Paul Boyle v. City of Pell City
866 F.3d 1280
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Boyle worked for Pell City Street Department (2001–2012); suffered a 2001 on‑the‑job injury causing spinal problems and could not perform Heavy Equipment Operator duties.
- In 2005 the superintendent (Martin) and HR director memorialized an agreement letting Boyle perform Foreman duties while remaining paid at the Heavy Equipment Operator rate (~$15/hr); Crowe retained Foreman title and pay.
- In 2012 Martin wrote a memorandum saying Boyle should be compensated for Foreman work after the two‑year term; HR refused to sign; a new superintendent (Gossett) removed Boyle from Foreman duties. Boyle applied for and ultimately received disability retirement in October 2012.
- Boyle sued (2014) asserting: Rehabilitation Act claims (failure to accommodate; constructive discharge), an FLSA claim (overtime calculated at Heavy Equipment Operator rate instead of Foreman rate), and state claims (quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, breach of contract based on Foreman work/pay differential).
- The district court dismissed the FLSA and state claims (statute of nonclaim Ala. Code § 11‑47‑23) and granted summary judgment to the City on the Rehabilitation Act claims; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FLSA regular‑rate calculation | Boyle: he performed Foreman duties and was owed a higher regular rate for overtime. | City: parties agreed he would be paid at Heavy Equipment Operator rate; overtime was calculated on that rate. | Dismissal affirmed — Boyle pleaded no facts showing his regular rate differed from the $15/hr actually paid. |
| State law pay/contract claims (statutory notice) | Boyle: City breached agreement and owes back pay/value for Foreman services. | City: claims barred by Alabama nonclaim statute § 11‑47‑23 (not presented to city clerk within 2 years). | Dismissal affirmed — claims accrued by June 2012 but were not presented within the statutory period; no City acknowledgment of debt. |
| Rehab Act — failure to accommodate | Boyle: City unlawfully refused to return him to Foreman or otherwise accommodate. | City: no reasonable accommodation identified; Foreman position was not a vacant position to which City was required to reassign; no duty to create/promote. | Summary judgment affirmed — Boyle failed to identify an accommodation that would allow performance of essential functions; no duty to create a position or promote. |
| Rehab Act — constructive discharge | Boyle: Gossett assigned tasks he could not perform and effectively forced him out. | City: Boyle applied for disability retirement before Gossett took over; rumor‑based fear is insufficient; conditions not objectively intolerable. | Summary judgment affirmed — evidence shows Boyle sought retirement before Gossett’s actions; no objective intolerable conditions proved. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ray v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., 836 F.3d 1340 (11th Cir.) (Rule 12(b)(6) standard and plausibility review)
- Walling v. Youngerman‑Reynolds Hardwood Co., 325 U.S. 419 (regular rate includes agreed recurring payments)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Hood v. City of Birmingham, 562 So. 2d 164 (Ala.) (claims actually for a debt acknowledged by city fall outside § 11‑47‑23 nonclaim requirement)
- Lucas v. W.W. Grainger, Inc., 257 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir.) (reasonable‑accommodation and reassignment limits)
- Sutton v. Lader, 185 F.3d 1203 (11th Cir.) (no obligation to create a job or light‑duty position)
- Willis v. Conopco, Inc., 108 F.3d 282 (11th Cir.) (reassignment required only to vacant positions)
- Cleveland v. Policy Mgmt. Sys. Corp., 526 U.S. 795 (inconsistency between disability application statements and litigation claims)
- Thomas v. Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc., 116 F.3d 1432 (11th Cir.) (constructive discharge objective standard)