Johnny Bedgood, Jr. v. Waste Management Inc.

USCA11 Case: 25-12372 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 06/22/2026 Page: 1 of 4

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________

No. 25-12372

Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

JOHNNY BEDGOOD, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant, versus

WASTE MANAGEMENT INC.,

Defendant-Appellee. ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 6:22-cv-01449-CEM-NWH ____________________

Before GRANT, LUCK, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

I.

Driving while drowsy is dangerous. In July 2020, Johnny Bedgood fell asleep behind the wheel of a garbage truck—almost rear-ending another vehicle. When Bedgood reported that his persistent drowsiness is attributable to obstructive sleep apnea, his employer granted him two months of medical leave, from July 27 to September 30.

Bedgood did not show up to his first shift on October 2, citing “childcare issues.” The following week, Bedgood missed all four assigned shifts—without notice or explanation. Pursuant to his employer’s written attendance policy, Bedgood’s consecutive “no-call, no-shows” constituted grounds for termination. When his manager informed him about the decision, Bedgood responded, “I don’t appreciate you calling me trying to terminate me over the phone and I would appreciate it if you never call my phone again.” Proceeding pro se, Bedgood filed this lawsuit. He alleges that his employer discriminated against him because of his disability—namely, his obstructive sleep apnea—in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The district court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment. In its view, no 25-12372 Opinion of the Court 3 reasonable jury could find that Bedgood was terminated on the grounds of his disability.

This is Bedgood’s appeal.

II.

We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. See McCreight v. AuburnBank, 117 F.4th 1322, 1329 (11th Cir. 2024). A movant is entitled to summary judgment if he can show that there is “no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

III.

The Americans with Disabilities Act makes it unlawful for an employer to “discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). To prevail, the plaintiff must show that “he was subjected to unlawful discrimination because of his disability.” 2 See Mazzeo v. Color Resols. Int’l, LLC, 746 F.3d 1264, 1268 (11th Cir. 2014). Here, Bedgood offers “virtually no evidence of discriminatory intent.” Wascura v. City of South Miami, 257 F.3d 1238, 1246 (11th Cir. 2001). Tellingly, when asked at his deposition whether he had any evidence that his sleep apnea might have played a role in his employer’s decision-making, he conceded, “I

2 The employer does not dispute that Bedgood’s obstructive sleep apnea qualifies as a disability.

To the extent Bedgood challenges the district court’s denial of leave to file a second amended complaint, he has failed to establish “good cause” to warrant a modification of the scheduling order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). He filed his motion to amend fourteen months after the expiration of the amendment deadline, without an adequate explanation for why “the schedule cannot be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” See Sosa v. Airprint Sys., Inc., 133 F.3d 1417, 1418 (11th Cir. 1998) (quotation omitted).