Portia Surtain v. Hamlin Terrace Foundation
789 F.3d 1239
11th Cir.2015Background
- Portia Surtain sued her former employer, Hamlin Terrace Foundation, alleging: race discrimination (Title VII, §1981, Florida law), disability discrimination (ADA), and interference/retaliation under the FMLA.
- Hamlin repeatedly failed to respond; Surtain obtained multiple clerk’s entries of default and moved for default judgment on liability.
- The District Court denied the third motion for default judgment, concluding the complaints failed to state claims under Rule 12(b)(6) and dismissed the action with prejudice after previously allowing two amendments.
- The District Court applied the McDonnell Douglas prima facie framework to evaluate the pleadings and found insufficient facts for the race and ADA claims; it also found the FMLA claim inadequately pleaded (no 1,250 hours allegation and no facts showing employer covered).
- On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit held the district court used the wrong pleading standard for race and ADA claims (applied McDonnell Douglas rather than the Iqbal/Twombly plausibility standard), concluded the ADA claim still failed on the merits, affirmed dismissal of FMLA retaliation but found the FMLA interference claim was dismissed without required notice and opportunity to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether default judgment was properly denied | Surtain: well-pleaded facts suffice to support liability and default judgment | Hamlin: failed to respond; pleadings do not state plausible claims | Vacated as to race claim (wrong standard used); denial otherwise upheld where pleadings were implausible or deficient |
| Proper pleading standard for race-discrimination claim | Surtain: complaint plausibly alleges intentional racial discrimination | Hamlin: (implicitly) plaintiff must show McDonnell Douglas prima facie case | District court erred by requiring McDonnell Douglas; remanded to apply Iqbal/Twombly plausibility standard |
| Sufficiency of ADA disability-discrimination claim | Surtain: employer knew she saw a doctor and that doctor excused her from work, supporting a disability/perception-based claim | Hamlin: facts do not plausibly show a disability, that she was a ‘‘qualified individual,’’ or that employer perceived a disability | District court applied wrong standard but Eleventh Circuit held complaint still fails under correct plausibility test; ADA claim dismissed |
| FMLA interference vs. retaliation and procedural dismissal | Surtain: pleaded interference/retaliation based on inadequate paperwork and termination | Hamlin: pleadings lack facts showing employee eligibility (1,250 hours) or employer covered; facts belie a retaliation theory | Court erred by dismissing interference claim with prejudice without notice—remand for leave to amend; retaliation claim dismissed as futile and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state a claim that is plausible on its face)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden-shifting framework for circumstantial proof of discrimination)
- Nishimatsu Constr. Co. v. Houston Nat’l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200 (default-judgment requires sufficient basis in pleadings)
- Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353 (default judgment not permitted where complaint fails to state claim)
- Cotton v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 402 F.3d 1267 (a defaulted defendant is deemed to admit well-pleaded facts but not legal conclusions or conclusory allegations)
- Tazoe v. Airbus S.A.S., 631 F.3d 1321 (notice and opportunity to respond required before sua sponte dismissal)