Dawn Weiher v. Lincare Procurement, Inc., No. 21-14157 (11th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
USCA11 Case: 21-14157 Document: 45-1 Date Filed: 02/28/2023 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-14157 ____________________ DAWN WEIHER, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus LINCARE PROCUREMENT, INC., Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 8:20-cv-02569-VMC-AEP ____________________ USCA11 Case: 21-14157 Document: 45-1 2 Date Filed: 02/28/2023 Opinion of the Court Page: 2 of 2 21-14157 Before WILSON, JORDAN, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Dawn Weiher filed a two-count complaint against Lincare Procurement, Inc. (Lincare), her former employer, alleging discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The district court granted summary judgment to Lincare on both counts, applying the McDonnell-Douglas1 burdenshifting framework to review her attempt to prove intentional discrimination through circumstantial evidence. After careful review of the briefs and the record, and with the benefit of oral argument, we agree with the district court that Weiher failed to identify sufficient evidence in the record for a reasonable jury to find that Lincare’s proffered, non-discriminatory reasons for the adverse employment actions she complains of were false or pretextual. And we agree that the record lacks a “convincing mosaic” 2 of discrimination. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s well-reasoned decision. AFFIRMED. 1 McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). 2 See Jenkins v. Nell, 26 F.4th 1243, 1250 (11th Cir. 2022).
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.
