Ketring v. Auburn University
3:18-cv-00619
| M.D. Ala. | Jan 31, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Scott A. Ketring, an associate professor at Auburn University, sued under Title VII claiming religious discrimination and a hostile work environment based on his Mormon faith and also alleged retaliation for complaining.
- Defendant moved to dismiss arguing (1) the complaint is an impermissible shotgun pleading and (2) the complaint exceeds the scope of the EEOC charge.
- The magistrate/court reviewed Federal Rules 8(a)(2) and 10(b) and Eleventh Circuit guidance on shotgun pleadings.
- The court concluded the complaint was a type‑one shotgun pleading because each count incorporated all prior allegations, obscuring which facts supported which claims and actors.
- The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice and granted Ketring leave to file an amended complaint by a set deadline, explaining he must specify which acts by which actors support each claim.
- The court denied Auburn’s EEOC‑scope argument without prejudice as premature, noting the scope question can be revisited after an amended complaint and that EEOC charges should not be read narrowly when evaluating whether claims may reasonably grow out of the charge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint is a shotgun pleading | Complaint adequately pleads discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation (incorporations acceptable) | Complaint improperly adopts all prior allegations in each count, creating a shotgun pleading | Court: Complaint is a type‑one shotgun pleading; must be repleaded |
| Whether dismissal should be with prejudice | Plaintiff implicitly argues at least leave to amend should be allowed | Defendant seeks dismissal on procedural grounds | Court: Must give leave to amend once sua sponte; dismissal without prejudice to permit repleading |
| Whether claims exceed EEOC charge scope | Ketring relies on EEOC charge language about hostile environment | Auburn argues the judicial complaint asserts allegations beyond the EEOC charge | Court: Denied as premature; EEOC‑scope issue can be reasserted after amended complaint |
| Standard for future motions/summary judgment | N/A | Auburn may present additional materials outside the complaint to argue EEOC scope later | Court: Defendant may reassert arguments against the amended complaint in a motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Weiland v. Palm Beach Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 792 F.3d 1313 (11th Cir. 2015) (defines and explains types of shotgun pleadings and pleading requirements)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (Rule 8 requires notice pleading showing entitlement to relief)
- Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, 878 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2018) (district court must sua sponte give leave to replead where counsel files shotgun pleading)
- Magluta v. Samples, 256 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2001) (criticizes rote incorporations that load counts with immaterial facts)
- Wagner v. First Horizon Pharm. Corp., 464 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2006) (supporting facts must be pleaded in the count asserting the cause of action)
- Gregory v. Georgia Dept. of Human Resources, 355 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2004) (EEOC charge scope should not be strictly interpreted; hostile‑environment claims may grow out of EEOC charge)
- T.D.S., Inc. v. Shelby Mut. Ins. Co., 760 F.2d 1520 (11th Cir. 1985) (discusses purpose of Rules 8 and 10 and pleading clarity)