United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
L. BRASHER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
an employment discrimination lawsuit between Richard Emanuel
(“Plaintiff”) and his former employer Defendant
Alabama State University (“ASU”). This matter
comes before the court on ASU's Motion for Summary
Judgment. (Doc. 29). The motion has been fully briefed and is
ripe for decision.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
matter jurisdiction is conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as
to Plaintiff's federal causes of action. The parties do
not contest personal jurisdiction or venue, and there are
adequate allegations to support both. See 28 U.S.C.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
judgment is appropriate when the “movant shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). The Court views the evidence, and all
reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party. Jean-Baptiste v.
Gutierrez, 627 F.3d 816, 820 (11th Cir. 2010).
party moving for summary judgment “always bears the
initial responsibility of informing the district court of the
basis for the motion.” Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). This responsibility
includes identifying the portions of the record illustrating
the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact.
Id. Alternatively, a movant who does not have a
trial burden of production can assert, without citing the
record, that the nonmoving party “cannot produce
admissible evidence to support” a material fact.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1)(B); see also Fed. R. Civ. P.
56 advisory committee's note (“Subdivision
(c)(1)(B) recognizes that a party need not always point to
specific record materials.... [A] party who does not have the
trial burden of production may rely on a showing that a party
who does have the trial burden cannot produce admissible
evidence to carry its burden as to the fact.”).
movant meets its burden, the burden shifts to the nonmoving
party to establish - with evidence beyond the pleadings -
that a genuine dispute material to each of its claims for
relief exists. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 324. A
genuine dispute of material fact exists when the nonmoving
party produces evidence allowing a reasonable fact finder to
return a verdict in its favor. Waddell v. Valley Forge
Dental Assocs., 276 F.3d 1275, 1279 (11th Cir. 2001).
is a Caucasian male who began his employment with ASU on
August 19, 2002, as an Assistant Professor of Speech
Communications. Over the course of his career at ASU,
Plaintiff was twice promoted, granted tenure, and held the
position of Professor of Speech Communications. In his
Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that although he “has
received salary increases during his tenure with ASU, his
salary [at the time he filed his Complaint] is still lower
than it would have been in the absence of discriminatory
compensation decisions made throughout his career with
ASU.” (Doc. 20 ¶ 22).
filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (“EEOC”) on September 7, 2016,
alleging race and gender discrimination. The EEOC issued a
Notice of Right to Sue letter to Plaintiff on June 29, 2017.
On August 8, 2018, ASU informed Plaintiff that it had
selected an African-American female professor instead of him
as the Communication Department Chair, “a position for
which he applied after filing the [EEOC complaint], and for
which he was, objectively, more qualified.” (Doc. 20
filed a Complaint in this court on September 29, 2017. In the
Amended Complaint, Plaintiff averred the following counts:
Count I - Race Discrimination under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, as amended (“Title VII”).
Count II - Race Discrimination under 42 U.S.C. §1981 of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended