Michael V. Smith v. Pepsi Cola Bottling Company

── Michael V. Smith v. Pepsi Cola Bottling Company ── Case No.: 24-11597 Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: April 07, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 24-11597 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 04/07/2026 Page: 1 of 16 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-11597 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ MICHAEL V. SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus PEPSI BOTTLING GROUP, et al., Defendants, PEPSI COLA BOTTLING COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 3:21-cv-01062-TJC-MCR ____________________ Before JILL PRYOR, LUCK, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 24-11597 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 04/07/2026 Page: 2 of 16 2 Opinion of the Court 24-11597 Appellant Michael V. Smith, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his fifth amended complaint in which he raised Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims against his for- mer employer, Pepsi Bottling Company (“Pepsi”), which is also known as Bottling Group, LLC. After careful consideration, we va- cate the district court’s order and remand for further proceedings. I. Smith, an African American man, worked for Pepsi for ap- proximately six years. 1 During a shift in August 2020, he was as- signed to work with a group of temporary workers. One of the temporary workers approached Smith and used racial slurs and threatened him. The temporary worker said, among other things, “I don’t like working with Black people because I would have to do something to one of ya’ll.” Doc. 45 at 2. 2 Smith used his walkie- talkie to call his supervisor for help. He also attempted to walk away, but the temporary worker followed him while carrying an object that appeared to be a box cutter. The temporary worker was removed from the worksite. According to Smith, there was no physical contact during the incident. The next day, Smith met with plant manager Chanton Patel. He reported to Patel that the temporary worker called him 1 “At the motion to dismiss stage, we accept the well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true and view them in the light most favorable to” Smith. Hunt v. Aimco Props., L.P., 814 F.3d 1213, 1218 n.2 (11th Cir. 2016). 2 “Doc.” numbers refer to the district court’s docket entries. USCA11 Case: 24-11597 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 04/07/2026 Page: 3 of 16 24-11597 Opinion of the Court 3 “racially motivated names” and threatened him. Id. Patel sus- pended Smith until an investigation could be completed. The next day, Patel called Smith and terminated him. After his termination, Smith, proceeding pro se, filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Com- mission (“EEOC”). On the charge form, Smith checked a box to indicate that he was complaining of race discrimination, but he did not check the box for retaliation. In his charge, he described the incident with the temporary worker, his complaint to Patel, and his