The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
BOBBY WHITE,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 4:23-cv-506-CLM
AMENTUM SERVICES, INC.
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Bobby White sues his former employer, Amentum Services, Inc., for
race discrimination under Title VII and 42 U.S.C § 1981. (Doc. 1).
Amentum asks the court to grant it summary judgment. (Doc. 15). For the
reasons explained below, the court GRANTS Amentum’s motion on all
counts.
BACKGROUND
Amentum destroys non-chemical weapons. To do so, Amentum uses
a Static Detonation Chamber (“SDC”) located in a facility in Anniston,
Alabama. Bobby White, a black man, began working for Amentum as an
Instrument & Control Technician at the SDC in Anniston in 2014. White’s
job included a mix of mechanical and electrical work. White’s highest level
of education consists of two associate degrees: one in industrial electronic
technology and the other in refrigeration technology.
1. Promotions
White alleges Amentum refused to promote him three times
because of his race. Amentum argues that each time it failed to promote
White, it did so in favor of a more qualified applicant regardless of race.
Defendants focus their motion on three instances, which the court
summarizes below.
A. Stacey Martin
The first happened in 2019 when Amentum promoted Stacey
Martin to the position of Automation Specialist. Martin (a white male)
and White both applied for the open position. Amentum chose Martin
because “he was best qualified for the job.” (Doc. 17, ¶5). Martin had
“decades of experience in automation,” and White “admits he is not more
qualified than Martin.” (Id., ¶¶ 6–7).
B. Brandon Liles
Amentum next promoted Liles (another white man) over White in
2021. Both Liles and White applied for an open Systems Engineer job that
required a bachelor’s degree in chemical or mechanical engineering. Liles,
unlike White, held the requisite degree and was, according to Amentum,
the “best qualified candidate.” (Id., ¶¶ 9–10). Amentum rejected both
white and black applicants who lacked the required engineering degree.
C. Tim Connell
Most recently, in 2022 Amentum promoted a white man named Tim
Connell over White to the position of Maintenance Superintendent—“a
support role [that] ensure[s] the crew has the material and support for
maintenance work the crew conducts.” (Id., ¶13). Connell and White
possessed some similarities: both met the basic job qualifications; both
interviewed with Steven Warren, Brian Brasher, Scott Bullard, and Lisa
Strickland; and both answered the same set of interview questions.
The men also differed. White owned his own HVAC company and
had years of I&C Tech experience (including electrical experience) that
Connell lacked. Warren testified that in his interview, White had “trouble
explaining just the basic concepts of how the plant performed and why
specific portions of the plant operated the way it did.” (Doc. 16-4, p. 103:6–
9). Warren also testified that White “didn’t give a good interview. He just
did not give a good interview.” (Id., p. 104:7–9).1
In contrast, Warren testified that Connell had a “very, very good
interview.” (Id., p. 216:16–17). Unlike White, Connell served as a
maintenance crew leader in the military and had experience rigging,
welding, and scaffolding—qualifications desired for the Maintenance
Superintendent job that White lacked. Amentum cited Connell’s military
and supervisory experience when picking him for the promotion:
Mr. White’s qualifications for the Maintenance
Superintendent position were evaluated fairly and in
accordance with Amentum’s policies and hiring
practices. Based on their prior work experiences end
their interviews, Amentum selected the strongest and
most qualified candidate for the Maintenance
Superintendent position. Mr. Connell was selected
because of his extensive chemical and conventional
demilitarization experience, his considerable.
mechanical maintenance experience and knowledge of
overall SDC process, his supervisory experience and his
certifications in desired skill areas. Simply put, the
selected candidate was hired because he was considered
more qualified than Mr. White. The selection decision
was based solely on the individual’s qualifications and
ability to-perform the work required of the position.
(Doc. 16-8, p. 23) (Amentum’s response to White’s EEOC charge).
Contemporaneous documentation supports Amentum’s response.
