The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit dismissed an employment discrimination appeal on jurisdictional grounds, ruling Jan. 20 that it could not review a district court's partial summary judgment order that left some claims pending.

In *Darnetta Tyus v. City of College Park, Georgia* (11th Cir. 2026), the appeals court held it lacked jurisdiction to hear Tyus's challenge to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia's Sept. 30, 2025, order granting partial summary judgment in favor of the city.

The case originated as a joint complaint filed by Tyus and co-plaintiff Sharis McCrary against the City of College Park. The plaintiffs asserted claims of gender-based employment discrimination and retaliation under federal statutes, as well as Equal Protection Clause violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The district court granted the city's motion for summary judgment as to all of Tyus's claims and part of one of McCrary's claims. However, McCrary's remaining claims continue to be pending before the district court, which proved crucial to the Eleventh Circuit's jurisdictional analysis.

Writing for a three-judge panel that included Circuit Judges Adalberto Jordan, Jill Pryor, and Britt Grant, the court issued a per curiam opinion explaining its lack of jurisdiction. The court noted that the Sept. 30 order "is not final and appealable, as it did not end the litigation on the merits—McCrary's claims remain pending—and the district court did not certify it for immediate review."

The jurisdictional ruling centered on federal statutes governing appellate jurisdiction. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, federal courts of appeals generally have jurisdiction only over final decisions of district courts. The final judgment rule prevents piecemeal appeals and promotes judicial efficiency by requiring parties to wait until all claims are resolved before seeking appellate review.

The court also referenced 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), which provides a narrow exception allowing appeals of non-final orders when a district court certifies that an order involves "a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion" and that immediate appeal "may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation." The district court had not made such a certification in this case.

The Eleventh Circuit cited *CSX Transportation, Inc. v. City of Garden City* as precedent supporting its jurisdictional analysis, though the full citation was cut off in the available court documents.

The dismissal means Tyus's employment discrimination claims against the City of College Park have been resolved at the district court level through summary judgment, with no appellate review of the merits. 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.

While the specific details of Tyus's discrimination allegations were not elaborated in the jurisdictional opinion, the case involved claims under federal employment discrimination statutes as well as constitutional claims under Section 1983. Section 1983 provides a federal cause of action for violations of constitutional rights by persons acting under color of state law, commonly used in civil rights lawsuits against government entities and officials.

The fact pattern suggests the case involved workplace discrimination based on gender, along with retaliation claims that often accompany discrimination allegations. Retaliation claims protect employees who oppose discriminatory practices or participate in discrimination proceedings from adverse employment actions.

McCrary's claims remain active in the district court, meaning the litigation continues despite the resolution of Tyus's individual claims. The nature and scope of McCrary's remaining claims were not detailed in the appellate court's jurisdictional ruling.

The dismissal illustrates the strict application of federal jurisdictional rules, even in civil rights cases. Courts consistently enforce the final judgment rule to prevent interruption of district court proceedings and ensure efficient case management.

For employment discrimination plaintiffs, the ruling demonstrates the importance of understanding appellate timing rules. Parties cannot appeal partial rulings that resolve some but not all claims in multi-party litigation without district court certification for immediate review.

The case was designated "Not for Publication," meaning it will have limited precedential value but reflects the routine application of established jurisdictional principles. The non-argument calendar designation indicates the court resolved the jurisdictional issue without oral arguments, typical for clear-cut procedural matters.

The original district court case was filed in 2023 under docket number 1:23-cv-01733-SDG, suggesting the litigation had been pending for approximately two years before the partial summary judgment ruling. The timeline reflects the often lengthy nature of federal employment discrimination litigation.

With Tyus's individual claims now conclusively resolved through the jurisdictional dismissal, attention turns to McCrary's pending claims in the district court. The outcome of those remaining claims will determine whether any aspects of the original joint complaint proceed to trial or further appellate review.