Case: 13-10093 Date Filed: 09/05/2013 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
___________________________
No. 13-10093
Non-Argument Calendar
___________________________
Docket No. 7:11-cv-00144-HL
THEODORE WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CLEAVER-BROOKS, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
_______________________________
(September 5, 2013)
Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
Case: 13-10093 Date Filed: 09/05/2013 Page: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Theodore Williams appeals from the district court’s grant of summary
judgment in favor of his employer, Cleaver-Brooks, on his race discrimination and
retaliation claims, which were both brought under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
The case relied mainly on a cat’s paw theory: that plaintiff’s supervisor
manipulated the ultimate decision maker. The district court properly granted
summary judgment on Williams’s race discrimination claim because he failed to
show either direct evidence of intentional discrimination or a convincing mosaic of
circumstantial evidence that would allow a jury to infer discrimination. The
evidence in this case was insufficient to allow a finding that the decision maker
was not really independent, but was just a cat’s paw. For background, see
Crawford v. Carroll, 529 F.3d 961, 979 n.21 (11th Cir. 2008) (history of decision
maker acting contrary to subordinate recommendations).
On Williams’s retaliation claim, we will assume the district court erred in
partially disregarding Williams’s affidavit under the sham affidavit theory. * Even
upon consideration of this affidavit, Williams failed to establish a retaliation claim
because Cleaver-Brooks provided a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason (acts the
employer saw as policy violations) for his termination, which Williams failed to
*
This Court “may affirm the district court’s judgment on any ground that appears in the record,
whether or not that ground was relied upon or even considered by the [district court].” Thomas
v. Cooper Lighting, Inc., 506 F.3d 1361, 1364 (11th Cir. 2007)
2
Case: 13-10093 Date Filed: 09/05/2013 Page: 3 of 3
rebut. See Goldsmith v. Bagby Elevator Co., 513 F.3d 1261, 1277 (11th Cir. 2008)
(burden is on plaintiff to show that the employer’s proffered reasons were pretext
for prohibited, retaliatory conduct).
“An employer may fire an employee for a good reason, a bad reason, a
reason based on erroneous facts, or for no reason at all, as long as its action is not
for a discriminatory reason.” Silvera v. Orange Cnty. Sch. Bd., 244 F.3d 1253,
1262 (11th Cir. 2001).
AFFIRMED.
3