621 F. App'x 955
11th Cir.2015Background
- Smith was a part-time Miami-Dade bus operator (hired 2005); she had excessive tardiness/absences and took long medical leave following a 2007 work injury; terminated for attendance problems in 2007.
- Smith settled a workers’ compensation claim in 2009 and repeatedly sought reinstatement; Miami‑Dade refused under a neutral no‑rehire policy for employees with long‑term absences.
- Smith sued under the ADA (Titles I, II, V) and the Florida Civil Rights Act alleging disparate treatment, disparate impact, and retaliation; Miami‑Dade counterclaimed for breach of the settlement agreement.
- District court granted Miami‑Dade’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion dismissing disparate‑treatment and retaliation claims and later granted summary judgment for Miami‑Dade on disparate‑impact claims; it declined supplemental jurisdiction over the counterclaim.
- Smith appealed; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed in all respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over appeal of earlier nonfinal orders | Smith’s notice referenced only the summary judgment order but sought review of final judgment | Miami‑Dade argued omission deprived the court of jurisdiction over earlier dismissals | Court: appeal from final judgment brings up prior nonfinal orders; jurisdiction exists |
| Disparate‑treatment (Title I ADA) | Smith: Miami‑Dade refused to rehire her despite being otherwise qualified; decision was motivated by disability | Miami‑Dade: refusal resulted from neutral no‑rehire policy based on attendance, not disability | Court: dismissal affirmed — pleadings show ineligibility under neutral policy, not disability‑based decision |
| Retaliation based on counterclaim | Smith: Miami‑Dade’s counterclaim was retaliatory and aimed to burden her | Miami‑Dade: counterclaim was based on a reasonable reading of the settlement term barring suits; had factual/legal basis | Court: dismissal affirmed — to plead retaliation based on a (counter)suit, plaintiff must allege retaliatory motive and that the suit lacked any reasonable factual or legal basis; Smith failed to do so; settlement gave respondent a reasonable basis |
| Disparate‑impact (Title I ADA) | Smith: no‑rehire policy disproportionately harms disabled persons | Miami‑Dade: Smith offered no comparative or statistical evidence of disparate impact | Court: summary judgment affirmed — Smith produced no comparative evidence showing significant disparate impact on disabled group |
Key Cases Cited
- Kong v. Allied Prof'l Ins. Co., 750 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir.) (appeal from final judgment reviews preceding nonfinal orders)
- Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Mestre, 701 F.2d 1365 (11th Cir.) (overriding intent can cure misdesignation of appealed judgment)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S.) (plausibility pleading standard)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S.) (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Raytheon Co. v. Hernandez, 540 U.S. 44 (U.S.) (must show disability actually motivated the employment decision)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (U.S.) (definition of materially adverse action in retaliation context)
- Bill Johnson's Rests., Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 461 U.S. 731 (U.S.) (when an employer's suit may constitute unlawful retaliation)
- Schwarz v. City of Treasure Island, 544 F.3d 1201 (11th Cir.) (plaintiff must present comparative evidence for disparate‑impact claim)
- SFM Holdings, Ltd. v. Banc of Am. Sec., LLC, 600 F.3d 1334 (11th Cir.) (court may consider extrinsic documents central to claim when authenticity not challenged)