[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
OCT 31, 2008
No. 08-11025 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 06-00054-CV-JTC-3
YOLANDA REEVES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MIKE YEAGER,
Sheriff, Cowetta County, Georgia Sheriff
Department,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
_________________________
(October 31, 2008)
Before BARKETT, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Yolanda Reeves, an African-American female, appeals from the district
court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of her employer, Sheriff Mike
Yeager,1 in her employment discrimination suit, filed pursuant to Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). The present dispute arose after
Yeager discharged Brown because he believed that she called a friend to warn her
that the Sheriff’s Office received evidence that the friend’s daughter-in-law was
involved in illegal activity. Brown, however, claimed that Yeager unlawfully
terminated her employment because of her race and gender.
On appeal, Reeves argues that (1) she established a prima facie case of race
and gender discrimination because she presented evidence that similarly situated
employees were treated more favorably; and (2) the reasons given for her
termination were a pretext for unlawful race and gender discrimination. We
review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Thomas v. Cooper
Lighting, Inc., 506 F.3d 1361, 1363 (11th Cir. 2007).
1
This suit was ultimately brought only against the Coweta County Sheriff’s Office, not
Sheriff Mike Yeager, but as Yeager’s name remains on the case style, it will be used throughout
this opinion when referring to the defendant.
2
A prima facie case of disparate treatment is established when the plaintiff
demonstrates that she “was a qualified member of a protected class and was
subjected to an adverse employment action in contrast with similarly situated
employees outside the protected class.” Wilson v. B/E Aerospace, Inc., 376 F.3d
1079, 1087 (11th Cir. 2004).
The record here shows that while Reeves’s alleged comparators all engaged
in misconduct, they were not involved in or accused of the same or similar
misconduct as Reeves. None of the misconduct involved warning a friend of a
possible criminal investigation involving the friend’s relative. Therefore, we
conclude that Reeves failed to establish a prima facie case of race and gender
discrimination because her alleged comparators were not similarly situated in that
their actions were not nearly identical to Reeves’s informing her friend that the
Sheriff’s Office discovered a photograph possibly linking the friend’s daughter-in-
law to criminal activity.
We note, however, that even if Reeves had successfully established a prima
facie case of race and gender discrimination, the district court correctly found that
she did not present sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that
Yeager’s articulated reasons for terminating her employment were pretexts for
unlawful race or gender discrimination. Reeves admitted that she had acted
3
inappropriately in warning her friend. Her employer’s belief that Reeves
jeopardized a criminal investigation and could have jeopardized the investigators
themselves was a legitimate and non-discriminatory reason for her termination.
AFFIRMED.
4