Markisha Cunningham v. Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc.

── Markisha Cunningham v. Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc. ── Case No.: 25-12423 Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: April 01, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 25-12423 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 04/01/2026 Page: 1 of 9 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-12423 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ MARKISHA CUNNINGHAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus MERCEDES-BENZ U.S. INTERNATIONAL, INC., ONIN STAFFING LLC, Defendants-Appellees, NAOS ON-SITE STAFFING LLC, Defendant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama D.C. Docket No. 7:23-cv-01379-ACA ____________________ Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and DUBINA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 25-12423 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 04/01/2026 Page: 2 of 9 2 Opinion of the Court 25-12423 Appellant Markisha Cunningham, a Black woman proceed- ing pro se, appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Onin Staffing, LLC (“Onin”) and Mercedes- Benz U.S. International, Inc. (“MBUSI”) (collectively the “defend- ants”) on her race and sex discrimination and retaliation claims un- der Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(m) and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. On appeal, Cunningham argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to the defendants because she showed that the defendants failed to pro- mote her, terminated her, and retaliated against her because of her race. Cunningham also argues that the district court erred by not addressing her claims of disability discrimination under the Ameri- cans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and a hostile work environ- ment. After reviewing the record and reading the parties’ briefs, we affirm the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the defendants. I. “We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judg- ment, applying the same legal standards as the district court.” Al- varez v. Royal Atl. Developers, Inc., 610 F.3d 1253, 1263 (11th Cir. 2010). The question is whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, shows that “no gen- uine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id. at 1263–64. Pro se pleadings “are held to a less stringent standard and should be liberally construed.” Taveras v. Bank of America, N.A., 89 USCA11 Case: 25-12423 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 04/01/2026 Page: 3 of 9 25-12423 Opinion of the Court 3 F.4th 1279, 1285 (11th Cir. 2024) (quoting Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998)). Liberal construction, however, does not mean that a court may “act as de facto counsel or rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading to sustain an action.” Bi- lal v. Geo Care, LLC, 981 F.3d 903, 911 (11th Cir. 2020). A legal claim or argument that has not been briefed is deemed abandoned, and we will not address its merits on appeal. Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines, Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1330 (11th Cir. 2004). An appellant fails to adequately brief a claim when he