[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-15603 AUGUST 12, 2009
Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________ CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 06-01038-CV-LSC-S
WALTER LEE TODD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
_________________________
(August 12, 2009)
Before CARNES and PRYOR, Circuit Judges, and STAGG,* District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff-Appellant Walter L. Todd sued his former employer, Defendant-
*
Honorable Tom Stagg, United States District Judge for the Western District of
Louisiana, sitting by designation.
Appellee Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
(SSA), asserting numerous violations of Title VII and the Americans with
Disabilities Act. He based his claims on assertions of discrimination based on his
race, his sex, a disability, and retaliation for filing administrative EEO complaints.
The district court granted Astrue’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed all
of Todd’s claims. Todd timely filed a notice of appeal.
We have reviewed the record on appeal, including the district court’s
Memorandum of Opinion which thoroughly analyzes all aspects of Todd’s claims,
disposing of each in turn. We are satisfied that the district court accurately applied
the law to the facts and arrived at the correct conclusion. Our decision is
reinforced by the declarations of Todd’s seven supervisors, which recount what the
district court kindly called Todd’s “previous misconduct.” Among the misconduct
his supervisors swore to: Todd was “always disruptive during unit meetings;” was
“argumentative and insubordinate with his supervisors;” was “extremely willful;”
“seemed to enjoy an audience and like[d] to challenge management during staff
meetings;” was “disruptive;” had a “confrontational relationship” with his
superiors; “behaved in a manner that made his co-workers uncomfortable,” which
included “staring at women as they walked by” and “making derogatory
comments;” was “quite belligerent;” “seemed determined not to follow the
2
instructions of his supervisors;” and was “very arrogant.”
And Todd did not just misbehave. He also misperformed. His supervisors
described Todd’s work quality this way: his “performance was not up to par;” he
had “a problem following written guidelines;” he “was not inclined to defer to SSA
policies and procedures;” he “was unable to read, interpret and apply the
information available on various inquiries;” his “inefficient work habits
contributed to his inability to handle a proportionate share of incoming calls;” that
when he did take calls, he “place[d] callers on hold for extended periods of time,”
gave them “incorrect information, took erroneous actions,” and “violated SSA
policy by releasing information to unauthorized persons;” he was unable to handle
routine calls in an efficient and timely manner;” he had a tendency to “develop
issues that were not important or even relevant to the call;” and “his performance
was not equal to that of his colleagues.”
We, like one of Todd’s supervisors, “might not have recommended keeping
him after the expiration of his probationary period.” Actions of an employer that
are too kind, however, are not a basis for a lawsuit.
AFFIRMED.1
1
This case was originally scheduled for oral argument, but after review the panel
unanimously decided that oral argument was not necessary. See 11th Cir. R. 34-3(f).
3