[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
August 23, 2006
No. 05-16940 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 04-00063-CV-T-E
SAMANTHA JOHNSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
AUBURN UNIVERSITY,
a corporation in the
State of Alabama,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama
_________________________
(August 23, 2006)
Before BLACK, BARKETT and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Samantha Johnson appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in
favor of Auburn University in her employment discrimination and retaliation
action, brought pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e. In her complaint, Johnson, an African American, alleged that (1) she had
been discriminated against when Auburn (a) classified her position lower than the
classification for the same jobs performed by white employees, and (b) failed to
promote her;1 and (2) Auburn retaliated against her for complaining about the
disparities between black and white employees’s salaries and classifications.
Johnson identified several comparators: Debbie Allen, Stan Fuller, Gayle Segrest,
and Tammy Funderburk.2
Auburn moved for summary judgment, arguing (1) Johnson failed to
establish a prima facie case of discrimination, as the comparators were not
similarly situated; (2) Johnson failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation,
as there was no causal connection between Johnson’s complaints and the decision
not to reclassify or promote her; and (3) even if Johnson set forth a prima facie
case, Auburn proffered legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its decisions,
and Johnson could not show that these reasons were pretextual.
1
It appears that Johnson abandoned her failure-to-promote claim at the summary judgment
stage. Johnson does not address the issue on appeal. Therefore, it is abandoned. Rowe v. Schreiber,
139 F.3d 1381, 1382 n.1 (11th Cir. 1998).
2
Johnson also identified Mary Turner as a comparator. The district court found Turner was
not an appropriate comparator because her position was different, and she worked in a different
department under a different supervisor. Johnson does not challenge this finding on appeal, and,
therefore, she has abandoned it. Rowe, 139 F.3d at 1382 n.1.
2
The district court granted summary judgment, finding that Johnson failed to
identify proper comparators, as the named comparators had different job duties and
there was no evidence that the alleged different treatment was based on race, and
that Auburn proffered legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the failure to
reclassify Johnson, which Johnson had not shown to be pretextual. The court also
found that Johnson failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation, as there was
no causal connection between her complaints about disparities and the failure to
reclassify her position, and even if there was a causal connection, Johnson could
not show that Auburn’s reasons were a pretext for discrimination.
On appeal, Johnson argues that the court erred by concluding that the
comparators were not similarly situated, as their job duties were essentially the
same, and that Auburn’s reasons were pretextual. Johnson further argues that there
was a causal connection between her protected activity and her termination because
she was treated differently that white employees.
After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the district court
properly granted summary judgment for the reasons stated in the district court’s
opinion dated November 17, 2005.
AFFIRMED.
3