Case Explained: RONALD KING ANTHONY ROBINSON CHRIS SAMUEL NOLAN JONES, JR. BRIAN STRUGGS v. UA LOCAL 91 United Association of Plumbers, Steamfitters, Welders and HVAC Techni- cians, et al DAY & ZIMMERMANN NPS, INC USCA11 Case: 24-13659 Document: 54-1 Date Filed: 08/10/2026 Page: 1 of 14 2

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Filed: 2026-08-10 Docket: 2:19-cv-01115-ACA The eleventh-circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ disparate-treatment and disparate-impact claims, dismissal of class claims, and grant of summary judgment on retaliation claims against Day & Zimmermann. The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the discrimination claims as a shotgun pleading under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) because the complaint failed to specify which defendant was responsible for which acts or omissions. Dismissal with prejudice was proper because the plaintiffs had fair notice of the defects from a prior dismissal without prejudice and failed to cure them. Regarding the class claims, the court affirmed because the plaintiffs abandoned any challenge to the shotgun pleading ground by failing to plainly and prominently raise it in their initial brief, leaving independent merits grounds for dismissal intact. On the retaliation claims under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a), the court held summary judgment was proper because the plaintiffs failed to establish that the decisionmaker knew about their protected activity. Causation requires proof that the desire to retaliate was the but-for cause of the adverse action under *Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar*, necessitating knowledge by the decisionmaker under *Martin v. Fin. Asset Mgmt. Sys., Inc.* Jones forfeited a new theory regarding who the decisionmaker was on appeal, and Samuel conceded the relevant supervisor lacked knowledge of his EEOC charges. The district court’s dismissal orders and summary judgment stand. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.