Eddie Wooten v. McDonald Transit Assoc, Inc.
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10098
| 5th Cir. | 2015

Background

  • Wooten sued McDonald Transit under the ADEA for age discrimination and retaliation after filing an EEOC charge; he alleged employment 1999–May 1, 2011 and constructive discharge following retaliatory conduct.
  • Service issues: initial service by certified mail purportedly to the president actually showed delivery to another officer; after default the court required re-service and personal service on the president was later executed.
  • McDonald Transit failed to answer after both service attempts; the clerk entered default and the district court held a damages "prove-up" hearing at which Wooten testified with additional factual detail (age, prior promotion, demotion, pay cut, menial work, denial of certification opportunities, ~6 months of adverse treatment).
  • The district court entered default judgment for Wooten; McDonald Transit moved to set aside under Rules 55(c) and 60(b), asserting improper service, lack of right-to-sue/time-bar, and other defenses. The district court found service adequate, inferred willful default, and denied relief.
  • On appeal the Fifth Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion (and clear error for factual findings like willfulness) and considered whether the complaint met Rule 8 and whether the prove-up testimony could be considered in support of default judgment.
  • The Fifth Circuit affirmed: the complaint met Rule 8’s low notice pleading standard; the prove-up testimony permissibly supplemented the pleadings under Rule 55(b)(2); and McDonald Transit failed to show excusable neglect or extraordinary circumstances to vacate the judgment.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Sufficiency of complaint for default judgment under Rule 8 Complaint alleged EEOC charge, retaliatory/adverse actions, constructive discharge, and damages—providing fair notice Complaint too sparse; failed to plead elements of ADEA prima facie case (e.g., qualification/protected class) Complaint satisfied Rule 8’s low notice standard; thus "well‑pleaded" for default purposes
Use of evidence from prove‑up hearing to support default judgment Testimony simply established truth of allegations and added permissible detail under Rule 55(b)(2) Allowing proof to cure pleading defects would conflict with Nishimatsu concern about supplementing facially deficient pleadings Testimony may be considered to establish allegations; Nishimatsu’s hypothetical inapplicable because complaint independently met Rule 8
Whether qualification is required element of ADEA retaliation prima facie case Wooten argued pleadings showed qualification (long tenure) and that Holtzclaw’s qualification element need not be resolved here McDonald Transit argued Holtzclaw requires qualification and the complaint failed to plead it Court avoided overruling Holtzclaw; held complaint met Rule 8 regardless of qualification issue
Whether the district court abused discretion in denying Rule 60 relief Default was willful; no meritorious defense shown; relief not warranted Service defective; neglect excusable; asserted meritorious defenses and other equitable grounds Finding of willfulness not clearly erroneous; defendant failed to prove excusable neglect or extraordinary circumstances under Rule 60(b)

Key Cases Cited

  • Nishimatsu Constr. Co. v. Houston Nat’l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200 (5th Cir. 1975) (default-judgment must be supported by well-pleaded allegations)
  • Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (Rule 8 requires notice pleading that raises claim above speculative level)
  • Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (complaint must contain more than bare conclusions)
  • Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (retaliation provision differs from discrimination provision; standard for adverse action)
  • Holtzclaw v. DSC Commc’ns Corp., 255 F.3d 254 (5th Cir. 2001) (Fifth Circuit panel added "qualification" element to ADEA retaliation prima facie case)
  • In re Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Prods. Liab. Litig., 742 F.3d 576 (5th Cir. 2014) (willful default and "playing games" with the court justify refusal to set aside defaults)
  • Lacy v. Sitel Corp., 227 F.3d 290 (5th Cir. 2000) (standards for setting aside default judgment; willfulness inquiry)
  • In re Dierschke, 975 F.2d 181 (5th Cir. 1992) (factors for vacating default; clear-error review of willfulness finding)
  • Jenkens & Gilchrist v. Groia & Co., 542 F.3d 114 (5th Cir. 2008) (service/perfection not determinative; post-service conduct bears on willfulness)
  • Hesling v. CSX Transp., Inc., 396 F.3d 632 (5th Cir. 2005) (Rule 60(b)(6) is an extraordinary‑circumstances, sparingly applied equitable remedy)
Read the full case