The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has affirmed a lower court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of Morris-Shea Bridge Company, Inc. in a consolidated employment discrimination case brought by three brothers against their former employer.
In the case *Larry Coleman v. Morris-Shea Bridge Company, Inc.* (11th Cir. 2026), the appellate court reviewed claims filed by Larry Coleman, Chester Coleman, and Freddie Seltzer, who alleged race and age discrimination during their employment at the construction contracting company. The case originated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama in 2018.
The three-judge panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Branch and Luck, along with District Judge Berger sitting by designation, issued a per curiam opinion addressing multiple aspects of the brothers' claims against Morris-Shea Bridge Company and its executives, President Richard J. Shea, Jr., and Vice President Richard J. Shea, III.
The consolidated appeal presented three primary legal questions for the court's consideration. First, whether the district court properly granted summary judgment for the defendants on the brothers' discrimination claims. Second, whether the trial court correctly applied judicial estoppel retroactively to the brothers' previously adjudicated summary judgment claims. Third, the opinion indicates additional issues were before the court, though the complete reasoning was not fully detailed in the available portion of the decision.
The case represents a complex employment law dispute involving multiple family members who worked for the same construction company. The brothers pursued legal action alleging they faced discrimination based on both their race and age during their tenure with Morris-Shea Bridge Company, a firm that specializes in bridge construction and related infrastructure projects.
Summary judgment is a procedural tool that allows courts to resolve cases without a full trial when there are no genuine disputes of material fact and one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The district court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of Morris-Shea Bridge Company indicated that the judge found the brothers' discrimination claims lacked sufficient factual or legal support to proceed to trial.
The Eleventh Circuit's review focused on whether the district court applied the correct legal standards when evaluating the brothers' claims. In employment discrimination cases, plaintiffs must typically establish a prima facie case showing they were members of a protected class, were qualified for their positions, suffered an adverse employment action, and that the action occurred under circumstances suggesting discrimination.
Judicial estoppel, one of the key issues addressed in the appeal, is a legal doctrine that prevents parties from taking contradictory positions in different legal proceedings. The district court's application of this doctrine to the brothers' claims suggests there may have been inconsistent statements or positions taken by the plaintiffs in related legal matters that undermined their current discrimination claims.
The case also involved disputes over attorney fees, indicating that the litigation included requests for fee awards, which are sometimes available in employment discrimination cases under various federal statutes. The specifics of these fee disputes were among the issues the Eleventh Circuit considered in its review.
Morris-Shea Bridge Company operates in the specialized field of bridge construction and infrastructure development. Employment discrimination cases in the construction industry often involve allegations related to hiring practices, workplace treatment, promotion opportunities, and termination decisions that allegedly violated federal anti-discrimination laws.
The brothers' claims likely arose under federal employment laws such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits race discrimination, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, which protects workers aged 40 and older from age-based discrimination. These statutes provide remedies for employees who face discriminatory treatment in the workplace.
The Eleventh Circuit's decision to designate the opinion as "not for publication" means it will have limited precedential value for future cases, though it resolves the specific disputes between these parties. This designation is common for routine appeals that do not establish new legal principles or significantly clarify existing law.
The case originated with docket number 2:18-cv-00248-LSC in the Northern District of Alabama, indicating it was filed in 2018 and assigned to a specific district judge using the court's case numbering system. The lengthy appellate process, spanning from the original 2018 filing through the 2026 Eleventh Circuit decision, reflects the complex nature of the litigation and the various procedural and substantive issues that required resolution.
For the Coleman brothers and their legal representatives, the Eleventh Circuit's affirmance of the summary judgment represents the conclusion of their federal discrimination claims against Morris-Shea Bridge Company. The decision validates the district court's determination that the brothers' evidence was insufficient to support their allegations of race and age discrimination.
The ruling provides Morris-Shea Bridge Company with a complete victory on the discrimination claims, affirming that the company's employment decisions regarding the three brothers did not violate federal anti-discrimination laws as alleged in the lawsuit.