Buade v. Terra Group
259 So. 3d 219
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2018Background
- Buade worked for Terra from 2004 until her termination on December 10, 2010; she was a supervisor and repeatedly complained about subordinate Carlos Hollender’s insubordination and alleged sexual harassment beginning around 2005–2007.
- Buade escalated complaints to supervisor Michael Piazza and HR; in June 2010 she emailed Piazza (copied to HR) alleging Hollender had issues with women in authority; reassignment decisions were temporary and Hollender later returned to her supervision.
- Buade alleges continued harassment and that her December 2010 termination was retaliation for her complaints; she filed an EEOC/FCHR charge on April 12, 2011 checking only the "Sex" box and not the "Retaliation" box.
- In April 2012 Buade sued under the Florida Civil Rights Act (Count I: sex discrimination) and for retaliation (Count II); she later dismissed the discrimination claim, leaving only retaliation.
- Terra moved for judgment on the pleadings/directed verdict arguing Buade failed to exhaust administrative remedies for retaliation; the trial court granted the motion and dismissed with prejudice for failure to exhaust, and Buade appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Buade exhausted administrative remedies for retaliation | Buade argued she did not need to check "Retaliation" because investigation into her sex discrimination charge would reasonably uncover retaliatory termination | Terra argued the EEOC charge contained no factual basis for retaliation and Buade failed to amend the charge to include retaliation | Held: No exhaustion — retaliation is a separate claim and the charge lacked factual allegations of retaliation |
| Whether Buade’s EEOC charge connected protected activity to the adverse action | Buade claimed her June 2010 complaint put Terra on notice and investigators would discover the retaliatory termination | Terra contended the charge omitted any mention of termination or causal link between complaints and termination | Held: The charge did not allege termination or causation, so it failed to present factual bases for a retaliation claim |
| Whether temporal proximity alone established causation between complaint and termination | Buade relied on timing (complaints in 2010, discharge in December 2010) as evidence of causality | Terra argued the gap exceeded what courts consider "very close" proximity and is insufficient alone | Held: Temporal gap (more than six months) insufficient to establish causation |
| Whether dismissal with prejudice was appropriate for failure to amend charge | Buade noted she had adequate time to amend and challenged dismissal | Terra noted Buade never amended the EEOC charge to add retaliation despite opportunity | Held: Dismissal affirmed because plaintiff did not exhaust administrative remedies or amend charge to include retaliation |
Key Cases Cited
- Walker v. Figarola, 59 So. 3d 188 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (standard of review for judgment on the pleadings is de novo)
- Henao v. Prof’l Shoe Repair, Inc., 929 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (motion to dismiss/judgment on pleadings test)
- Sanchez v. Standard Brands, Inc., 431 F.2d 455 (5th Cir. 1970) (Title VII requires exhaustion of administrative remedies)
- Houston v. Army Fleet Servs., L.L.C., 509 F. Supp. 2d 1033 (M.D. Ala. 2007) (charge must include factual bases for all Title VII claims)
- Sheridan v. State, Dep’t of Health, 182 So. 3d 787 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (FCRA exhaustion requirement)
- Carter v. Health Mgmt. Assocs., 989 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2008) (FCRA exhaustion applies to retaliation claims)
- St. Louis v. Fla. Int’l Univ., 60 So. 3d 455 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (elements of a retaliation prima facie case)
- Wallin v. Minn. Dep’t of Corrs., 153 F.3d 681 (8th Cir. 1998) (retaliation claims are distinct from discrimination claims)
- Williamson v. Int’l Paper Co., 85 F. Supp. 2d 1184 (S.D. Ala. 2000) (retaliation not reasonably encompassed by underlying discrimination charge)
- Clark Cty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (2001) (temporal proximity must be very close to show causation)
- Pierce v. Target Stores, Inc., 206 Fed. Appx. 865 (11th Cir. 2006) (six-month gap insufficient alone to show causation)
- Richmond v. ONEOK, Inc., 120 F.3d 205 (10th Cir. 1997) (short gaps of three months insufficient by themselves)
- Hughes v. Derwinski, 967 F.2d 1168 (7th Cir. 1992) (four-month gap insufficient alone to establish causation)