Zorn v. McNeil
6:16-cv-00001
M.D. Fla.Sep 29, 2016Background
- Seven current/former Casselberry police employees sued Chief William McNeil and the City alleging sex, race, age discrimination, sexual harassment, retaliation, and various state torts based on McNeil’s conduct (explicit texts/calls, monitoring, comments, humiliations, and office vandalism).
- Plaintiffs filed EEOC charges and successive state-court complaints; after right-to-sue letters they amended the state complaint to add federal claims and the case was removed to federal court.
- Defendants moved to dismiss and for a more definite statement challenging timeliness, relation-back, failure to state claims, sovereign immunity, and pleading clarity.
- Court evaluated relation-back under Florida Rule 1.190(c) (analogous to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)), PWA pleading/exhaustion, municipal sovereign immunity and individual immunity under Fla. Stat. § 768.28(9)(a), and substantive standards for invasion of privacy, IIED, assault, § 1983/ADEA overlap, negligent supervision, NIED, and Public Records Act claims.
- Key rulings: discrimination, Title VII/ADEA/FCRA claims were deemed to relate back and timely; several PWA, tort, and § 1983 age claims were dismissed (some with leave to amend, some with prejudice); McNeil’s motion for a more definite statement as to the § 1983 counts was granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness / relation-back of FCRA, Title VII, ADEA claims | TAC relates back to SAC; claims arise from same core facts | Claims filed >90 days after right-to-sue; untimely | Relation back under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.190(c) applies; discrimination and retaliation claims relate back and are timely |
| Public Sector Whistle-blower Act (PWA) protection | Plaintiffs disclosed McNeil’s unlawful conduct and/or participated in county investigation | Disclosures not in required written/signed form to local official; claims untimely; failed exhaustion | Participation in county investigation qualifies as protected activity for some plaintiffs, but PWA claims premised on participation did not relate back and are time-barred; written/signed disclosure allegations insufficient—PWA claims dismissed (some without prejudice to replead) |
| State torts (invasion of privacy, IIED, assault) vs. sovereign immunity | Plaintiffs allege extreme conduct causing severe emotional harm and privacy intrusion | Defendants assert immunity and that alleged conduct is not sufficiently outrageous or private; workplace conduct insufficient for privacy torts | Zorn states invasion of privacy and IIED (explicit home contacts); Gilbert, Jordan, Stein, Pooley largely fail IIED/privacy/assault claims (many dismissed with prejudice or without prejudice to amend); assault claims mostly dismissed without prejudice except Zorn survives |
| § 1983 age-discrimination claims vs. ADEA exclusivity | Plaintiffs assert § 1983 age claims | McNeil: ADEA is exclusive remedy for age discrimination | Court dismissed § 1983 age-discrimination claims (ADEA provides exclusive remedy for age discrimination) |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard: legal conclusions insufficient, plausibility required)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state plausible claim to relief)
- Weeks v. Harden Mfg. Corp., 291 F.3d 1307 (elements for retaliation under ADEA/Title VII)
- Paterson v. Weinberger, 644 F.2d 521 (ADEA as exclusive remedy for age discrimination in federal employment; extended by lower courts to public employees)
- United Techs. Corp. v. Mazer, 556 F.3d 1260 (standards on accepting factual allegations in motion to dismiss)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Ginsberg, 863 So. 2d 156 (Florida invasion-of-privacy law; intrusion requires reasonable expectation of privacy)