Eric Myree Perkins v. Kushla Water District, et al., No. 14-12652 (11th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 14-12652 Date Filed: 04/13/2015 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 14-12652 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-00286-KD-B ERIC MYREE PERKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus KUSHLA WATER DISTRICT, WILLIAM SILVER, ROY KING, JAMES TODD, Defendants-Appellees. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama ________________________ (April 13, 2015) Case: 14-12652 Date Filed: 04/13/2015 Page: 2 of 3 Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Eric Perkins, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Kushla Water District (“KWD”), William Silver, Roy King, and James Todd (“the defendants”), on his claims that the defendants discriminated against him on the basis of his race (African-American), maintained a hostile work environment, retaliated against him for filing a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and constructively discharged him, in violation of Title VI, Title VII, § 1981, and § 1983. Briefly stated, the appeal presents two issues: 1. Whether Perkins’s causes of action are vested in his bankruptcy estate so that he lacks standing to bring this appeal; and 2. Whether, in determining that Perkins failed to create a triable issue on his discrimination and retaliation claims, the district court erroneously viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendants. First, because the instant causes of action arose after Perkins filed for bankruptcy, the action did not become part of his bankruptcy estate; and his bankruptcy proceeding had no effect on his standing in the district court or on 2 Case: 14-12652 Date Filed: 04/13/2015 Page: 3 of 3 appeal. Second, contrary to Perkins’s contentions, the district court viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to him; but that court nonetheless concluded that he failed -- as a matter of law -- to establish a triable issue for his discrimination or retaliation claims. On appeal, Perkins has not challenged the district court’s legal standards, although he does quarrel about some immaterial facts. The district court mainly concluded that the evidence failed to show sufficient adverse employment acts or to show white employees were treated differently and better. Because Perkins has failed to point to a reversible error on the part of the district court, we affirm the grant of summary judgment for the defendants on all of his claims. 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.
