Harrius Johnson v. Miami-Dade County

── Harrius Johnson v. Miami-Dade County ── Case No.: 24-12676 Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: March 19, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 24-12676 Document: 61-1 Date Filed: 03/19/2026 Page: 1 of 18 FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-12676 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ HARRIUS JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cv-21658-KMW ____________________ Before JORDAN, KIDD, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges. TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge: Harrius Johnson, an African American male police officer, was disciplined and eventually terminated by the Miami-Dade County Police Department (“MDPD”). He sued Miami-Dade USCA11 Case: 24-12676 Document: 61-1 Date Filed: 03/19/2026 Page: 2 of 18 2 Opinion of the Court 24-12676 County (“the County”), claiming that the real reasons for his disci- pline and termination were racial discrimination and retaliation. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the County, and Johnson appealed to this Court. We reviewed his ap- peal and remanded to the District Court to reconsider Johnson’s argument in light of our decision in Lewis v. City of Union City, 918 F.3d 1213, 1224 (11th Cir. 2019) (en banc). The District Court ap- plied Lewis and affirmed its original grant of summary judgment for the County. Johnson now appeals that decision. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND This matter comes before us a second time after a remand to the District Court. Since we have already set out the factual back- ground underlying this appeal, we do not reproduce it here. See Johnson v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 948 F.3d 1318, 1323–25 (11th Cir. 2020). Instead, we offer a summary of the procedural history of this case. In July of 2016, Johnson, represented by counsel, filed an Amended Complaint against the County alleging, among other things, discrimination and retaliation in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (“FCRA”).1 After discovery, Johnson and the County filed cross motions for summary judg- ment. The District Court granted the County’s motion and denied Johnson’s. It analyzed both the discrimination and retaliation claims under the framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. 1 Johnson also alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). The FLSA claims were resolved prior to the initial grant of summary judgment. USCA11 Case: 24-12676 Document: 61-1 Date Filed: 03/19/2026 Page: 3 of 18 24-12676 Opinion of the Court 3 Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802–03 (1973), noting that the same analysis applies for § 1983, Title VII, and FCRA claims. 2 In granting summary judgment to the County, the District Court began by assuming that Johnson could make the requisite prima facie cases. It then listed the County’s proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for Johnson’s termination. According to the County, J