Conney-Manning v. Thomas County Board of Commissioners, 071218 FED11, 17-13546
|Opinion Judge:||PER CURIAM|
|Party Name:||BEVERLY CONNEY-MANNING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THOMAS COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, d.b.a Thomas County Sheriffs Office, et al., Defendants, SHERIFF CARLTON POWELL, Defendant-Appellee.|
|Judge Panel:||Before WILSON, JORDAN and BLACK, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||July 12, 2018|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit|
DO NOT PUBLISH
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 7:15-cv-00181-WLS
Before WILSON, JORDAN and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
Beverly Conney-Manning appeals pro se from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant Carlton Powell on her claim of employment discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). Conney-Manning contends the district court erred by determining she resigned her position voluntarily. After careful review,1 we affirm.
Conney-Manning's brief on appeal fails to address the reasoning underlying the district court's conclusion that Conney-Manning resigned voluntarily. Instead, she argues in conclusory fashion only that "[i]t is factual and clear that my thought process according to prior and previous interactions with the Appellee lead [sic] me to believe that I was fired and chose resignation as a lesser consequence on my future career options." Br. of Appellant at 2 (emphasis added). Under our precedent, whether a resignation is involuntary does not depend on the employee's subjective view of the options available to her; it depends on an objective view of the facts. See Hargray v. City of Hallandale, 57 F.3d 1560, 1568 (11th Cir. 1995) ("[T]he assessment [of] whether real alternatives were offered is gauged by an objective standard rather than by the employee's purely subjective evaluation; that the employee may perceive his only option to be resignation . . . is irrelevant." (alterations in original) (quotation omitted)). Moreover, we have explained that "the mere fact that the [employee is given a choice] between comparably unpleasant alternatives . . . does not of itself establish that a resignation was induced by duress or coercion, [and] hence was involuntary." Id. (second alteration in original) (quotation omitted). On the contrary, "[r]esignations obtained in cases...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP