Wendolyn Hampton v. Buckhead Beef Company, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of SYSCO Corporation

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
DECEMBER 14, 2011
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 10-15049
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 1:09-cv-00175-JEC
WENDOLYN HAMPTON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
BUCKHEAD BEEF COMPANY, INC,
a wholly owned subsidiary of SYSCO Corporation,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
_________________________
(December 14, 2011)
Before EDMONDSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and LAWSON,* District
Judge.
PER CURIAM:
___________________
*Honorable Hugh Lawson, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Georgia, sitting
by designation.

-- 1 of 4 --

After oral argument and careful consideration, we conclude that the
judgment of the district court should be affirmed. Plaintiff’s primary arguments on
appeal relate to her promotion claim. Plaintiff argues that the company engaged in
racial discrimination against her when it first posted an opening for the Quality
Assurance Line Leader which Sandoval recently vacated, which was a position for
which she was qualified, then changed its mind and decided to eliminate that
position and instead create another Quality Assurance Manager position. The
district court rejected plaintiff’s arguments and granted summary judgment in favor
of the company on this promotion claim. We agree. The company has adduced
strong evidence of legitimate reasons for its decisions. Shortly after posting the
Quality Assurance Line Leader position, Foster, the president of the company, and
White, then the company’s only Quality Assurance Manager, decided that, instead
of filling the line leader position, it would be better to hire a new Quality
Assurance Manager. The company’s reasons are legitimate, and have not been
discredited by plaintiff. Foster and White knew that White was already assuming
expanded duties outside of the Quality Assurance Department, and outside of the
Atlanta location. They saw the need for the assistance of another Quality
Assurance Manager to assist with day-to-day management of the Quality Assurance
Department in Atlanta. Shortly after hiring the new Quality Assurance Manager,
2

-- 2 of 4 --

White was in fact promoted and became the Director of Quality Assurance.
Plaintiff has adduced only conclusory assertions that the company’s reasons for
eliminating the Line Leader position and hiring another Quality Assurance
Manager were pretextual, only conclusory assertions that the duties of the Quality
Assurance Manager position are substantially identical to the duties performed by
the previous occupant of the Quality Assurance Line Leader position, only
conclusory assertions that the company did not reasonably believe that a college
degree and HACCP experience were required or desirable for the Quality
Assurance Manager position, and only conclusory assertions that plaintiff was in
fact qualified for the Quality Assurance Manager position. Although plaintiff has
adduced some evidence of some racially offensive remarks in the work place, none
was in the context of the decisions challenged in this case, and none was
attributable to the decision-makers, Foster and White. For the foregoing reasons,1
we readily conclude that the district court correctly granted the company’s motion
for summary judgment on plaintiff’s promotion claim.
Plaintiff’s other claims are wholly without merit and warrant little
The one remark attributed to White was not in the context of these decisions and,1
more significantly, was clearly inadmissible hearsay. Moreover, there were only conclusory
assertions that the offensive remarks were more than isolated, and even the conclusory assertions
were undermined by the fact that plaintiff apparently was unaware of such remarks until this
litigation.
3

-- 3 of 4 --

discussion. With respect to her retaliation claim, plaintiff’s brief on appeal
includes only vague assertions of being “mistreated and shunned” and “punished.”
Such vague and conclusory assertions clearly do not rise to the level of adverse
employment actions. Plaintiff’s equal pay claim is wholly without merit for the
reasons fully explored at oral argument.2
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
The district court correctly determined that plaintiff had waived any independent2
claim of hostile work environment. Thus, the district court considered plaintiff’s evidence in that
regard only with respect to pretext; we do likewise.
4

-- 4 of 4 --