James Francois vs Miami Dade County, Port of Miami
432 F. App'x 819
11th Cir.2011Background
- Francois sued Miami Dade County Port of Miami for Title VII and FCRA discrimination.
- District court granted summary judgment for Miami.
- Francois moved to amend to add a retaliation claim 52 days after the deadline.
- Francois asserted the district court abused its discretion by denying the motion before his reply deadline.
- Court applied Rule 16(b) good cause standard and held Francois failed to show diligence; denial was not an abuse of discretion.
- Court separately held Francois did not exhaust his national origin claim; summary judgment for Miami on that basis was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of amendment was an abuse of discretion | Francois argues district court erred by denying late amendment. | Miami contends no good cause shown; deadline strict. | No abuse; denial affirmed. |
| Whether Francois exhausted national origin claim | Intake questionnaire sufficed to exhaust. | Only the EEOC charge matters; questionnaire not sufficient. | Exhaustion not satisfied; summary judgment proper on national-origin claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sosa v. Airprint Sys., Inc., 133 F.3d 1417 (11th Cir. 1998) (good cause under Rule 16(b))
- Vason v. City of Montgomery, Ala., 240 F.3d 905 (11th Cir. 2001) (scope of judicial complaint; exhaustion framework)
- Wilkerson v. Grinnell Corp., 270 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir. 2001) (intake questionnaire may be charge if verified and can be interpreted as a charge)
- Pijnenburg v. West Georgia Health Sys., Inc., 255 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2001) (intake questionnaire generally not a charge; unverified not sufficient)
- Bost v. Fed. Express Corp., 372 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2004) (intake questionnaire with affidavit not sufficient when separate timely charge filed)
- Kilgo v. Bowman Transp., Inc., 789 F.2d 859 (11th Cir. 1986) (filing of EEOC charge serves notice and allows settlement)