FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 23, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 15 14 5 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 0- cv -2 02 44 -PAS JAM ES FRANCOIS, Pla in ti ff-Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us MIAM I DADE COUNTY , PORT OF MIAMI , Defen dant -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Jun e 2 3, 2 01 1)

Befo re HULL, PRYOR an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Ja m es Fran co is ap pe al s the di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t i n fav orof h is form er em

pl oyer, th e Mi am i Dad e Co un ty Portof M ia m i (M ia m i), i n hi s emplo ym en t d is cri m in at io n s ui t u nd er Tit le VII of th e Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act o f 19 64 , 42 U.S.C. § 2 00 0e -2 (a), an d t he Flo rid a Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act (F CRA), § 76 0.0 7, Fl a. St at . Fran co is rai se s two i ss ue s o n app eal , whi chwe ad dr es s i n turn. I. Fran co is fir starg ue s the di st ric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n b y de nyin g h is m ot io n t o a m en d h is co m pl ai ntto in cl ud e a caus e o f act io n fo r ret al ia ti on . Even th ou gh he fil edhi s m ot io n 5 2 d ay s af te r th e d ead li ne to am en d p le ad in gs as s etby th e sc he du li ng ord er, h e as se rts th e co urt erredby den y in g h is m ot io n b efo re the de ad li ne forfil in g h is rep ly to M ia m i’s re sp on se . 1 Inord er t o a m en d apl ead in g a fte r a co urt-i m po se d d ead li ne , a pa rty m us t sh ow g oo d c au se pu rs ua ntto Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 1 6( b) . So sa v. Air pr in t S ys ., Inc . , 13 3 F .3d14 17 , 14 19 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ). A part y m ay no t s ho w go odcau se forfai li ng to am en d h is co m pl ai ntwithi n t he de ad li ne setby the co urt’s s ch edul in g o rd er wh ere h e fai ls to actdi li ge nt ly in p ur su in g c la im s. Id .

We reviewa district cour t’s decision to enforce its pre trial order for a n abuse of 1 discretion. See Sosa v . Airprint Sys., Inc. , 133 F.3d 1417, 1418 ( 11th Cir. 1998). 2W e are wil li ng to ass um e, ar gu en do , th atFran co is ha s p res erv edhi s arg um en t tha t the di st ric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n b y all eg ed ly deny in g h is m ot io n p rem atur el y . Howev er, ev enif we fu rth er as su m e th e co urt ru le d b efo re th e ti m e fo r fi li ng a rep ly hadex pi red , Fran co is st il l h as no t s ho wn the de ni al of le av e to am en d c on st itut edanab us e o f di sc ret io n. Franc oi s d idno t ac t d il ig en tl y in pu rs ui ng hi s cl ai m

of n at io na l o rig in di sc riminat io n. Ev enif g iv enm or e ti m e to res po nd , he wo ul d h av e b eenha rdpre ss edto sh ow g oo d c au se forfai li ng to m eet th e d ead li ne to am en d p le ad in gs . Se e S os a , 13 3 F .3dat 1 41 9. Ad di ti on al ly, Fran co is do es no t s ho w th e al le ge d e rro r was an yth in g o th er tha n h arm le ss be cau se he do es no t d em on st rat e h ow i t af fect edhi s s ub st an ti al rig ht s. Golds mith v. Bag byElev at or

Co ., Inc . , 51 3 F .3d12 61 , 12 76 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). Thu s, we co nc lu de th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n b y de nyin g F ran co is ’ m ot io n t o a m en d h is co m pl ai nt . II. Seco nd , Fran co is arg ue s the co urt s ho ul d n otha ve grant edsu m m ary jud gm en t o n h is cla im

of n at io na l o rig in di sc riminat io n. Fra nc oi s co nt en ds th at ev enth ou gh hi s Equa l Em pl oym en t Op po rtu ni ty Comm is si on (EEOC) ch arg e d id

3no t i nc lu de su cha cl ai m , he f ul fil le d t he pu rp os es of e xh au st io n b y in cl ud in g t he cl ai m inhi s EEOC i nt ak e que st io nn ai re wh ic h p utMi am i o n n ot ic e o f th is cla im . 2 Inord er t o fi le a jud ic ia l co m pl ai ntun de r Tit le VII, a pl ai nt iff m us t fi rs t adm in is tra ti ve ly exh au stan y cla im s b y

fil in g ach arg e wit h t he EEOC. 42 U.S.C . § 2 00 0e -5 (e); Vas on v. Cit y o f Mo nt go mer y, Ala . , 24 0 F .3d90 5, 9 07 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). “ [T]he sc op e o f [a] judi ci al co m pl ai ntis li m it edto th e sc op e o f th e EEOC in ve st ig at io n wh ic h c anreas on ab ly be ex pe ct edto gro w ou t o f th e ch ar ge of di sc riminat io n.” Sa nc he

z v. Sta nd ar d Br an ds , Inc . , 43 1 F .2d45 5, 4 66 (5t h C ir. 19 70 ) (quo ta ti on s o m it te d a ndem ph as is ad de d) . The law i s cl ear t ha t a c ha rg e m us t b e v eri fie d - i.e. , writte n u nd er o ath o r affi rm at io n - i n o rd er t o s up po rt ava li d ju di ci al su it . 42 U.S.C. § 2 00 0e -5 (b ); Vas on , 24 0 F .3dat 9 07 . Add it io na ll y , “ ch arg es sh ou ldco nt ai n, am on g o th er th in gs , ‘ [a] clea r an d c on ci se st at em en t o f th e fac ts , in cl ud in g p ert in en t d at es , co ns ti tu ti ng th e al le ge d u nl awfu l em pl oym en t p ract ic es .’ ” Alex an de r v. Fu lt on Cn ty, Ga. , 20 7 F .3d13 03 , 13 32 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ) ( qu ot in g 29 C.F.R. § 1 60 1.1 2( a)(3 )), ov erru le d o n o th er gr ou nd s b y Ma nder s v. Le e , 33 8 F .3d13 04 , 13 28 n. 5 2 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) ( en ba nc ). We review de novo a district cour t’s grant of summar

y judgme nt. Vason v. City of 2 Montgomery

, Ala. , 240 F.3d 905, 906 ( 11th Cir. 2001). 4Tho ug h we h av e n ev er d ire ct ly addres se d t he effe ctof a n i nt ak e

qu es ti on na ire forex haus ti on pu rp os es , we hav e co ns id eredth e in te rrel at io ns hi p be twee n an EEOC ch arg e an d an i nt ak e que st io nn ai re s ev eral ti m es when as se ss in g wh ethe r a ch arg e h as be enti m el y fil ed . In W

ilker so n v . Gri nn el l Co rp or at io n we he ldanin ta ke qu es ti on na ire co ul d b e co ns id ereda ch arg e fo r th e pu rp os e o f sa ti sf

y in g t he st atut e o f li mit at io ns wher e: th e que st io nn ai re was ve rif ie d; th e que st io nn ai re co nt ai ne d t he ba si c in fo rm at io n re qu ire d b y a ch arg e; an d t he form ’s lan gu ag e co ul d h av e b eenin te rp ret edto rep res en t a c ha rg e. 27 0 F.3 d 1 31 4, 1 32 0- 21 (11 thCir . 20 01 ). Thi s i s n otth e g en eral rul e, ho wev er. Inon e cas e, we st at edth at , “ as a ge ne ral m at te r anin ta ke qu es ti on na ire is no t in te nd edto fun ct io n a s a c ha rg e.” Pij ne nb ur

g v . W es t Geo rg ia Heal th Sys., In c. , 25 5 F .3d13 04 , 13 05 (11 thCir . 20 01 ) (em

ph as is ad de d) . There fo re, we h el d t he pl ai nt iff’s un ve rif ie d i nt ak e qu es ti on na ire di d n otsat is fy Tit le VII’s ti m el y

fil in g re qu ire m en t, as itdi d n ot no ti fy he r em pl oyer of h er cl ai m

or i ni ti at e th e EEOC in ve st ig at io n. Id . at 1 30 6. Ina se co ndcas e, we si m il arl y he lda pl ai nt iff’s in take qu es ti on na ire , whi chwas fil edalo ng with a n a ffi da vi t, d idno t s at is fy th e requi rem en ts of ati m el y ch arg e. Bos t v. Fed. Expr es s C

or p. , 37 2 F .3d12 33 , 12 41 (11 thCir . 20 04 ). Ther e, aft er co ns id eri ng th e law setforth in W ilker so n , we no te d t he cir cu m st an ces di d n ot 5supp ort a c on cl us io n t ha t the qu es ti on na ire sat is fie d t he ti m el y fil in g re qu ire m en t, be cau se : the pl ai nt iff

cle arl y un de rs to odth e in take qu es ti on na ire was n ota ch arg e be cau se he lat er fi le d ati m el y ch arg e; th e EEOC di d n otin it ia te it s i nv es ti ga ti on un ti l af te r th e p la in ti ff fi le d h is ch arg e; an d t he qu es ti on na ire form it se lf d idno t su gg es t i t was a ch arg e. Id . W it ho utde fin it iv el y

de ci di ng whet he r anEEOC in take qu es ti on na ire m ay ev er b e co ns id eredwhen de te rm in in g wh ethe r a p la in ti ff’s Tit le VII or FCRA cl ai m ha s b eenex haus te d, we h ol d t he di st ric t co urt co rrec tl y gra nt edsu m

m ary jud gm en t i n t hi s ca se . Firs t, i f on ly the EEOC cha rg e it se lf s ho ul d h av e b een co ns id ered , Fran co is fai le d t o a dm in is tra ti ve ly exh au sthi s n at io na l o rig in di sc riminat io n c la im

be cau se he di d n otch eckth e b ox forna ti on al ori gi n, o r al le ge an y

fact s i n t he na rrat iv e se ct io n t ha t co ul d b e co ns tru edto rai se su cha cl ai m of d is cri m in at io n. Seco nd , eve n i f anin ta ke qu es ti on na ire canbe tak enin to acco un t und er cert ai n c irc um st an ces , th e fac ts do no t s up po rt d oi ng so he re. As i n Pij ne nb ur g , un di sp ut edev id en ce s ho wedFran co is ’s in ta ke qu es ti on na ire was n otve rif ie d, an d th e fo rm lan gu ag e d idno t i nd ic at e itwou ldbe co ns id ereda ch arg e whe n a pl ai nt iff als o fi le d ati m el y

ch arg e, as Fran co is di d. Fu rth erm or e, th e fac t Fr an co is

6fil edanactua l t im el y ch arg e su gg es ts he di d n otin te ndhi s i nt ak e que st io nn ai re t o fu nc ti on as ach arg e. Se e Bos t , 37 2 F .3dat 1 24 1. Fi na ll y , no ne of t he ev id en ce d em on strat edMi am i was on no ti ce o f th e na ti on al ori gi n c la im . Mor eo ve r, th e EEOC di d n otin ve st ig at e th e n at io na l o rig in di sc riminat io n c la im . Thu s, the di st ric t co urt d idno t err whe n i t co nc lu de d Fran co is di d n otful fil l the pu rp os es of e xh au st io n. Se e Ki lg o v . Bowma n T ra ns p., In c. , 78 9 F .2d85 9, 8 77 (11 th Cir . 19 86 ) (n ot in g t he fil in g o f anEEOC cha rg e se rv es two pu rp os es : t o p utth e d efen da nton no ti ce o f th e cl ai m , andto gi ve th e EEOC an o pp ortu ni ty to s et tl e th e g rie vanc e). AFFIRMED.

7