Summary
affirming Title VII judgment against Savannah Technical College instructor, who "failed to establish a prima facie case that her placement on 'leave' was based on racial discrimination, as she failed to show sufficiently that similarly situated employees were treated more favorably than she."
Summary of this case from Sakipalli v. Technical Coll. Sys. of Ga.Opinion
No. 12-15546 Docket No. 4:10-cv-00308-JRH-GRS
08-06-2013
DEATIA J. MCFARLIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE BOARD OF TECHNICAL AND ADULT EDUCATION, TECHNICAL COLLEGE SYSTEM OF GEORGIA, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
Non-Argument Calendar
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
Before WILSON, ANDERSON, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:
Deatia McFarlin, an instructor at the Savannah Technical College, appeals from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants in her employment suit under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The appeal presents this issue:
Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment against McFarlin on her race discrimination claims challenging her (a) placement on disciplinary leave; and (b) termination of employment.
The case was decided under the familiar McDonnell Douglas framework. McFarlin failed to establish a prima facie case that her placement on "leave" was based on racial discrimination, as she failed to show sufficiently that similarly situated employees were treated more favorably than she. Even if she had established a prima facie case, McFarlin did not carry her burden to show sufficiently that the proffered nondiscriminatory reasons for her placement on leave, including her perceived insubordination, were mere pretexts. Even if McFarlin established a prima facie case that her termination was discriminatory, she did not show sufficiently that the proffered reasons for her termination, specifically the receipt of several student complaints and her perceived unwillingness to improve, were pretextual.
The courts do not decide about the wisdom of the employer's decisions. And an employer's own perception of events is important. Therefore, the district court, given the evidence in this record and lack of evidence, did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of defendants.
AFFIRMED.