Byron I. Wilson v. BellSouth Telecommunications

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JULY 28, 2010
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 09-16498
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 09-00364-CV-IPJ
BYRON I. WILSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
_________________________
(July 28, 2010)
Before BLACK, BARKETT and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

-- 1 of 3 --

Byron Wilson, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s grant of
BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc.’s (BST) motion for summary judgment as to
his complaint alleging racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and 42
U.S.C. § 1981. Wilson asserts he established prima facie cases of both race
discrimination and retaliation, and the district court erred in concluding otherwise.
After review, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to BST.1
Wilson relies on circumstantial evidence to support his complaints of
discrimination and retaliation, and we will assume, without deciding, that Wilson
established prima facie cases of race discrimination and retaliation. After a plaintiff
establishes a prima facie case, the employer must proffer a legitimate,
nondiscriminatory and non-retaliatory reason for the adverse employment action.
Holifield v. Reno, 115 F.3d 1555, 1566 (11th Cir. 1997). Id. at 1566. If the
employer offers legitimate reasons for the employment action, the plaintiff must
then demonstrate the employer’s proffered explanation is pretext for discrimination
or retaliation. Id. “The plaintiff must meet the reason proffered head on and rebut
it.” Crawford v. City of Fairburn, 482 F.3d 1305, 1308 (11th Cir. 2007).
We review the district court’s ruling on summary judgment de novo. Rojas v. Florida,1
285 F.3d 1339, 1341 (11th Cir. 2002). “When deciding whether summary judgment is
appropriate, all evidence and reasonable factual inferences drawn therefrom are reviewed in a
light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Id. at 1341-42 (quotations omitted).
2

-- 2 of 3 --

BST satisfied its burden in offering legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons
for terminating Wilson, specifically his continued failure to follow established work
procedures, taking unauthorized overtime, and missing customer due dates. Wilson
has not rebutted these reasons head on. Instead, he merely alleges these reasons
were “pretextual.” These conclusory allegations of pretext are insufficient for
Wilson to meet his burden. See Young v. Gen. Foods Corp., 840 F.2d 825, 830
(11th Cir. 1988) (holding that conclusory allegations, without more, are insufficient
to raise an inference of pretext). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s grant of
summary judgment to BST.
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --