LENDER ANN HAMILTON,

Appellant,

v.

PILGRIM’S PRIDE 

CORPORATION,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-2436

_____________________________/

Opinion filed March 3, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Madison County.

Andrew J. Decker, III, Judge.

Marie A. Mattox of Marie A. Mattox, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant.

John F. Dickinson and J. Ray Poole of Constangy, Brooks & Smith, LLP, 

Jacksonville, for Appellee.

BENTON, J.

Lender Ann Hamilton appeals the final order dismissing with prejudice—as 

having been discharged in bankruptcy—her employment discrimination claims 

against a former employer, Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation. We reverse and remand 

for further proceedings.
Ms. Hamilton’s complaint alleged that she was injured while working for 

Pilgrim’s Pride in 2003, had surgery in 2005 as a result of her job-related injuries, 

and was harassed upon her return to work because of light duty restrictions she was

then under. Her complaint alleged she was the victim of retaliation because she 

reported unlawful employment practices and made a (valid) claim for workers’ 

compensation benefits. She alleged she was the victim of discrimination based on 

race, as well as disability.1

 Her employment by Pilgrim’s Pride ended on July 17, 

2009, all agree. 

Pilgrim’s Pride argued below that Ms. Hamilton had “adequate notice that 

any claims she had against [Pilgrim’s Pride] – including her claims which arose on 

or before July 17, 2009 – would be discharged on the Effective Date if she failed to 

file a proof of claim or an administrative expense claim.” In its motion to dismiss,

Pilgrim’s Pride alleged it had voluntarily filed a petition for reorganization in 

bankruptcy under Chapter 11 on December 1, 2008; that, on or around April 15, 

2009, Pilgrim’s Pride had served on Ms. Hamilton a Notice of Deadline for Filing 

Proofs of Claim in the bankruptcy court, advising her of a filing deadline of June 1, 

2009 for acts or omissions that “arose before December 1, 2008”; and that Ms. 

1 Ms. Hamilton alleged that, after her 2005 surgery, her position with the 

employer changed because of her permanent light duty restrictions; her requests for 

reasonable accommodations and relocation to another position were denied; her 

salary was reduced; and she “received multiple forms of unfair discipline, 

including write ups and suspensions.” She does not allege specific dates with 

regard to these alleged acts.

2

 
Hamilton had filed no claim based on pre-petition acts or omissions prior to the 

June 1, 2009 deadline. On appeal, she concedes any claims that arose before the 

bankruptcy petition was filed have now been discharged. 

The bankruptcy court approved Pilgrim’s Pride’s reorganization plan2 on 

December 10, 2009, effective December 28, 2009. Under the order of the 

bankruptcy court approving the plan, the deadline for filing administrative expense 

claims against the bankrupt’s estate was February 26, 2010. The notice of entry of 

an order confirming the reorganization plan3 so stated and also said: if “you are 

required to file an Administrative Expense Request pursuant to Section 2.1(a) of 

the Plan and fail to do so by February 26, 2010, you will be forever barred, 

estopped, and enjoined from asserting such Administrative Expense Claim” and 

the “Reorganized Debtors will be forever discharged from any and all indebtedness 

or liability with respect to such Administrative Expense Claim.” Ms. Hamilton 

does not dispute that she did not file a claim or request for payment prior to 

February 26, 2010.

2 The reorganization plan provides, in part, that the “holder of an 

Administrative Expense Claim, other than . . . a liability incurred and payable in 

the ordinary course of business by a Debtor (and not past due), . . . must file with 

the Bankruptcy Court and serve on the Debtors . . . notice of such Administrative 

Expense Claim on or prior to the Administrative Expense Claim Bar Date” and that 

“[f]ailure to file and serve such notice timely and properly shall result in the 

Administrative Expense Claim being forever barred and discharged.” (Emphasis 

supplied.)

3 Whether Ms. Hamilton received this notice was not clear from the record. 

3

 
Pilgrim’s Pride argued to the trial judge that, because she “never filed a 

proof of claim or administrative expense claim with the Bankruptcy Court,” all her 

claims, including those that arose after Pilgrim’s Pride filed for bankruptcy, were 

discharged. In granting the motion to dismiss, the trial court observed that much of 

the putative, discriminatory conduct complained of occurred before the bankruptcy 

petition was filed, and opined that the reorganization plan as confirmed by the 

bankruptcy court would preclude relief on administrative expense claims relating 

to post-petition conduct.

Ms. Hamilton’s termination occurred after the June 1, 2009 deadline for 

filing proof of a pre-petition claim, but prior to the bankruptcy court’s confirmation 

of the reorganization plan. Like her other employment discrimination allegations

concerning the same post-petition period, her allegation of wrongful termination 

meets the bankruptcy code’s definition of administrative expense claim4 and 

would, as the trial court suggested, have been discharged under the reorganization

plan, the order of the bankruptcy court confirming the plan, and the notice of the 

administrative expenses bar date, except that each of these documents contained 

the same, important exception.

They all “carved out an exception from the request-for-payment filing 

requirement for [administrative expense claims constituting] ‘[l]iabilities incurred 

4 See 11 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(A) (2012).

4

 
in the ordinary course of business by’” Pilgrim’s Pride. See Sanchez v. Nw.

Airlines, Inc., 659 F.3d 671, 678 (8th Cir. 2011) (concluding “Sanchez’s ADA 

claim was the ordinary course indebtedness” so that Sanchez “did not have to file a 

request for payment by the administrative expenses deadline at any time”). See 

also Reading Co. v. Brown, 391 U.S. 471, 485 (1968) (holding that “damages 

resulting from the negligence of a receiver acting within the scope of his authority 

as receiver give rise to ‘actual and necessary costs’ of a Chapter XI arrangement”);

In re Eagle-Picher Indus., Inc., 447 F.3d 461, 465-66 (6th Cir. 2006) (stating that 

“‘liabilities incurred in the ordinary course of business by any of the Debtors in 

Possession’” included claims for patent infringement, as well as tort and contract 

claims, stemming from post-petition sales of the debtor’s products to third parties).

As a matter of law, Ms. Hamilton’s employment discrimination claims arose “‘in 

the ordinary course of business.’” Sanchez, 659 F.3d at 678.

Ms. Hamilton’s claims arising subsequent to December 1, 2008, were not 

subject to either the initial June 1, 2009 deadline for filing pre-petition claims or,

because they arose in the ordinary course of business, the February 26, 2010 

deadline for filing administrative expense claims based on post-petition conduct. 

Dismissal of such claims in the present case was therefore error. On remand, she

should be afforded the opportunity to file an amended complaint setting out only5

5 Ms. Hamilton’s counsel conceded at oral argument that some of her claims 

5

 
those claims that arose after December 1, 2008. In sum, Pilgrim’s Pride’s 

reorganization in bankruptcy does not preclude Ms. Hamilton’s litigating in state 

court claims based on acts or omissions alleged to have occurred after December 1, 

2008.

Reversed and remanded.

WETHERELL and SWANSON, JJ., CONCUR.

accrued prior to December 1, 2008. It cannot be determined from the record on 

appeal, however, which claims accrued prior to the filing of the bankruptcy 

petition and would be discharged based on Ms. Hamilton’s failure to file a claim 

with the bankruptcy court prior to June 1, 2009. 

6