Case Explained: Non-Argument Calendar ADRIAN CLARK v. PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Filed: 2026-07-01 Docket: 5:24-cv-00015-WFJ-PRL The eleventh-circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Publix Super Markets, Inc., dismissing Adrian Clark’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 alleging race discrimination after employees denied his request to purchase a $15,000 money order. The court applied the “but-for” causation standard established in *Comcast Corp. v. Nat’l Ass’n of Afr. Am.-Owned Media*, requiring Clark to prove that his race was the decisive factor in the denial of his contractual rights. The court held that Clark failed to present sufficient direct or circumstantial evidence to satisfy this standard. Regarding direct evidence, the court ruled that an employee’s ambiguous use of the phrase “you people” did not constitute a blatant remark proving racial animus as a matter of law. Regarding circumstantial evidence, the court found Clark failed to establish a prima facie case under *McDonnell Douglas* because he offered no comparators of a different race who were similarly situated and treated more favorably. Furthermore, under the “convincing mosaic” standard, the record showed that the store’s assistant manager, the ultimate decisionmaker, denied the transaction based on objective red flags regarding suspicious monetary activity—specifically Clark’s claim of having no income while attempting to pay a full lease in advance—and not because of his race. The court also rejected Clark’s argument that an employee’s alleged racial comments influenced the decision, noting that the non-decisionmaking employee had no determinative influence on the final denial. Additionally, the court dismissed Clark’s new legal theories raised for the first time on appeal and his claim of judicial bias as insufficient to warrant relief. The practical consequence is that the district court’s judgment in favor of Publix stands, and Clark’s § 1981 race discrimination claim is permanently barred by the appellate ruling. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.