Case: 12-15180 Date Filed: 07/24/2013 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
___________________________
No. 12-15180
Non-Argument Calendar
___________________________
Docket No. 1:11-cv-01278-RLV
JEFFREY SIMMONS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE
UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF GEORGIA,
A Georgia Southern University,
MICHAEL J. RUSSELL,
Individually and in his official capacity,
ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
_______________________________
(July 24, 2013)
Case: 12-15180 Date Filed: 07/24/2013 Page: 2 of 3
Before HULL, JORDAN, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey Simmons appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in
favor of his former employer, the Board of Regents of the University System of
Georgia (“BOR”), on his Title VII retaliation claim.
Briefly stated, the appeal presents this issue:
Whether the district court erred by granting summary judgment on
Simmons’s retaliation claim, based on its conclusion that Simmons did not
evidence sufficiently that his employer’s proffered legitimate
nondiscriminatory reasons for Simmons’s termination were pretextual.
We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing
the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Thomas v.
Cooper Lighting, Inc., 506 F.3d 1361, 1363 (11th Cir. 2007). Summary judgment
is proper if “the movant shows that 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). The party opposing summary judgment must present more than “[t]he mere
existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of [its] position . . . ; there must be
evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the [non-movant].”
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2512 (1986).
2
Case: 12-15180 Date Filed: 07/24/2013 Page: 3 of 3
The district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the BOR
because the record was unable to expose the BOR’s proffered legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for Simmons’s termination -- violation of work rules --
as a pretext for retaliation. Although the investigation that led to his termination
did not fully comply with employer-specified investigatory procedures, Simmons
did not show that the investigation was conducted differently than other
investigations or that the technical deviations -- for example, a failure to record a
complainant’s interrogation -- were due to a retaliatory motive. Besides, the record
shows that the decision makers had a good faith reason -- honest belief of work
rule violations -- for terminating Simmons’s employment. For background, see
Rojas v. Florida, 285 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir. 2002).
AFFIRMED.
3