Rashida Strober v. Payless Rental Car
701 F. App'x 911
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Rashida Strober, proceeding pro se, sued Payless Rental Car alleging racial discrimination under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
- District court dismissed Strober’s second amended complaint with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim and denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis.
- Strober appealed, raising Title II discrimination claims and constitutional arguments (due process, equal protection, Seventh Amendment jury right), and argued the district court applied attorney standards to her filings.
- The Eleventh Circuit found Strober abandoned her Title II claim on appeal by not addressing it in her brief and alternatively concluded the complaint failed on multiple substantive grounds.
- The court held Payless is not a Title II public accommodation as defined; Strober failed to plead discriminatory facts, did not exhaust state administrative remedies, sought unavailable money damages, and did not show entitlement to injunctive relief.
- The court also rejected Strober’s other constitutional arguments as abandoned or waived for lack of development or failure to raise them below; appealability of the IFP denial was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Payless is liable under Title II | Strober: Payless discriminated on basis of race at rental location | Payless: Not a Title II public accommodation; insufficient facts | Court: Payless not covered by Title II; complaint inadequate |
| Sufficiency of pleading race discrimination | Strober: Alleged discriminatory conduct (generally) | Payless: Facts do not plausibly show discrimination | Court: Facts insufficient to make claim plausible |
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies | Strober: proceeded to federal suit | Payless: state remedies available and not exhausted | Court: Plaintiff failed to exhaust required state remedies |
| Relief requested (money vs. injunctive) | Strober: sought damages | Payless: Title II permits injunctive relief only | Court: Money damages unavailable; no basis shown for injunction |
| Procedural fairness / Constitutional claims | Strober: district court denied due process, equal protection, Seventh Amendment, applied attorney standard | Payless: procedural dismissal appropriate; arguments unpreserved | Court: Constitutional claims abandoned or waived; dismissal proper |
| Denial of in forma pauperis appeal | Strober: sought leave to appeal IFP denial | Payless: denial not a final, appealable order | Court: Issue not reviewable for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870 (11th Cir. 2008) (pro se appellant abandons issues not raised on appeal)
- Catron v. City of St. Petersburg, 658 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2011) (de novo review for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must state a claim plausible on its face)
- Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2004) (issues raised first on appeal generally not considered; exceptions enumerated)
- Garvie v. City of Fort Walton Beach, 366 F.3d 1186 (11th Cir. 2004) (summary judgment dismissal does not violate the Seventh Amendment)
- Jackson v. Motel 6 Multipurpose, Inc., 130 F.3d 999 (11th Cir. 1997) (Title II remedy limited to injunctive relief)