The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Waste Pro of Florida, Inc. in an employment lawsuit filed by former driver Junior Orlando Andrew. The per curiam opinion, filed Feb. 3, 2026, rejected Andrew's claims under both the Fair Labor Standards Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Andrew, who represented himself throughout the proceedings, worked as an at-will employee for Waste Pro's Ocala Division from 2018 to 2023. The waste collection and disposal services company operates through multiple divisions serving different regions of Florida. According to court documents, Andrew was initially paid a fixed daily rate plus overtime compensation when he began his employment as a driver.
The plaintiff's lawsuit included multiple claims against his former employer. Under the FLSA, Andrew alleged that Waste Pro failed to properly pay him overtime compensation and engaged in retaliation against him. He also brought claims under Title VII, asserting race discrimination, retaliation, and the creation of a hostile work environment.
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted summary judgment in favor of Waste Pro on all of Andrew's claims. Summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine disputes of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The district court evidently found that Andrew had failed to present sufficient evidence to support his various employment law claims.
On appeal, Andrew challenged the district court's ruling by largely reiterating the allegations from his original complaint. The Eleventh Circuit noted that Andrew relied primarily on uncorroborated assertions made in his deposition testimony and in his arguments to the district court. This approach proved insufficient to overcome the summary judgment standard on appeal.
The appeals court's decision highlights the challenges that pro se litigants often face in employment litigation. Self-represented plaintiffs must navigate complex federal employment statutes and meet stringent evidentiary standards to survive summary judgment motions. The FLSA requires employees to prove they were not properly compensated for overtime work, typically requiring detailed records of hours worked and compensation received.
Title VII claims present their own evidentiary challenges. To establish a prima facie case of race discrimination, plaintiffs must generally show they belong to a protected class, were qualified for their position, suffered an adverse employment action, and that similarly situated employees outside their protected class were treated more favorably. Retaliation claims require proof that the employee engaged in protected activity, suffered an adverse action, and that a causal connection exists between the two.
Hostile work environment claims under Title VII require showing that harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working atmosphere. Courts examine factors including the frequency of discriminatory conduct, its severity, whether it was physically threatening or humiliating, and whether it unreasonably interfered with the employee's work performance.
The Eleventh Circuit's per curiam opinion indicates the panel found Andrew's evidence insufficient across all his claims. Per curiam decisions are issued by the court as a whole rather than authored by a specific judge, often in cases where the legal principles are well-established or the outcome is clear based on existing precedent.
The case was heard by Circuit Judges William H. Pryor Jr., Britt C. Grant, and Ed Carnes. The appeal arose from the Middle District of Florida, where the original case was docketed as No. 5:23-cv-00102-TJC-PRL. The timing suggests Andrew filed his initial lawsuit in 2023, with the case proceeding through discovery and summary judgment motions before reaching the appellate level.
Waste Pro of Florida operates as part of a larger waste management organization with divisions throughout the state. The company provides waste collection and disposal services to residential and commercial customers across multiple Florida regions. The Ocala Division, where Andrew worked, serves the north-central Florida area.
The decision reinforces the importance of maintaining detailed employment records and gathering corroborating evidence in workplace disputes. For employees considering FLSA or Title VII claims, the case demonstrates the challenges of proceeding without legal representation, particularly when facing well-resourced corporate defendants with experienced employment counsel.
Andrew's case joins numerous employment law decisions where appellate courts have affirmed summary judgment in favor of employers. The outcome underscores the evidentiary burdens placed on employees seeking to prove violations of federal employment statutes, particularly when relying primarily on their own testimony without additional supporting documentation or witness statements.
The Eleventh Circuit's jurisdiction covers Alabama, Florida, and Georgia, making this decision binding precedent for employment cases throughout those states. While the opinion was marked "not for publication," indicating it was decided on a non-argument calendar and may have limited precedential value, it reflects the court's application of established employment law principles to the specific facts presented.