Deborah Grey v. Vengroff Williams, Inc.

── Deborah Grey v. Vengroff Williams, Inc. ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: April 29, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 24-14020 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 04/29/2026 Page: 1 of 11 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-14020 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ DEBORAH GREY, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus VENGROFF WILLIAMS, INC., SECOND LOOK, INC., Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 8:23-cv-00687-KKM-CPT ____________________ Before LUCK, LAGOA, and MARCUS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 24-14020 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 04/29/2026 Page: 2 of 11 2 Opinion of the Court 24-14020 Deborah Grey appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Vengroff Williams, Inc. and Second Look, Inc., a divi- sion of Vengroff that sells subrogation services (collectively, “Sec- ond Look”), in her employment discrimination and retaliation suit based on disability and age. On appeal, Grey argues that: (1) the district court erred in finding that she had not established a prima facie case of disability discrimination, which led the court to incor- rectly determine that Second Look did not act with pretext in her firing; and (2) the court erred in finding that her proposed compar- ator was not similarly situated to her for purposes of her age dis- crimination claim. After careful review, we affirm. I. We review the grant of summary judgment de novo. Rosado v. Sec., Dep’t of the Navy, 127 F.4th 858, 864 (11th Cir. 2025). We “may affirm on any ground that is supported by the record.” Cis- neros v. Petland, Inc., 972 F.3d 1204, 1210 (11th Cir. 2020) (citation modified). Further, an argument “raised for the first time on ap- peal” is deemed waived if it was not presented in the district court, except under special circumstances. Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1331–32 (11th Cir. 2004). II. First, we are unpersuaded by Grey’s claim that the district court erred in holding, on summary judgment, that she did not es- tablish a prima facie case of disability discrimination. Summary judgment should be granted only if there is no genuine dispute of material fact, viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the USCA11 Case: 24-14020 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 04/29/2026 Page: 3 of 11 24-14020 Opinion of the Court 3 non-movant. Rosado, 127 F.4th at 864. There is a genuine issue if a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-movant. Id. More than a scintilla of evidence is required. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251 (1986). Under the anti-discrimination provision in the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), an employer may not “discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to . . . the . . . discharge of employees . . . , and other terms, condi- tions, and privileges of employment.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). To state a claim under the ADA, the “plainti