Tiffany Davis v. Auburn Bank
704 F. App'x 837
11th Cir.2017Background
- Tiffany Davis filed an EEOC charge on Feb. 24, 2014, and received a right-to-sue letter dated June 12, 2015.
- She sued AuburnBank on Sept. 12, 2015 (two days after the 90‑day deadline for Title VII/ADA suits), alleging race and disability discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, constructive discharge, FMLA interference/retaliation, and § 1981 claims.
- Davis alleged abusive coworker conduct, disparate treatment compared to Caucasian coworkers, requested doctor’s notes when others did not, reassignment without pay adjustment, and termination during FMLA leave.
- Defendant moved to dismiss: argued Title VII and ADA claims were time‑barred and that FMLA and § 1981 counts were vague, conclusory, and failed Rule 12(b)(6) pleading standards.
- Magistrate judge recommended dismissal: rejected equitable tolling for the late Title VII/ADA filing, and found FMLA and § 1981 claims inadequately pleaded; district court adopted the R&R; Davis did not object and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Title VII and ADA claims / equitable tolling | Davis: counsel prepared complaint by Sept. 10 but filed Sept. 12 due to counsel’s unfamiliarity with local filing, scheduling conflicts, and fear of filing after dark; counsel’s negligence should toll time | AuburnBank: claims untimely; attorney negligence does not justify equitable tolling | Court: Denied equitable tolling — attorney negligence is not an extraordinary circumstance; dismissal affirmed |
| Sufficiency of FMLA claim | Davis: alleged termination during FMLA leave and violations of FMLA rights | AuburnBank: complaint fails to identify which FMLA right, timeframe, or plaintiff’s FMLA eligibility; pleadings are conclusory | Court: Dismissed FMLA claim for failure to state a plausible claim; plaintiff conceded poor pleading |
| Sufficiency of § 1981 claim | Davis: alleges race‑based discrimination and hostile work environment | AuburnBank: pleadings are vague; no facts showing race caused termination or adverse action causally connected to protected activity | Court: § 1981 claim dismissed — facts insufficient for discrimination, retaliation, hostile‑work‑environment, or constructive discharge theories |
| Leave to amend | Davis: should be allowed to amend complaint on remand | AuburnBank: plaintiff never moved to amend in district court; court not required to sua sponte grant leave | Court: No abuse of discretion in denying leave; represented plaintiff did not request leave to amend |
Key Cases Cited
- Villarreal v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 839 F.3d 958 (11th Cir. 2016) (equitable tolling requires diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
- Menominee Indian Tribe of Wis. v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 750 (U.S. 2016) (equitable tolling standard articulated)
- Bost v. Fed. Express Corp., 372 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2004) (equitable tolling is an extraordinary remedy to be sparingly applied)
- Steed v. Head, 219 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2000) (garden‑variety attorney negligence does not justify tolling)
- Irwin v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89 (U.S. 1990) (excusable neglect generally not grounds for equitable tolling)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading must state plausible claim; conclusory allegations insufficient)
- Burke‑Fowler v. Orange Cty., 447 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir. 2006) (Title VII and § 1981 use the same analytical framework)
- Bryant v. Jones, 575 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir. 2009) (elements required to plead retaliation and constructive discharge)
- Wagner v. Daewoo Heavy Indus. Am. Corp., 314 F.3d 541 (11th Cir. 2002) (court not required to sua sponte grant leave to amend when plaintiff never sought leave)
- United States v. DiFalco, 837 F.3d 1207 (11th Cir. 2016) (plain‑error standard requirements)