Shaconda Patton v. PMTD Restaurants, LLC

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 20-14831
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
SHACONDA PATTON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
PMTD RESTAURANTS, LLC,
d.b.a. KFC,
Defendant-Appellee.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
D.C. Docket No. 2:17-cv-00803-RDP
____________________
USCA11 Case: 20-14831 Date Filed: 03/07/2022 Page: 1 of 4

-- 1 of 4 --

2 Opinion of the Court 20-14831
Before R OSENBAUM , GRANT, and B RASHER , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Shaconda Patton, an African-American woman, filed a coun-
seled lawsuit against her former employer, PMTD Restaurants,
Inc., doing business as KFC, alleging that it had wrongfully de-
moted and suspended her and reduced her hours because of her
race and in retaliation for complaining of race discrimination, in
violation of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The district court de-
nied summary judgment to KFC, and the case proceeded to trial.
At trial, Patton offered the testimony of several witnesses to
support her claims of discrimination and retaliation. KFC, for its
part, presented several witnesses who testified that its decisions
were not motivated by race or retaliation. After Patton’s presenta-
tion of her case and at the close of the evidence, the district court
denied KFC’s motions for judgment as a matter of law, finding suf-
ficient evidence for a jury to return a verdict in Patton’s favor.
Ultimately, the jury returned verdicts in favor of KFC, find-
ing that Patton had not shown her race was a motivating factor for
her suspension or demotion and that KFC did not take an adverse
employment action because she engaged in protected activity. The
court entered judgment for KFC, and this appeal followed.
On appeal, Patton, now proceeding
pro se, largely restates
arguments she presented in opposition to summary judgment. She
contends that the evidence created genuine issues of material fact
USCA11 Case: 20-14831 Date Filed: 03/07/2022 Page: 2 of 4

-- 2 of 4 --

20-14831 Opinion of the Court 3
regarding both discrimination and retaliation. And she states that
the jury did not take into account her evidence and instead “relied
on the contradictory testimon[y]” from KFC’s witnesses.
Patton’s arguments do not show any error in the proceeding
below. The question at summary judgment, or when addressing a
motion for judgment as a matter of law, is whether the case should
be decided by a jury. To make that determination, the court views
the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and asks
whether a reasonable jury could find in favor of the plaintiff.
See,
e.g.,
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248–49 (1986).
Applying that standard here, the district court repeatedly found
that there was enough evidence to submit the case to a jury.
But once a case goes to a jury, as it did here, the jury is free
to make credibility determinations, weigh the evidence, and re-
solve disputed issues of fact, and we cannot second-guess those de-
terminations on appeal.
See id. at 255;
see also United States v.
Parrado, 911 F.2d 1567, 1571 (11th Cir. 1990) (“Credibility determi-
nations are the exclusive province of the jury.”). Patton does not
argue that KFC’s evidence was incredible as a matter of law.
See,
e.g.,
United States v. Calderon, 127 F.3d 1314, 1325 (11th Cir. 1997).
And “[f]aced with conflicting credible evidence it was within the
jury’s province to resolve the conflict in favor of [the defendant].”
USCA11 Case: 20-14831 Date Filed: 03/07/2022 Page: 3 of 4

-- 3 of 4 --

4 Opinion of the Court 20-14831
Bauman v. Centex Corp., 611 F.2d 1115, 1119 (5th Cir. 1980).1 The
mere fact that the jury resolved disputed facts against Patton does
not show that any error occurred. Accordingly, the district court
properly entered judgment on the jury’s verdict.
Because Patton fails to explain how the jury erred by relying
on the testimony of defense witnesses or to demonstrate any other
error at her trial, we affirm the judgment in favor of KFC.
AFFIRMED.
1 This Court adopted as binding precedent all Fifth Circuit decisions prior to
October 1, 1981.
Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir.
1981) (
en banc).
USCA11 Case: 20-14831 Date Filed: 03/07/2022 Page: 4 of 4

-- 4 of 4 --