Bruce M. Savage v. Georgia Department of Transportation, No. 12-10934 (11th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 12-10934 Date Filed: 09/20/2012 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 12-10934 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C.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: 2 of 3 discrimination suit challenging a demotion as improperly based on his race under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. ยง 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). 2 Case: 12-10934 Date Filed: 09/20/2012 Page: 3 of 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. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
