[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
August 24, 2006
No. 06-11292 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 04-00126-CV-JTC-3
LECRISTAL HOWARD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
UNITED PRUITT CORPORATION,
ALVISTA HEALTH CARE,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
_________________________
(August 24, 2006)
Before BLACK, BARKETT and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Lecristal Howard, a black female, appeals the summary judgment against her
complaint of racial discrimination against her employer, Alvista Health Care, a
skilled care nursing home, and United Pruitt Corporation, a related entity. We
affirm.
We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Brooks v. County
Comm’n of Jefferson County, 446 F.3d 1160, 1162 (11th Cir. 2006). Summary
judgment should be granted if “the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show
that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is
entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
Howard raises two arguments on appeal. First, Howard argues that she
presented sufficient evidence that the proffered reason for her demotion was
pretextual. Second, Howard argues that the district court improperly weighed
evidence of mistreatment when it granted summary judgment against her claim of a
hostile work environment. Each argument fails.
First, the district court correctly determined that Howard did not present
evidence that the legitimate non-discriminatory reason given for her demotion was
pretextual. Alvista asserted that Howard was demoted because of poor
performance, and Alvista offers documentary and testimonial evidence in support
2
of that reason. Howard did not dispute that her performance was poor. On the
contrary, in her deposition, Howard admitted that she had complained that “she had
too much responsibility and needed someone else to take over some of [her]
functions.” Howard also conceded that a report of her performance deficiencies
was “probably correct.” Howard’s bare assertion that she was demoted because of
her race is insufficient to carry her burden. See Earley v. Champion Intern. Corp.,
907 F.2d 1077, 1081 (11th Cir. 1990). Although Howard complains that the
decision to demote her was based on a subjective assessment, “[a] subjective
reason can constitute a legally sufficient, legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason
under the McDonnell Douglas / Burdine analysis,” Chapman v. AI Transport, 229
F.3d 1012, 1033 (11th Cir. 2000).
Second, the district court correctly determined that the alleged behavior
about which Howard complained did not amount to a hostile work environment.
Howard presented evidence that she was screamed at at least twice, was excluded
occasionally from meetings, and her supervisor once asked her a question in an
inappropriate tone of voice, but Howard failed to offer any evidence that any of
these incidents was related to her race. Howard also alleged that a male coworker
used a racial slur, but the district court correctly concluded that an isolated incident
does not create a hostile work environment. Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510
3
U.S. 17, 21, 114 S. Ct. 367, 370 (1993).
The summary judgment against Howard’s complaint is
AFFIRMED.
4