Ivy Whitworth v. Suntrust Banks, Inc., No. 18-11757 (11th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 18-11757 Date Filed: 04/13/2020 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 18-11757 ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cv-00325-ODE IVY WHITWORTH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SUNTRUST BANKS, INC., Defendant - Appellee. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ________________________ (April 13, 2020) Before WILSON and BRANCH, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI, ∗ Judge. PER CURIAM: ∗ The Honorable Jane A. Restani, United States Judge, U.S. Court of International Trade, sitting by designation. Case: 18-11757 Date Filed: 04/13/2020 Page: 2 of 3 Ivy Whitworth appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to her former employer SunTrust Banks in this retaliatory termination case. Whitworth claims she was fired in retaliation for voicing opposition to alleged discrimination against a co-worker in violation of Title VII 1 and § 1981.2 SunTrust counters that she was fired for misusing her corporate credit card in violation of company policy. The district court granted summary judgment to SunTrust, finding that Whitworth failed to satisfy the “but-for” causation standard articulated in University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338, 362 (2013). Having fully reviewed the record and after the benefit of oral argument, we affirm the district court’s order.3 Regardless of the validity of Whitworth’s temporal proximity arguments, 4 we agree with the district court that she failed to show, through her comparators or otherwise, that SunTrust’s proffered reason for her termination was mere pretext. As the district court correctly noted, Whitworth fails to satisfy the but-for causation standard whether that standard is applied at the 1 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq. 2 42 U.S.C. § 1981. 3 Whitworth v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-325-ODE-CMS, 2018 WL 1634301 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 30, 2018) (as amended Apr. 3, 2018). 4 Without discussing its contours and limits here, we note that “temporal proximity” has continued relevance in determining causation under our post-Nassar jurisprudence. See Jefferson, 891 F.3d at 926. 2 Case: 18-11757 Date Filed: 04/13/2020 Page: 3 of 3 prima facie or pretext stage of the traditional burden-shifting test articulated in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). See Jefferson v. Sewon America, Inc., 891 F.3d 911, 924–26 (11th Cir. 2018). Accordingly, the district court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of SunTrust. 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.
