Dawn Weiher v. Lincare Procurement, Inc.

USCA11 Case: 21-14157 Document: 45-1 Date Filed: 02/28/2023 Page: 1 of 2

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________

No. 21-14157

____________________

DAWN WEIHER,

Plaintiff-Appellant, versus LINCARE PROCUREMENT, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee. ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 8:20-cv-02569-VMC-AEP

____________________ USCA11 Case: 21-14157 Document: 45-1 Date Filed: 02/28/2023 Page: 2 of 2 2 Opinion of the Court 21-14157 Before WILSON, JORDAN, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Dawn Weiher filed a two-count complaint against Lincare Procurement, Inc. (Lincare), her former employer, alleging dis- crimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The district court granted summary judgment to Lin- care on both counts, applying the McDonnell-Douglas1 burden- shifting framework to review her attempt to prove intentional dis- crimination through circumstantial evidence. After careful review of the briefs and the record, and with the benefit of oral argument, we agree with the district court that Weiher failed to identify suffi- cient evidence in the record for a reasonable jury to find that Lin- care’s proffered, non-discriminatory reasons for the adverse em- ployment actions she complains of were false or pretextual. And we agree that the record lacks a “convincing mosaic” 2 of discrimi- nation. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s well-reasoned decision.

AFFIRMED.

1 McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). 2 See Jenkins v. Nell, 26 F.4th 1243, 1250 (11th Cir. 2022).