Jewel Hunter, et al. v. Santa Fe Protective Services, Inc.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 11-15352
_____________
D. C. Docket No. 2:09-cv-01155-MHT-CSC
JEWEL HUNTER,
on behalf of herself and all others
similar situated,
CAROL ADAMS,
on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
ESTELLE IMFINGER, as administratrix
of the estate of Hui Imfinger,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SANTA FE PROTECTIVE SERVICES, INC.,
A New Mexico Corporation,
Defendant-Appellee.
Case: 11-15352 Date Filed: 11/13/2012 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2
______________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama
______________
(November 13, 2012)
Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, CARNES and GILMAN,* Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiffs-Appellants Jewel Hunter, et al. (“Appellants”) appeal the district
court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee Santa Fe
Protective Services, Inc. (“Santa Fe”). Appellants sued Santa Fe on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated and alleged both disparate treatment
and disparate impact age discrimination claims in violation of the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.
Appellants argue that genuine issues of material fact remain on both their disparate
impact and disparate treatment claims. They also challenge the district court’s
failure to find that another case involving Santa Fe collaterally estopped the court
from finding no genuine issues of material fact.1
* Honorable Ronald Lee Gilman, United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, sitting
by designation.
1 At oral argument, Appellants conceded that collateral estoppel doctrine is inapplicable.
Appellants merely propose that the Middle District of Alabama opinion upon which they rely is
persuasive authority. We, however, do not find the cited opinion persuasive in this appeal.
Case: 11-15352 Date Filed: 11/13/2012 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

3
After reviewing the record, reading the parties’ briefs, and having the benefit
of oral argument, we affirm the district court’s order granting summary judgment
based upon its well-reasoned opinion filed on October 25, 2011.
AFFIRMED.
Case: 11-15352 Date Filed: 11/13/2012 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --