Bruce M. Savage v. Georgia Department of Transportation

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-10934
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cv-02459-TWT
BRUCE M. SAVAGE, llllllllllll
lllllllllllllllllllllllllll lPlaintiff-Appellant,
versus
GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, l
lllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllll
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(September 20, 2012)
Before TJOFLAT, BARKETT and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Bruce Savage appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in
favor of the Georgia Department of Transportation (“GDOT”) in his employment
Case: 12-10934 Date Filed: 09/20/2012 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2
discrimination suit challenging a demotion as improperly based on his race under
Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). On appeal, Savage argues that the court erred
in finding that he did not establish a prima facie case of race discrimination.
First, he argues that he and his comparator were similarly situated because they
were both accused of violating GDOT policy. Second, Savage claims that pretext
is evident because, despite committing the same violation, GDOT treated his
comparator less harshly.1
We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, Rioux v. City of Atlanta,
Ga., 520 F.3d 1269, 1274 (11th Cir. 2008), viewing all the evidence and all factual
inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party, and must resolve all reasonable doubts about the facts in favor of
the nonmovant. Id.
Upon review of the record and consideration of the parties’ briefs, we affirm.
Savage failed to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination because he
could not show that his comparator and he were similarly situated. Specifically,
while GDOT demoted the comparator for simple misconduct, it demoted Savage
for unfitness to perform assigned duties as team leader and his misconduct.
1 Although one of Savage’s claims below alleged that GDOT discriminated against him
based on race for its refusal to interview him for another team leader position, on appeal, he
explicitly does not pursue his claim. Accordingly, this claim is abandoned. See Wilkerson v.
Grinnell Corp., 270 F.3d 1314, 1322 (11th Cir. 2001).
Case: 12-10934 Date Filed: 09/20/2012 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Evidence showed that Savage and a subordinate had an intimate relationship,
which led Savage to permit her working on school work during office hours and
caused Savage to yell at the subordinate during an office meeting. The
comparator’s misconduct caused no workplace disruption while Savage’s
misconduct negatively affected his ability to manage a subordinate’s work. Even
if Savage had established a prima facie case, GDOT articulated legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for his demotion, namely, his unfitness to perform his
assigned duties and his misconduct for failure to comply with GDOT policy
regarding relationships with subordinates. Savage had not shown that GDOT’s
proffered reasons were pretextual. Therefore, the district court did not err in
granting summary judgment in favor of GDOT.
AFFIRMED.
Case: 12-10934 Date Filed: 09/20/2012 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --