Case: 12-15131 Date Filed: 05/08/2013 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-15131
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:11-cv-00058-WCO
SHAWN D. JACKSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
HALL COUNTY GOVERNMENT,
State of Georgia,
SHERIFF STEVE CRONIC,
COLONEL JEFF STRICKLAND,
Defendants - Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(May 8, 2013)
Before CARNES, BARKETT and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-15131 Date Filed: 05/08/2013 Page: 2 of 6
Shawn Jackson appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment
in favor of two of his supervisors on his race discrimination and retaliation claims
filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. After careful review, we affirm.
Because the facts of this case are described in detail in the magistrate judge’s
report and recommendation (R&R) to the district court, we provide only a brief
summary here.
Jackson, an African-American man employed as a corporal by the Hall
County Sheriff’s Office, sued his supervisors, Sheriff Steve Cronic and Colonel
Jeff Strickland,1 alleging that the two discriminated against him because of his race
by failing to promote him to sergeant. Jackson and four other corporals applied for
promotion in March 2007. The sheriff’s office constructed a merit-based
promotion roster that remained in place for six months, and Jackson was fifth on
the list. Only four promotions were available during that time, but Jackson alleged
he was not promoted because of his race.
Jackson also alleged Cronic and Strickland gave him unfavorable shift
assignments in a discriminatory manner and in retaliation for complaints he made
to the EEOC regarding the alleged promotion discrimination. Although corporals
usually patrol an entire unit made up of several districts and act in a supervisory
role, corporals are sometimes assigned to patrol a specific district if there are
1
Jackson also sued the Hall County Government, but the district court dismissed those claims and Jackson does not
appeal from that order.
2
Case: 12-15131 Date Filed: 05/08/2013 Page: 3 of 6
insufficient line officers to staff a particular shift. Jackson contends he was
assigned to patrol a specific district, rather than an entire unit, several times.
Finally, he alleged Cronic and Strickland retaliated by cancelling one of his
scheduled vacation days when Jackson was subpoenaed to testify at a trial.
After discovery, Cronic and Strickland moved for summary judgment. The
matter was referred to a magistrate judge who, in a detailed R&R, recommended
that the district court render judgment in favor of Cronic and Strickland. As
relevant here, the magistrate judge found that Cronic and Strickland had articulated
a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the promotion decision, and Jackson
failed to show this proffered reason was pretextual. The judge also concluded that
Jackson had not established a prima facie discrimination case based on his shift
assignments because the assignments did not constitute adverse employment
actions. The magistrate judge also found the shift assignments could not sustain
Jackson’s retaliation claim, and the cancellation of Jackson’s vacation day, the
magistrate judge explained, was a mere “minor annoyance” that did not amount to
a materially adverse employment action.
The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s R&R over Jackson’s
objections. The court first agreed with the magistrate judge that Jackson failed to
provide evidence of pretext sufficient to create a genuine issue of fact on his
failure-to-promote claim. Further, the district court determined that the shift
3
Case: 12-15131 Date Filed: 05/08/2013 Page: 4 of 6
assignments were not materially adverse actions and, for that reason, concluded
Jackson failed to make a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation on that
ground. The same reasoning applied to Jackson’s claim based on cancellation of
one vacation day.
Jackson spends much of his brief on appeal arguing that he established a
prima facie case of discrimination based on Cronic and Strickland’s alleged
promotion decisions. That, however, is irrelevant. The district court assumed that
Jackson could make such a showing but concluded his claim nonetheless failed.
He also argues summary judgment was inappropriate because evidence he
submitted created a genuine issue of fact regarding whether Cronic and
Strickland’s promotion decisions were pretextual. For the reasons set forth in the
magistrate judge’s detailed R&R (specifically, section V.B.2.c.) as affirmed in the
district court’s order, however, we conclude that Jackson cannot do so. Jackson’s
arguments to the contrary are based on conclusory allegations of “illegal
discriminatory intent,” not facts that could create a genuine issue to overcome
summary judgment.
Jackson also disputes the district court’s conclusion that his shift
assignments were not materially adverse employment actions and, therefore, not a
basis for a discrimination or retaliation claim. But he points to nothing in the
record that would lead us to believe the assignments would have the kind of
4
Case: 12-15131 Date Filed: 05/08/2013 Page: 5 of 6
material effect that our case law contemplates would constitute an adverse action.
See Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 67-68 (2006)
(requiring actionable employer conduct to be “significant,” rather than “trivial,”
emphasizing that “petty slights or minor annoyances that often take place at
work”); Davis v. Town of Lake Park, Fla., 245 F.3d 1232, 1239 (11th Cir. 2001)
(“[T]o prove adverse employment action in a [discrimination] case . . . , an
employee must show a serious and material change in the terms, conditions, or
privileges of employment. Moreover, the employee’s subjective view of the
significance and adversity of the employer’s action is not controlling . . . .”). Thus,
as stated in the magistrate judge’s well-reasoned R&R (specifically, sections
V.B.3. and V.C.1.) and in the district court’s order, we conclude that Jackson’s
discrimination and retaliation claims based on his shift assignments fail as a matter
of law.
The same is true for Jackson’s retaliation claim based on the cancellation of
a single planned vacation day. On appeal, Jackson contends the magistrate judge
and district court improperly weighed factual allegations in a light unfavorable to
him, pointing to paragraph 17 in his declaration. But the district court expressly
stated that, “even if the court accepts everything stated in paragraph 17” as true,
the cancellation did not constitute an adverse employment action as a matter of
law. Jackson does not and cannot refute this. Accordingly, and for the reasons the
5
Case: 12-15131 Date Filed: 05/08/2013 Page: 6 of 6
magistrate judge provided in section V.C.2. and the district court emphasized in its
order, we conclude that this claim also fails.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s summary judgment
in favor of Cronic and Strickland.
AFFIRMED.
6