Amentum employs an internal process for hiring and promoting
employees meant to ensure diverse candidates receive fair treatment
during the application process. Amentum compares job applicants by their
1 White notes that Warren failed to note his concerns on White’s interview questionnaire. (Doc.
16-7, p. 29–31). But, according to Warren, Amentum didn’t require interviewers to write every
detail, thought, or response on the interview questionnaire. (Id., p. 59:8–63:6).
resumes, interviews, and how they compare to Amentum’s designated
qualifications for open positions. Amentum uses a series of matrices when
promoting. Here was the matrix Amentum submitted to the EEOC:
(Doc. 16, 10) (circles added). The matrix is hard to read here given size, so
the court circles the four categories where Connell outscored White:
e Previous experience in a Maintenance Supervisor/
Superintendent role;
e Experience planning and executing plant maintenance outages;
e Currently hold or previously held certifications in Rigging and
Welding; and,
e Currently hold or previously held a certification relating to
scaffold building.
(d.). Based on these distinctions, Connell outscored White 18 to 14 and
was thus offered the position:
¢
é
2 a
YE er
ey “ey, s
we ey sf
fe
i
=
□□
yD
eh cit lnanrviow Not Selected: Not most qualiied based on Experience
pee
wa TCT
(Id.). As noted on the matrix, White “passed the interview” but was not
selected because he was “not most qualified based on [e]xperience.” (/d.).
White argues that the matrix incorrectly scored three categories
and thus the score should favor Connell 16 to 15, not 18 to 14. (Doc. 24,
4/23). Because White is the non-moving party, the court assumes White is
correct. Amentum responds that, even if that assumption is right, and the
score changes are made, Connell still outscored White:
Timothy "Tim" Connell
White, Bobby c 15
(Doc. 29, p.13). More importantly, Amentum says, White does not dispute
that only Connell possessed the desired rigging, welding, and scaffolding
certificates circled above. So Connell was the more qualified candidate.
At no point did an Amentum employee make a racially disparaging
remark to White. White’s complaint centers on his belief that he’s more
qualified than Connell, so Amentum must have chosen Connell over him
because Connell is white and White is black.
STANDARD
In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, this court views the
facts and draws all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to
the non-moving party. See Cuesta v. Sch. Bd. of Miami-Dade Cty., 285
F.3d 962, 966 (11th Cir. 2002). Summary judgment is appropriate when
there is no genuine dispute of material fact, and the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A genuine
dispute of material fact exists when “the evidence is such that a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson
v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The party asking for
summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of telling the
court of the basis for its motion and identifying those portions of the
pleadings or filings which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine
issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).
Once the moving party has met its burden, Rule 56 requires the non-
moving party to go beyond the pleadings and—by pointing to affidavits,
or depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file—
designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Id.
at 324.
DISCUSSION
White pleads one count: race discrimination under Title VII and 42
U.S.C. § 1981. The court starts by defining its parameters.
A. Only White’s claim about the maintenance
superintendent position is before the court.
In their supporting brief, Defendants treat Count 1 as pleading
three distinct claims: race discrimination for (1) promoting Stacey Martin
to the position of Automation Specialist in 2019; (2) promoting Brandon
Liles for an open Systems Engineer job in 2021; and, (3) promoting Tim
Connell to Maintenance Superintendent in 2022. See (doc. 17). But in his
brief in opposition, White argues only that a jury should determine
whether Amentum promoted Tim Connell to maintenance superintendent
rather than White because of race. See (doc. 24). In fact, White never
mentions Martin or Liles in his brief. (Id.). So the court finds that, even if
White pleaded distinct claims about the Martin and Liles promotions,
White has abandoned those claims and/or admitted Amentum’s assertion
that neither was based on race because White failed to address
Amentum’s fact pleadings and arguments about Martin or Liles in his
brief in opposition. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2) (allowing the court to
consider facts undisputed if the opposing party fails to properly address
them); Resol. Trust Corp. v. Dunmar Corp., 43 F.3d 587, 599 (11th
Cir.1995) (“grounds alleged in the complaint but not relied upon in
summary judgment are deemed abandoned”).2
B. Rule 56 is the proper framework, not McDonnell Douglas.
As a result, the only question before the court is whether Amentum
is entitled to summary judgment on White’s claim that Amentum
promoted Connell over White because of race. Again, White pleads this
claim under Title VII and § 1981. “Both statutes require the same proof
and analytical framework.” Berry v. Crestwood Healthcare LP, 84 4th
1300, 1307 (11th Cir. 2023). So the court analyzes White’s claims together.
Before it does, though, the court clears up the proper framework.
Both parties rightly recognize that this circuit is in a state of flux about
using the three-step, burden-shifting McDonnell Douglas framework
when judging employment discrimination claims. Recently, some circuit
panels have signaled a reversion to a simpler, Rule 56-based question: Is
there a “sufficient evidentiary basis for the jury to find that the defendant
intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff?” Tynes v. Fla. Dep’t of
Juv. Just., 88 F.4th 939, 947 (11th Cir. 2023) (citing Cleveland v. Home
Shopping Network, Inc., 369 F.3d 1189, 1194 (11th Cir. 2004)). And in a
recent Title VII case, Justice Thomas likewise criticized courts using
McDonnell Douglas when judging Rule 56 motions and said that “litigants
and lower courts are free to proceed without the McDonnell Douglas
framework.” Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Servs., 145 S. Ct. 1540, 1555
(2025). The court thus applies Rule 56, not McDonnell Douglas.
2 While White told the EEOC that he was “passed over for several positions” in his EEOC charge,
White only specified Amentum’s decision to hire Connell over him in 2022. (Doc. 1-1). It is thus
arguable that White did not permit the EEOC to investigate the Liles and Martin promotions.
Amentum notes this fact in its opening brief, see (doc. 17, p.9), but Amentum does not argue that
White failed to exhaust his administrative remedies for the Martin and Liles promotions.
Amentum argues instead that White abandoned any related claims by not addressing them in
his brief in opposition. (Doc. 29, pp. 6-7). In either case, the result is the same.
C. There is no genuine dispute that Amentum promoted
Connell over White for a race-neutral reason.
1. Amentum’s evidence of non-discrimination: Rule 56(a) starts with
the moving party’s burden to show there is no genuine dispute about a
material fact, so this court follows suit.
Title VII and §1981 prohibit Amentum from failing to promote
White because of his race. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e; 42 U.S.C. § 1981. White must
therefore prove as a matter of fact, among other things, that race was a
but-for cause of Amentum’s decision. Amentum says there is no genuine
dispute that it promoted Connell instead of White for a combination of
three race-neutral reasons:
• Supervisory experience: Connell supervised a
maintenance crew in the military, which Amentum found
more applicable to the position than White’s HVAC
supervisory experience (doc. 16-4, p. 151:17–154:18);
• Qualifications: Connell possessed desired certifications in
welding, scaffolding, and rigging (doc. 16-4, p. 159: 18–22)
that White did not (doc. 16-9, ¶ 5); and,
• Electrical Work: Because the majority of SDC’s work is
mechanical, not electrical (doc. 16-9, ¶ 2), White’s
electrical experience was less relevant than Connell’s for
the requirements of Maintenance Superintendent.
Amentum supports its assertions of fact with documentary evidence like
the 2021 job description (doc. 16-7, pp. 76-82); the 2022 decision matrix
(doc. 16-7, p. 68); a job requirement comparison chart (doc. 16-7, p. 37);
Connell and White’s resumes, interview notes, and interview feedback
(doc. 16-7, pp. 3-5, 29-36, 46-66); and, a contemporaneous explanation why
Connell was the preferred candidate (doc. 16-7, p. 90). For example, the
2021 job description stated both that (a) Amentum preferred someone who
worked on demilitarization and (b) had certificates in rigging, welding,
and scaffold building:
Desired Qualifications:
« Experience performing maintenance in a demilitarization plant.
VETS) yeas experience performing maintenance on a static Detonation Chamber system,
* Obtained Mechanical and/or |&C Technician certification at a Static Detonation Chamber,
® Obtained Lead certification at a Static Detonation Chamber.
améntum
SDC ANNISTON JOB DESCRIPTION
Working Title: Maintenance Superintendent
« Previous experience in a Maintenance Supervisor/Superintendent role.
Experience generating boundaries for Lock Out/Tag out and be willing to obtain a Lock Out/Tag
Out certification.
e Experience planning and executing plant maintenance outages.
hh = arocealabac te ele Oedas Develenment and Management.
e Currently hold or previously held certifications in Rigging and Welding.
« Currently hold or previously held a certification relating to scaffold building.
« Experience generating, reviewing, and modifying Maintenance Procedures.
(Doc. 16-7, pp. 76-77) (circles added). Amentum’s written statement about
why it chose Connell over White lists these desired attributes as part of
the reason:
Mr. Connell has taken the initiative to complete his SDC Lead certification card and only has his Board
Review remaining to complete before being Lead certified. [It was also noted during the interview that
Mr. Connell has taken the initiative to become a certified welder and completed a scaffold building
certification, which are two of the desired qualifications of the Maintenance Superintendent position,
Given Mr. Connells years of chemical and conventional demilitarization experience, his level of
mechanical maintenance experience and knowledge of the overall SDC process, coupled with his prior
supervisory experience, and demonstrative initiative, Mr. Connell is the selected candidate. A promotion
from Mechanical Technician/Munitions Handler to the position of Maintenance Superintendent would be
considered a next step in Mr. Connell’s development and career path.
(Doc. 16-7, p 90). And Amentum offered declarations and deposition
testimony from decision makers that support these reasons. See, e.g., (doc.
16-4) (deposition of Steven Warren); (doc. 16-9) (declaration of Brian
Brasher).
The court finds that Amentum presents enough evidence to support
a finding that Amentum’s decision to promote Connell over White was
based on desired qualifications, not race. Amentum is therefore entitled
to summary judgment unless White offers evidence that supports a
different, discriminatory reason that Amentum didn’t promote him—i.e.,
because of his race. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); 56(e).
2. White’s evidence of discrimination: White offers no direct evidence
that race played a role in Amentum’s decision. White admits that Steven
Warren was the ultimate decisionmaker, see (doc. 17, ¶ 35), and White
testified that he was not claiming that Warren or any other Amentum
employee except Brian Brasher discriminated against him based on race.
See (doc. 16-1, p. 19) (White’s testimony); (doc. 17, ¶ 36) (undisputed that
“plaintiff, himself, does not believe that Warren discriminated against
him”). As for Brian Brasher, White testified that the only reason he
believes Brasher discriminated against him because of race was that
White kept getting passed over for promotions; Brasher had never used
any racially charged language around him.3 (Doc. 16-1, pp. 18-19).
White instead points out three purported flaws in Amentum’s stated
nondiscriminatory reasons for choosing Connell over him, arguing that a
reasonable juror could consider cracks in these nondiscriminatory reasons
as evidence that race was the real reason for Amentum’s choice. The court
reviews them below, keeping in mind that White cannot prevail by “simply
arguing or even by showing that he was better qualified than the [person]
who received the position he coveted. . . . [A] plaintiff must show that the
disparities between the successful applicant’s and his own qualifications
were of such weight and significance that no reasonable person, in the
exercise of impartial judgment, could have chosen the candidate selected
over the plaintiff.” Springer v. Convergys Customer Mgmt. Grp. Inc., 509
F.3d 1344, 1349 (11th Cir. 2007) (internal citation omitted).
3 As explained, White did not contest any of Amentum’s undisputed facts about the Martin and
Liles promotions (undisputed facts #5-12) and did not argue that either promotion was
discriminatory. So, under Rule 56(e)(2), the court assumes that Brasher had legitimate
nondiscriminatory reasons for choosing Martin and Liles over White.
a. Electrical Work: White first argues that, in its brief supporting
summary judgment (doc. 17, p. 17), Amentum wrongly describes White’s
employment history as being “limited to electrical work.” (Doc. 24, p. 20).
White points out that, in addition to electrical experience, he possessed
I&C Tech skills and experience with air conditioning, refrigerators, SDC
maintenance, and automation. (Doc. 16-1, p. 27:16–19).
But White’s argument focuses on the wrong parties: Amentum’s
lawyers, not Amentum’s decisionmakers. As Amentum puts it, “defense
counsel’s presentation of arguments at summary judgment cannot be
evidence of pretext with respect to an employment decision made years
before the filing of the brief.” (Doc. 29, p. 8). Though Amentum’s opening
brief may not fully describe White’s skillset, no evidence suggests that, in
2022, Amentum’s decisionmakers considered White’s experience as being
“limited to electrical work.” To the contrary, the evidence suggests that
the decisionmakers were fully aware of White’s complete work history at
the time they chose Connell over him. On White’s candidate matrix,
Amentum credited him with “[e]xperience performing maintenance in a
demilitarization plant,” “experience performing maintenance on a Static
Detonation Chamber,” “[o]btained mechanical and/or I&C technician
certification,” and “[e]xperience in facilitates maintenance relating to
Boilers and HVAC systems.” (Doc. 16-10) (emphasis added). Bullard noted
White’s “30+ yrs. Elec., I&C, Automation, & HVAC” experience, including
that White “had own HVAC business” on his interview notes. (Doc. 16-7,
p. 29). Strickland similarly noted White’s “Maint 30+ years” on her
interview notes. (Doc. 20-1, p. 2).
In short, White presents no evidence that supports his argument
that Amentum’s decisionmakers were unaware of White’s work
experience at the time they promoted Connell over him. That Amentum’s
lawyers may have later mischaracterized or understated White’s
experience is beside the point. Amentum characterizing White’s
experience as “limited to electrical work” in a brief supporting summary
judgment does not create a genuine issue of disputed fact that can defeat
summary judgment.
b. Supervisory experience: White next argues that Amentum puts
too much weight on Connell’s military and supervisory experience. (Doc.
24, p. 24–28). According to White, he supervised three on-call employees
as the owner of an HVAC company and discussed this experience during
his interview. (Doc. 16-1, p. 107: 1–19). Strickland, Warren, and Bullard
testified to knowing about the HVAC company and White’s supervisory
role within it. See (doc. 24, p. 26). But Amentum seemingly failed to credit
White for this supervisory experience on his interview matrix. (Doc. 16-
10). According to White, Amentum’s failure to note its knowledge of his
supervisory experience on the matrix shows that Amentum citing
Connell’s supervisory experience as a reason for promoting him is
pretextual. This argument is also unpersuasive.
Even in a light most favorable to White, the evidence shows that
Amentum knew about White’s experience and chose not to credit it
because the interviewers did not believe private HVAC experience fit the
needs of Amentum’s Maintenance Superintendent position. (Doc. 16-4, p.
151:17–154:18) (deposition of Steve Warren, the ultimate promotion
decisionmaker); (id., p. 36:4–13). And White presents no evidence that
Amentum did not value Connell’s military experience or that anyone at
Amentum believed private HVAC experience was more valuable that
military experience.
Perhaps a reasonable juror would agree with White, and disagree
with Amentum, that White’s private HVAC experience had value—
perhaps even more value than Connell’s military experience. But that’s
not the question. “The inquiry into pretext centers on the employer’s
beliefs, not the employee’s beliefs and, to be blunt about it, not on reality
as it exists outside of the decision maker’s head.” Alvarez, 610 F.3d at
1266. In the decision maker’s head, experience supervising a maintenance
crew in the military was more applicable to the Maintenance
Superintendent job than owning an HVAC company and telling three
employees “what to do and how to do it and how to conduct [themselves]
with the customer . . .” (Doc. 16-1, 107:5-19); (doc. 16-4, p. 151:17–154:18).
Valuing one type of work experience over the other falls squarely
within the business judgment of an employer that the court should not
second guess. See also Elrod v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 939 F,2d 1466, 1470
(11th Cir.1991). Further, for pretext evidence to defeat a summary
judgment motion, the evidence must show “both that the [proffered]
reason was false, and that discrimination was the real reason.” Ring v.
Boca Ciega Yacht Club, Inc., 4 F.4th 1149, 1163 (11th Cir. 2021) (internal
quotation omitted). Assuming Amentum intentionally, even nefariously,
failed to credit White with supervisory experience, White still must show
the real reason Amentum didn’t credit White was to racially discriminate.
White presents no such evidence. So White’s second pretext argument
fails to create a genuine issue of disputed fact.
c. Qualification: White’s final pretext argument is that Amentum
wrongly says that White “did not have the desired qualifications” and that
Connell “had more of the desired qualifications.” (Doc. 24, p. 29). White
points out that, unlike Connell, he had five years of SDC maintenance.
(Doc. 16-7, p. 37). And White reiterates that Amentum failed to credit the
supervisory experience he gained from his private HVAC company.
While it’s true that White possessed some experience that Connell
did not, it’s also true that Connell possessed qualifications and experience
that White did not, including 15+ years of mechanical experience, 6—7
years of military experience, possession of an SDC lead certification card,
LOTO certified, experience planning and executing plant maintenance
outages, and certifications in rigging, welding, and scaffolding. And as
Amentum points out, Amentum listed the certificates as desired
attributes before it interviewed White and Connell:
Working Title: Maintenance Superintendent
e Previous experience in a Maintenance Supervisor/Superintendent role.
° Experience generating boundaries for Lock Out/Tag out and be willing to obtain a Lock Out/Tag
° Caperience planang and executing plant maintenance outages.
==
« Currently hold or previously held a certification relating to scaffold building.
«Experience generating, reviewing, and modifying Maintenance Procedures.
13
(Doc. 16-7, pp. 76-77) (circle added).
In short, White second guesses Amentum’s decisions on what
qualifications mattered and how to weigh the candidates’ differing
qualifications and experiences. But again, White “is not allowed to recast
an employer’s proffered nondiscriminatory reasons or substitute his
business judgment for that of the employer. Provided that the proffered
reason is one that might motivate a reasonable employer, an employee
must meet that reason head on and rebut it, and he cannot succeed by
simply quarreling with the wisdom of that reason.” Alvarez, 610 F.3d at
1265–66. And White cannot escape summary judgment by “simply
arguing or even by showing that he was better qualified than the [person]
who received the position he coveted. . . . [A] plaintiff must show that the
disparities between the successful applicant’s and his own qualifications
were of such weight and significance that no reasonable person, in the
exercise of impartial judgment, could have chosen the candidate selected
over the plaintiff.” Springer v. Convergys Customer Mgmt. Grp. Inc., 509
F.3d 1344, 1349 (11th Cir. 2007) (internal citation omitted). White’s
evidence doesn’t approach a showing that he was so much more qualified
than Connell that no reasonable employer could have preferred Connell
for the job. So White’s third pretext argument fails to create a genuine
issue of disputed fact.
—
To sum up, Amentum offers direct evidence that supports a fact-
finding that it chose Connell over White based on Amentum’s weighing of
the candidates’ qualifications against Amentum’s list of desired
qualifications. White offers no evidence that would allow a reasonable
juror to instead find as a matter of fact that Amentum failed to promote
him because of his race. In fact, White testified that he was not claiming
the ultimate decision maker discriminated against him because of race.
Because White fails to support his fact assertion that Amentum failed to
promote him because of race, there is no genuine issue of fact to try,
making summary judgment appropriate under Rules 56(a) and 56(e)(3).
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the court GRANTS summary judgment for
Amentum. (Doc. 15). The court will enter a separate order consistent with
this opinion.
DONE and ORDERED on July 22, 2025.
COREY Z MAZE |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
15