# Rioux v. City of Atlanta, Ga.

> Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · March 18, 2008 · 520 F.3d 1269

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9416106

## Case

- **Full name:** Gerard RIOUX, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant, v. CITY OF ATLANTA, GEORGIA, Lynette Young, in Her Individual Capacity, Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellees, Dennis L. Rubin, in His Official Capacity as City of Atlanta Fire Chief, Consolidated Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
- **Decided:** March 18, 2008
- **Citations:** 520 F.3d 1269; 102 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1820; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 5683; 2008 WL 710441
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Edmondson
- **Judges:** Edmondson, Wilson, Altonaga
- **Cited by:** 376 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled in part, on other grounds by Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9416106

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that to show pretext, the plaintiff must “demonstrate weaknesses or implausibilities in the proffered legitimate reason so as to permit a rational jury to conclude that the explanation given was not the real reason, or that the reason stated was insufficient to warr…
- explaining that if an employer rebuts a prima facie case by producing evidence that it had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the challenged action, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to “show that the proffered reason really is a pretext for unlawful discriminat…
- holding that while a difference in rank is not dispositive in and of itself, lower-ranked employees may be disciplined differently than higher-ranked employees, “who are held to a higher level of professionalism and who are expected to set the standard of conduct”
- holding that § 1983 provides the exclusive remedy for redressing violations of § 1981 against state actors
- finding that it was beyond dispute that officials had a valid reason to take an adverse action against an employer where the officials relied on an unrebutted neutral, official investigation and report into the plaintiff’s misconduct

## Opinion text

EDMONDSON, Chief Judge,
concurring in the result:
I would not reach the qualified immunity issue because I think the record established no violation of the Constitution. Plaintiff can point to no comparator. The decisions set out in today’s court opinion to support a prima facie case are not being followed, but are being extended to the disciplinary-demotion situation. I also doubt that Plaintiff has presented suffi *1286 cient evidence of pretext. If I believed this record did establish pretext, I would worry that qualified immunity could not apply: no mixed motive, just an unlawful discriminatory one.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9416106. Public record. Not legal advice.