Markisha Cunningham, a Black woman proceeding pro se, appealed a district court order granting summary judgment in favor of her employers, Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc. and Onin Staffing LLC. Cunningham had sued under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging race and sex discrimination, retaliation, disability discrimination under the ADA, and a hostile work environment. She argued on appeal that the district court erred by not finding that her termination and failure to promote were motivated by discrimination. However, the record showed that she had conceded her retaliation claims against one defendant and failed to raise the ADA and hostile work environment claims in her amended complaint before the district court.
The Eleventh Circuit applied a two-step analysis focusing on preservation and abandonment. First, the court held that Cunningham abandoned her Title VII sex discrimination and § 1981 race discrimination and retaliation claims because she failed to raise any arguments concerning them in her initial appellant brief. The court cited Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(8)(A), emphasizing that an argument must include contentions, reasons, and citations to be sufficiently briefed. The court clarified that while pro se pleadings are liberally construed, this standard does not allow the court to act as counsel or sustain an action that was not properly briefed. Second, the court addressed the ADA and hostile work environment claims, noting that these were raised for the first time on appeal. The court reiterated that it will not consider issues not raised in the district court, as doing so would waste resources and deviate from the appellate court's role. The court also reviewed the merits of the race discrimination claim against Mercedes-Benz, explaining that Cunningham failed to establish a prima facie case under the McDonnell Douglas framework because she lacked valid comparators. Furthermore, the court found that the circumstantial evidence did not form a 'convincing mosaic' of intentional discrimination, as the employer provided legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions, including poor performance and attendance issues.
The district court's judgment granting summary judgment to the defendants stands. Cunningham receives no relief on her statutory discrimination claims. The decision reinforces the strict requirement that appellants must explicitly raise all arguments in their initial briefs, regardless of pro se status, and that new claims must be raised in the district court to be preserved for appeal. No remand instructions were issued as the court affirmed the lower court's judgment.