Evrett James, et al v. Westin St. John Hotel Company, Inc.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-12327
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
EVRETT JAMES,
VERONICA ELLERBE,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
MARRIOTT VACATIONS WORLDWIDE CORPORATION,
d.b.a. The Westin St. John,
Defendant,
WESTIN ST. JOHN HOTEL COMPANY, INC.,
USCA11 Case: 22-12327 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 05/03/2024 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2 Opinion of the Court 22-12327
Defendant-Appellee.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 6:20-cv-00429-WWB-GJK
____________________
Before WILSON, L UCK , and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER C URIAM :
Evrett James and Veronica Ellerbe sued Westin St. John Ho-
tel Company for racial discrimination and retaliation under section
1981 and Title VII.1 The district court granted summary judgment
for Westin on James and Ellerbe’s discrimination claims because:
they did not present direct evidence of racial discrimination; they
did not meet their burden to establish a circumstantial case of racial
discrimination under the McDonnell Douglas2 burden-shifting
framework; and they did not establish a convincing mosaic of cir-
cumstantial evidence that would allow a jury to infer intentional
1
James and Ellerbe raised hostile-work-environment, wage discrimination,
and failure-to-promote claims for the first time in their response to Westin’s
summary judgment motion, but “plaintiff[s] may not amend [their] complaint
through argument in a brief opposing summary judgment.” See Gilmour v.
Gates, McDonald & Co., 382 F.3d 1312, 1315 (11th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted).
2 McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).
USCA11 Case: 22-12327 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 05/03/2024 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

22-12327 Opinion of the Court 3
discrimination. The district court granted summary judgment for
Westin on the plaintiffs’ retaliation claims because: Ellerbe did not
suffer an adverse employment action; James and Ellerbe did not
show that any adverse action was a pretext for retaliation; and they
did not establish that the desire to retaliate was the but-for cause of
the adverse action.
James and Ellerbe appeal the summary judgment for Wes-
tin, but even giving their brief a liberal reading, as we are required
to do, see Evans v. Ga. Reg’l Hosp., 850 F.3d 1248, 1253 (11th Cir.
2017), they have failed to provide any arguments “specifically and
clearly” explaining why the district court erred in its summary
judgment order. See Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d
1324, 1330 (11th Cir. 2004). They cite and quote a wide array of
discrimination law, from this court and others, but their brief
makes no attempt to connect those cases to this case. This is fatal
because an “argument that has not been briefed before the court is
deemed abandoned and its merits will not be addressed.” Id. So
we must affirm.3
AFFIRMED.
3
James and Ellerbe’s brief also hints at new claims under Florida state law, the
Equal Pay Act, and the Human Rights Act of 1977. But the plaintiffs “cannot
amend the complaint by arguments made in an appellate brief.” Adams ex rel.
Kasper v. Sch. Bd. of St. Johns Cnty., 57 F.4th 791, 799 n.2 (11th Cir. 2022) (en
banc).
USCA11 Case: 22-12327 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 05/03/2024 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --