Debra Nevins v. DCH Health Systems

── Debra Nevins v. DCH Health Systems ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: April 23, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 25-12124 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 04/23/2026 Page: 1 of 17 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-12124 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ DEBRA NEVINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus DCH HEALTH SYSTEMS, The DCH Health Care Authority, REBECCA BOUTWELL, COURTNEY WINGO, FELICIA ELLISON, Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama D.C. Docket No. 7:23-cv-01037-RDP ____________________ Before LUCK, LAGOA, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. USCA11 Case: 25-12124 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 04/23/2026 Page: 2 of 17 2 Opinion of the Court 25-12124 PER CURIAM: Debra Nevins appeals the district court’s order granting the defendants’ motions for summary judgment on her claims for ra- cial discrimination, retaliation, and harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a), 2000e-3(a), and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. First, she argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on her racial discrimination claim be- cause she presented sufficient circumstantial evidence to support a reasonable inference that she was terminated at least partly because of her race instead of her failure to comply with the flu vaccine policy. Second, she argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on her retaliation claim because she estab- lished that her relocation to a different workspace and appeal of her award of unemployment benefits were retaliatory to her email alleging discrimination or her Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) charge. Finally, she argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on her harassment claim because she demonstrated sufficiently severe or pervasive harassment to support a claim of a hostile work environment. I. DISCUSSION A. Standard of Review We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Ismael v. Roundtree, 161 F.4th 752, 758 (11th Cir. 2025). In do- ing so, we view all evidence and factual inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to the non- moving party. Id. USCA11 Case: 25-12124 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 04/23/2026 Page: 3 of 17 25-12124 Opinion of the Court 3 A court may grant summary judgment “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)). There is no genuine issue of material fact when a rational trier of fact cannot find for the non-moving party based on the record. Id. B. Racial Discrimination Title VII forbids employment discrimination against any person on the basis of their race or color. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). Section 1981 also prohibits race discrimination in the making and enforcement of public and private contracts, including employ- ment cont