Ronald A. Nurse v. Teleperformance Inc.
686 F. App'x 690
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Ronald Nurse, pro se, sued his former employer Teleperformance, Inc., and two coworkers alleging sex and age discrimination and sexual harassment.
- The district court construed the amended complaint as bringing claims under Title VII and the ADEA and dismissed for failure to state a claim.
- Nurse’s appellate brief raised numerous new claims and factual detail not contained in the amended complaint; the panel declined to consider those new claims.
- The amended complaint mostly contained conclusory labels (e.g., “misandry,” “neglect,” “discrimination”) with few factual allegations of discriminatory motive.
- The limited factual allegations (false accusations, being written up after a machine malfunction while others were not) did not plausibly show discrimination because of sex or age.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal, applying pleading standards and requiring causation (discrimination “because of” protected class) for Title VII and ADEA claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pro se appellant can raise new claims on appeal | Nurse advanced several new legal theories (torts, Eighth Amendment) on appeal | Defendants asserted appeal is limited to claims in the operative amended complaint | Court: New claims not raised in amended complaint are not considered on appeal (McNeil; Hoefling) |
| Whether complaint alleged sex-based disparate treatment or harassment under Title VII | Nurse alleged coworkers conspired, made false accusations, and engaged in a yearlong campaign of mistreatment and misandry | Defendants relied on lack of factual allegations showing discriminatory motive | Court: Conclusory allegations insufficient under Twombly; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether complaint alleged age discrimination under ADEA | Nurse alleged mistreatment and adverse employment actions, implying age-based motive | Defendants argued no facts showed causation tied to age | Court: ADEA requires causation; pleadings did not plausibly connect adverse actions to age; dismissal affirmed (Young) |
| Whether circumstantial facts (e.g., only Nurse written up after malfunction) suffice to plead discrimination | Nurse argued disparate treatment circumstantially shows discrimination | Defendants argued isolated factual assertions without context do not show discriminatory intent | Court: Such isolated circumstantial facts, without context, do not state a plausible discrimination claim (Burke-Fowler) |
Key Cases Cited
- McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106 (1993) (pro se status does not permit raising new claims without procedural compliance)
- Hoefling v. City of Miami, 811 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir. 2016) (appellate review limited to claims in operative complaint)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaints with only conclusory allegations fail to state a plausible claim)
- Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (2009) (Title VII requires causation—discrimination “because of” protected status)
- Young v. Gen. Foods Corp., 840 F.2d 825 (11th Cir. 1988) (ADEA claims require causation element)
- Burke-Fowler v. Orange Cty., Fla., 447 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir. 2006) (isolated circumstantial assertions without context do not establish plausible discrimination)