295, 1310 (2016). Under that
framework:
Once a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of retaliation, the
burden of production shifts to the defendant to rebut the presumption
by articulating a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the adverse
. . . action. . . . If the defendant carries this burden of production, the
presumption raised by the prima facie case is rebutted, . . . and drops
from the case . . . . After the defendant makes this showing, the
plaintiff has a full and fair opportunity to demonstrate that the
defendant’s proffered reason was merely a pretext to mask
discriminatory actions.
See Bryant v. Jones, 575 F.3d 1281, 1307–08 (11th Cir. 2009).
Even assuming that Morgan established a prima facie case of retaliation, the
Commission proffered legitimate reasons for its decisions to terminate her
employment with the County and to decline to hire her as the director of the
Lawrence County Emergency Management Agency. And Morgan has failed to
2

Case: 16-15047

Date Filed: 05/01/2017

Page: 3 of 3

create a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether those proffered reasons were
merely pretextual. While temporal proximity can serve as evidence of pretext, in
the particular circumstances of this case the temporal proximity between the
Commission’s actions and Morgan’s EEOC complaint — whether considered
alone or in combination with the other evidence Morgan has presented — is not
sufficient to do so.
For that reason, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

3