Wen Liu v. University of Miami School of Medicine, 693 F. App'x 793

Wen Liu, a Chinese-national Asian female, sued the University of Miami School of Medicine alleging race, sex, and national-origin discrimination (Title VII, § 1981, FCRA), Title VII retaliation, and multiple FMLA claims after being moved from the tenure track to the research track and later terminated. She proceeded pro se on appeal.
The University conducted annual faculty reviews; Liu received poor evaluations (2009 and 2010 reviews showing inadequate scholarly productivity and unanimous 2010 conclusion she had not made adequate progress). She was advised to switch to the research track and later received negative reappointment votes and was not reappointed.
Liu received written notice of termination on October 7, 2011 (effective 12 months later); she filed an EEOC charge on March 21, 2013. She requested FMLA leave in September 2012 and took leave in October 2012.
The district court granted summary judgment for the University on discrimination, retaliation, and FMLA claims and denied Liu an extension of discovery; Liu appealed pro se.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed: it held Liu’s Title VII and FCRA claims (and Title VII retaliation) were untimely (failure to exhaust administrative remedies), § 1981 and FMLA claims failed on the merits (employer’s legitimate nondiscriminatory reason: poor performance), and the denial of extended discovery was not an abuse of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness / exhaustion of Title VII and FCRA claims	Liu contends discrimination and retaliation claims should proceed despite filing EEOC charge in 2013	University: EEOC charge was filed beyond statutory filing periods; last discriminatory act was Oct. 7, 2011	Held: EEOC charge untimely; Title VII, FCRA, and Title VII retaliation dismissed for failure to exhaust
§ 1981 discrimination claim	Liu contends adverse personnel actions were motivated by discrimination	University: articulated legitimate nondiscriminatory reason — poor performance; provided review records and voting results	Held: Summary judgment affirmed; University satisfied burden and Liu failed to show pretext
FMLA (interference and retaliation)	Liu alleges denial of extension of special review and retaliation for taking FMLA leave	University: FMLA claims time-barred or lack causal nexus (termination notice predated leave request); denial of extension was not a substantive FMLA violation	Held: Claims abandoned/timeliness failed or lacked causation; summary judgment affirmed
Denial of discovery extension	Liu sought extended discovery and list of witnesses to support claims	University: scheduling order deadlines should be enforced; additional time not justified	Held: District court did not abuse discretion; denial did not cause substantial harm

Rioux v. City of Atlanta, Ga., 520 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2008) (standard of review for summary judgment)
Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678 (11th Cir. 2014) (issue abandonment on appeal)
Pace v. Capobianco, 283 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2002) (affidavits based on information and belief insufficient at summary judgment)
Stewart v. Booker T. Washington Ins., 232 F.3d 844 (11th Cir. 2000) (when statute of limitations begins to run for EEOC charge)
McCann v. Tillman, 526 F.3d 1370 (11th Cir. 2008) (Title VII framework and circumstantial-evidence proof)
Brooks v. County Comm’n of Jefferson Cty., Ala., 446 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. 2006) (pretext requires showing employer's reason was false and discrimination was real reason)
Vessels v. Atlanta Indep. Sch. Sys., 408 F.3d 763 (11th Cir. 2005) (what constitutes evidence of pretext)
Krutzig v. Pulte Home Corp., 602 F.3d 1231 (11th Cir. 2010) (elements of FMLA interference and retaliation claims)
Josendis v. Wall to Wall Residence Repairs, Inc., 662 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 2011) (standard for reviewing discovery rulings and enforcing scheduling orders)
Harrison v. Culliver, 746 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir. 2014) (pro se litigant must show substantial harm from denial of discovery)