UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO. 20-21927-CIV-ALTMAN/Goodman 

YVETTE HARRELL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CITY OF OPA-LOCKA, 

Defendant.

_________________________________________/ 

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 

6] (the “Motion”). This Court held a telephonic hearing [ECF No. 18] on October 15, 2020. For 

the reasons stated on the record, the Court hereby 

ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that 

1. The Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 6] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART

as follows: 

a. Count I is DISMISSED without prejudice. Sex or gender discrimination 

claims are not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. See, e.g., Little v. United 

Techs., Carrier Transicold Div., 103 F.3d 956, 961 (11th Cir. 1997) (“It is wellestablished that § 1981 is concerned with racial discrimination in the making 

and enforcement of contracts.”). 

b. Count II is DISMISSED without prejudice. As pled, the Complaint is unclear 

on (1) whether the Plaintiff is bringing a disparate treatment claim, a hostile 

work environment claim, or both; (2) whether the Plaintiff is proceeding under 

a single-motive or mixed-motive theory; and (3) what the (alleged) adverse 

Case 1:20-cv-21927-RKA Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/18/2020 Page 1 of 3
employment action was. 

c. Count III is DISMISSED without prejudice. As pled, the Complaint is unclear 

on (1) whether the Plaintiff is bringing a disparate treatment claim, a hostile 

work environment claim, or both; (2) whether the Plaintiff is proceeding under 

a single-motive or mixed-motive theory; and (3) what the (alleged) adverse 

employment action was. 

d. Count IV is DISMISSED without prejudice. Sex or gender discrimination 

claims are not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. See, e.g., Little, 103 F.3d at 

961. 

e. Count V survives and thus the Motion is DENIED as to this Count. 

Nonetheless, the Plaintiff ought to clarify her Complaint, see, e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 

103, 105, 108, as this Court explained on the record. 

f. Count VI survives and thus the Motion is DENIED as to this Count. 

Nonetheless, the Plaintiff ought to clarify her Complaint, see, e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 

116, 118, 121, as this Court explained on the record. 

g. Count VII is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to describe the content 

of the Plaintiff’s whistleblower complaints so that this Court can draw the 

reasonable inference that those complaints are protected under Fla. Stat. § 

112.3187. See, e.g., Broward Cty. Sheriff’s Office v. Hamby, 300 So. 3d 213, 

216 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (finding a pleading insufficient where it was “devoid 

of specific facts as to what [the plaintiff] actually disclosed,” noting that the 

plaintiff’s “vague and conclusory allegations were insufficient to show a 

protected disclosure”); Nazzal v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 267 So. 3d 1094, 1097 

Case 1:20-cv-21927-RKA Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/18/2020 Page 2 of 3
(Fla. 1st DCA 2019) (finding that an incident report was insufficient because, 

although the employee reported she was “subjected to disparate treatment 

which is in direct violation of the 1964 civil rights act,” she “did not elaborate 

on how (or by whom) she was treated disparately or how any such disparate 

treatment was based on a protected characteristic such as her national origin”). 

h. Count VIII is DISMISSED without prejudice because the Plaintiff failed to 

allege sufficient information about the Contract—including what provision was 

breached and whether the employment relationship was at-will—such that this 

Court could find that the Plaintiff stated a plausible breach of contract claim. 

2. By October 22, 2020, the Defendant shall produce to the Plaintiff either (1) a copy of 

its employment agreement with the Plaintiff or (2) a verified notice attesting that it has 

no record of any such agreement. 

3. By October 30, 2020, the Plaintiff shall file an Amended Complaint. 

4. Failure to comply with this Order may result in sanctions. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 15th day of October 2020. 

__________________________________ 

ROY K. ALTMAN 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

cc: counsel of record

Case 1:20-cv-21927-RKA Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/18/2020 Page 3 of 3