Adam Sapp v. Attorney General of the United States

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-13313
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:13-cv-00211-RS-EMT
ADAM SAPP,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Defendant - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(August 24, 2015)
Before JORDAN and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges, and ROBREÑO,* District
Judge.
PER CURIAM:
* Honorable Eduardo C. Robreño, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
Case: 14-13313 Date Filed: 08/24/2015 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Adam Sapp appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor
of the Attorney General of the United States on his claims of gender discrimination
and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e
et seq. Mr. Sapp alleges that his employer, the Federal Bureau of Prisons,
subjected him to discriminatory treatment based upon his gender, and that he
suffered retaliation when he voiced opposition to the treatment. After reviewing
the parties’ briefs and the record, and with the benefit of oral argument, we affirm
in part and reverse in part. As to Mr. Sapp’s gender discrimination claim, we
affirm the grant of summary judgment in favor of the BOP for the reasons stated in
the district court’s order. With respect to Mr. Sapp’s retaliation claim, however,
we reverse.
The district court ruled that Mr. Sapp met the requirements to establish a
prima facie case of retaliation, and that the BOP met its burden of putting forth a
non-discriminatory reason for the adverse employment actions. Mr. Sapp argued,
however, that the BOP’s stated non-discriminatory reason for denying him
overtime and further restricting his job duties was pretextual, and he presented
evidence to support his arguments. The district court did not address these
arguments on pretext, and this constituted error. See Kragor v. Takeda
Pharmaceuticals America, Inc., 702 F.3d 1304, 1307 (11th Cir. 2012) (“If the
employer produces evidence of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the
Case: 14-13313 Date Filed: 08/24/2015 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

3
adverse action, the plaintiff is afforded an opportunity to show that the employer's
stated reason is a pretext for discrimination.”). We therefore reverse and remand
for the district court to address Mr. Sapp’s pretext arguments. We leave it to the
district court on remand whether to allow supplemental briefing on the issue.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
Case: 14-13313 Date Filed: 08/24/2015 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --