FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT JULY 20, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 14588 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 3 - 0 0 6 1 4 - C V- T - 1 7 MAP P A T R I C I A L Y N N F R Y , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s H I L L S B O R O U G H C O U N T Y S C H O O L B O A R D , F L O R I D A , L I Z E T T E R A I G A L E X A N D E R , J O Y C E M I L E S , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju l y 20, 2006) B efo re T JO F L A T , B IR C H an d B A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

P a tr i c i aL y nn F ry appe a l s pr o s e the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l s of he rnum e r ous pl ea di ng s a nd i t s gra ntof sum m ary j ud gm entt o the i nd i vi du al defe nd ant s nam ed in F ry ’s co m p lain t, L izette R aig A lex an d eran d Jo yc e M il es , em p lo ye es o f F ry ’s form erem pl oyer , the S choo l B oard of H i l l sborou gh C ou nty, F l ori da (the “ B oard”), In her pro se c i vi l ri gh t s a ct i on fi l ed pu rs uantt o 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 98 3, F ryal l eged d is c r im in a tio n a n d r e ta lia tio n b a s e d o n th e e x e r c is e o f h e rF ir s t A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts . T he di stri ctcourtconcl ud ed thatA l exander and M i l es w er e e nt i t l ed t o q ual i fi ed i m m u n i ty . C o n c l u d i n g th a tth e r e i s n o r e v e r s i b l e e rr o r , w e A F F I R M. I . B AC KG RO UN D F ry , as c hool ps y c hol ogi s tby oc c upa t i on, f i l e d ac om pl a i nton 3 A pr i l 2003 a ga i ns tthe B oa r d a nd B oa r d e m pl oy e e s A l e xa nde ra nd M i l e s , c l a i m i ng di sc ri m i nat i on and ret al i at i on un der the A m er i ca ns w i th D i sabi l i t i es A ct(“ A D A ”) of 1990, 42 U . S . C . § 12101 e ts e q. , a nd the R e habi l i t a t i on A c tof 1973 ( “ R A ” ) , 29 U . S . C . § 7 91 etse q. F ryal l eged, i nt eral i a, that : (1) i n Jun e 200 1, A l exander r e a s s ig n e d h e rto O a k P a rk E le m e n ta ry S c h o o l ( “O a k P a rk ” ) ; ( 2 ) F ry s e n t e - m a ils t o s e ve r a l i ndi vi dua l s r e que s t i ng a ddi t i ona l E xc e pt i ona l S tude ntE duc a t i on (“ E S E ”) supp ortfor O ak P ark; (3) a ft erthe e- m ai l com m un i ca t i on , F ryw as r e pr i m a nde d by M i l e s , the pr i nc i pa l , f or“ t e l l i ng O a k P a rk bus i ne s s ” ; a nd ( 4) on 20 M a r c h 2002, F ry w a s i nf orm e d tha the rc ontr a c tw oul d notbe r e ne w e d. R 1- 1 a t7,3

12, 20. F ry f

ur the ra l l e ge d tha t , thr oughouthe re m pl oy m e ntw i th the B oa r d, s he vo i ce d h erconcerns thatthe B oard w as no tcom pl yi ng w i th the procedural r e qui r e m e nt s of

the I ndi vi dua l s w i th D i s abi l i t i e s E duc a t i on A c t( “ I D E A ” ) , 20 U . S . C . § 1 40 0 etse q. , and the R A w i th regar d t o i t s s tud ent s, bu tshe w as i ns truc t e d t o i gnor e the pr obl e m s . I n he rpr a y e rf orr e l i e f , F ry s ought r e i ns t a t e m e nt , c om pe ns a t ory da m a ge s , a nd i nj unc t i ve r e l i e f tha tthe de f

e nda nt s be p r o h ib ite d f

r o m v io la tin g h e rr ig h ts u n d e rth e F ir s t A m e n d m e n t. T h e B o a r d a lo n e a n s w e r e d th e c o m p la in t. T h e d e f e n d a n ts s im u lta n e o u s ly f i l e d apa r t i a l m ot i on t o di s m i s s the c om pl a i nt , a r gui ng, i nt e ra l i a , tha t : ( 1) the A D A and R A cl ai m s a gai nstA l exander and M i l es i n thei r i nd i vi du al capaci t i es s h o u l d b e d i s mi s s e d ; a n d ( 2 ) t o th e e x t e n tth a tFry r a i s e d aFi r s tA me n d me n tc l a i m, her c om pl ai ntdi d n otal l ege thatshe e ng aged i n p rot ec t ed spee ch or otherw i se w as subj ec t ed t o an adv er se em pl oym entac t i on base d o n h erengagem enti n p rot ec t ed spee ch. F ryre spon ded, cl ar i fy i ng , i nt eral i a, thatshe w as att em pt i ng t o rai se a F i r s tA m e ndm e ntc l a i m . S he a l l e ge d tha tthe de f e nda nt s r e t a l i a t e d a ga i ns the rby tra nsfe rr i ng her t o O ak P ark for advo ca t i ng for proper ut i l i za t i on of E S E re source s and for the ri gh t s of peopl e w i th d i sabi l i t i es , w hi ch w er e m att er s of pub l i c c on ce rn th a t w e r e o u tw e ig h e d b y th e B o a r d ’s in te r e s t in p r e v e n tin g h e rs p e e c h . F ry th en fi l ed a m o t i o n t o d i sq u al i fy th e B o ard ’ s co u n sel , T h o m as G o n zal es,4

ba s e d on: ( 1) ac onf

l i c tof i nt e r e s t , a s F ry ha d c om m uni c a t e d w i th G onz a l e s pr i or t o he rc om pl a i ntbe i ng f i l e d; ( 2) G onz a l e z ’ s f

a i l ur e t o c om m uni c a t e t o F ry the sc op e of hi s r epre se nt at i on of the B oard; (3) G on za l ez ’ s i napp ropri at e behavi or; and (4) hi s pot ent i al t o b e asubst ant i al w i tness i n the ca se . D uri ng an evi dent i ary h e a r in g o n th e is s u e , G o n z a le z te s tif ie d th a t, in h is e a r lie rc o n v e r s a tio n w ith F ry , it w a s c l e a rtha the a nd F ry w e r e on oppos i t e s i de s a nd tha the ne ve rt ol d F ry tha the r e pr e s e nt e d he r . G onz a l e s a l s o s t a t e d tha the di d note xpe c tt o be aw i tne s s i n the ca se . T he courtdeni ed the m ot i on , no t i ng thatF ry ’ s bel i ef thatG on za l ez w as an i nt e gr a l pa r tof

the de c i s i on nott o r e ne w he rc ontr a c tw a s note nough, w i thout e v id e n c e to s u p p o r t it, to r e q u ir e h im to w ith d r a w . O n 3 J u l y 2 0 0 3 , th e d i s tr i c tc o u r td i s mi s s e d Fry ’ s A D A a n d RA c l a i ms a ga i ns tA l e xa nde ra nd M i l e s a s i ndi vi dua l s , butf ound tha the rc om pl a i nt suff i ci ent l y s t at ed a F i rs tA m endm entcl ai m , orderi ng thatthe defendant s had t en days t o answ erthe com pl ai nt . O n 1 4 Jul y 200 3, the B oard al on e f i l ed an am ended answ er , bu t , on 24 Jul y 200 3, al l three defe nd ant s f i l ed a s ec on d am ended answ er , no t i ng thatw hi l e i tw as un cl ea r f rom the com pl ai ntw hether F ryi nt ended t o ass ert a F i rs tA m endm entcl ai m agai nstA l exander and M i l es as i nd i vi du al s, they w er e resp o n d i n g t o th e co m p l ai n to u to f an ab u n d an ce o f cau t i o n , an d rai sed th e d efen se o f q u a lif ie d im m u n ity . O n th a t s a m e d a y , F ry f ile d a“P a r tia l M o tio n f

o rD e f a u lt5

J udgm e ntD ue t o D e f

e nda nt s ’ F a i l ur e t o C om pl y w i th aC our tO r de r , ” e xpl a i ni ng that , on 23 Jul y 200 3, she l ea rned thatA l exander and M i l es had n otfi l ed an answ er a nd c a l l e d the de f

e nda nt s ’ c ouns e l , T hom ps on, S i z e m or e , & G onz a l e z ( “ the F irm ”) , w h ich in fo rm ed h er , w ith “h o stil ity a n d co n tem p t, ” th at th e d istrict co u rt’s o r d e rd id n o t r e q u ir e A le x a n d e ra n d M ile s to r e s p o n d . R 2 - 2 4 a t u n n u m b e r e d 1 , 4 . S h e a r g u e d th a t th e c o u r t s h o u ld a w a r d ad e f a u lt ju d g m e n t in h e rf

a v o rd u e to A l e xa nde ra nd M i l e s ’ s f a i l ur e t o a ns w e rhe rc om pl a i nta nd a s ke d f ors a nc t i ons a g a in s t th e F irm f

o rw illf u l a n d n e g lig e n t c o n d u c t. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t s u m m a r ily de ni e d the m ot i on. F ryal so fi l ed m ot i on s f or a pre l i m i naryi nj un ct i on and a t em po ra ry re stra i ni ng order ( “ T R O ”) , se eki ng t o p re ventthe defendant s f rom re vo ki ng her grou p h ea l th b enef

i t s a nd re prod uci ng confi dent i al i nform at i on , such as soci al se curi ty num bers , foun d i n F ry ’ s per sonn el fi l es . A ft era hea ri ng on the m ot i on s, at w hi ch F ryexpl ai ned h erre ce ntdi sc ov ery thatconfi dent i al re cords f rom O ak P ark h a d b e e n s u b p o e n a e d in ad if f e r e n t la w s u it a g a in s t as c h o o l d is tr ic t in G e o r g ia , a m agi stra t e j ud ge re com m ended d enyi ng the m ot i on s, fi nd i ng thatthey s ou gh tre l i ef f orc l a i m s s e pa r a t e f

r om thos e i n thi s l a w s ui t . T he di s tr i c tc our tthe n de ni e d the m ot i ons ove rF ry ’ s obj e c t i ons a nd de ni e d F ry ’ s l a t e rm ot i on t o a l t e rora m e nd the order. F ryl at erfi l ed an i nt er l ocut ory app ea l of the deni al of her m ot i on s f or a6

p r e lim in a ry in

ju n c tio n a n d T R O , w h ic h w e d is m is s e d f o rw a n t o f

p r o s e c u tio n . O n 15 J ul y 2004, F ry f

i l e d am ot i on t o a m e nd he rc om pl a i ntt o i nc l ude addi t i on al fa ct s thatt oo k p l ac e a ft erM ar ch 20 02 , w hen she fi l ed her ori gi nal c ha r ge w i th the E qua l E m pl oy m e ntO ppor tuni ty C om m i s s i on ( “ E E O C ” ) , a nd att ac hed (1) a copy of a s ec on d E E O C char ge, dat ed 19 M ar ch 20 04 , al l egi ng that the B oa r d r e t a l i a t e d a ga i ns the rby de ny i ng he rC O B R A he a l th c a r e be ne f i t s , a nd (2) ari gh tt o sue l ett er . S he cl ai m ed thatthe defendant s r et al i at ed agai nsther, be c a us e s he w a s al i t i ga nti n a nothe rA D A a nd R A c a s e i n G e or gi a , by i nt e r f e r i ng w i th he rhe a l th be ne f

i t s a nd pl a c i ng c onf

i de nt i a l i nf

orm a t i on abouts tude nt s a nd st af f i n h erpers on nel fi l e w i tho utno t i ce , i n v i ol at i on of st at e l aw . T he di stri ct c o u r td e n i e d th e mo t i o n , f i n d i n g th a t , t o th e e x t e n tth a tFry w a s a l l e g i n g th e s a me cl ai m s a s s he m ade i n h erm ot i on s f or a pre l i m i naryi nj un ct i on and T R O , such cl ai m s pre vi ou sl y had been consi dere d and deni ed, and, i n any event , F ryhad f a ile d to s h o w th a t th e n e w f a c ts o c c u rr e d a f

te rth e f ilin g o f h e ro r ig in a l c o m p la in t, and h ad fa i l ed t o exh austher a dm i ni stra t i ve re m edi es , un der the E m pl oyee R e t i r e m e ntI nc om e S e c ur i ty A c t( “ E R I S A ” ) , 29 U . S . C . § 1001 e ts e q. , r e ga r di ng the de ni a l of

he rhe a l th c a r e be ne f

i t s . F i na l l y , the c our tde t e rm i ne d tha t , t o the e x te n t th a t F ry a lle g e d c la im s o n b e h a lf o f th ir d p a r tie s , s h e la c k e d s ta n d in g . F ry a l s o f

i l e d am ot i on f

or“ di s c ove ry gui da nc e , ” a nd ahe a r i ng w a s he l d on7

the m ot i on. A tthe he a r i ng, F ry e xpl a i ne d tha ts he w a s ha vi ng tr oubl e de pos i ng w i tness es and thatshe w as hi nd er ed by confi dent i al i ty i ss ues f rom com pl et i ng her d is c o v e ry p r o c e s s , s in c e s h e w a n te d to d is c u s s s c h o o l r e c o r d s p e r ta in in g to c e r ta in s tude nt s . D ur i ng the he a r i ng, the m a gi s tr a t e j udge e xpl a i ne d the c onc e ptof s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t to F ry , s ta tin g th a t “th e b a s is f o r[ F e d e r a l R u le o f

C iv il P roce du re 56 ] i s thati f there ar e no d i sput ed i ss ues of f ac tand som eone’ s e nt i t l ed to ju d g m e n t a s am a tte ro f la w , th e y g e t it.” R 7 - 1 1 5 a t 2 7 - 2 8 . T h e m a g is tr a te j udge de ni e d F ry ’ s m ot i on, e xc e ptf orhe rr e que s tt o us e c onf i de nt i a l s tude nt r e c or ds dur i ng de pos i t i ons . F ry the n f i l e d a n e m e r ge nc y w r i tof m a nda m us , a s ki ng the c our tt o gi ve he ra ddi t i ona l t i m e f ordi s c ove ry , a m e nd a nd/ orc l a r i f y s e ve r a l of i t s or de r s , c l a r i f

y the s t a tus of

he rF i r s tA m e ndm e ntc l a i m s , a dvi s e he rw he the rs he had p erm i ss i on t o fi l e i t em s und erse al , and g i ve her other gui dance. T he court s u m m a r ily d e n ie d th e m o tio n . F o llo w in g d is c o v e ry , e a c h d e f e n d a n t f ile d am o tio n f

o rs u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. In supp ortof thei r m ot i on s, the defendant s f i l ed se vera l depo si t i on s w i th att ac hed e x h i b i t s , a f

f i d a v i t s , a n d c a s e l a w. I n h e rd e p o s i t i o n , F ry t e s t i f i e d th a ts h e h a d two m a s t e r s de gr e e s i n s pe c i a l e duc a t i on a nd e duc a t i ona l ps y c hol ogy a nd w a s di s abl e d. S he s t a t e d tha tA l e xa nde rhi r e d he ra s as c hool ps y c hol ogi s tf orthe 2000- 2001 s c h o o l y e a ra t L o p e z E le m e n ta ry S c h o o l ( “L o p e z ” ) a n d th a t p a r t o f h e rjo b w a s to8

p e r f o rm e v a lu a tio n s a n d r e - e v a lu a tio n s o n s tu d e n ts w h o w e r e r e f e rr e d to h e ra n d to part i ci pat e i n the pre-r ef erra l proces s. In A pri l 20 01 , her i m m edi at e s up ervi sor, M i chae l C um m i ng s, t ol d h erthathe and L ei l a L ever ett , L op ez ’ s pri nci pal , had d e c id e d to e x p lo r e o th e rp o s itio n s f o rh e rb e c a u s e L o p e z w a s p o te n tia lly in tr o u b le f o rp r o c e d u r a l v io la tio n s r e g a r d in g th e s c h o o ls ’s u s e o f p s y c h o lo g ic a l s e rv ic e s . F ry e xpl a i ne d tha ts he ha d que s t i one d w hy the s c hool w a s a l l ow i ng the psyc ho l og i st s t o eval uat e the sa m e c hi l dren m ul t i pl e t i m es for thei r pot ent i al pl a c e m e nti n the gi f

t e d pr ogr a m . I n r e s pons e t o he rque s t i ons , F ry s t a t e d tha ts he w as t ol d t o “ l ayl ow . ” R . E xh . 1-12 4 (F ryD eposi t i on ), at17 9. F ryfurther t es t i fi ed th a t L e v e r e tt to ld h e rth a t s h e w a s b e in g tr a n s f e rr e d b e c a u s e F ry h a d ap e r s o n a lity c o n f lic t w ith a n o th e rL o p e z e m p lo y e e , a n d , a lth o u g h s h e w a s ag o o d p s y c h o lo g is t, L e v e r e tt d id n o t h a v e ac h o ic e . F ry w as l at er tran sferred t o O ak P ark . S h e t est i fi ed th at , o n m an y o ccasi o n s, s he s poke up aboutc hi l dr e n w hom s he be l i e ve d w e r e be i ng m i s tr e a t e d a tO a k P a rk, i nc l udi ng one c hi l d w hom M i l e s , O a k P a rk’ s pr i nc i pa l , l e f ti n ac l a s s r oom f

or me n t a l l y h a n d i c ap p e d c h i l d r e n , w h e n s h e s h o u l d h a v e a tt e mp t e d t o “ ma i n s tr e a m” the c hi l d. I d. a t321. A c c or di ng t o F ry , s he br oughtthe s e i s s ue s t o the a tt e nt i on of E dw a r d M c D ow e l l , w ho r e s ponde d tha tthe i s s ue s w oul d be t a ke n c a r e of i m m e di a t e l y a nd a s ke d he rt o t e l l hi m abouta ny othe ri s s ue s tha ta r os e i n the9

f u tu r e . L a te r , s h e le a rn e d th a t h e rc o m m e n ts w e r e in te rp r e te d a s “[ F ry is ] g o in g to g e t th e s c h o o l d is tr ic t s u e d ,” a n d s u s p e c te d th a t th e lo s s o f h e rjo b h a d to d o w ith her c om m ent s. Id. at32 4. F ryst at ed that , du ri ng the 20 01 -200 2 schoo l ye arat O ak P ark, she c om pl et ed ov erei gh ty- se ven cas es w hi ch re qu i re d a “ w ri t e- up , ” a s w el l as “ m any” eval uat i on s a nd t es t i ng of stud ent s. Id. at32 9-31 , 33 4. F rydeni ed havi ng confl i ct s w i th sever al em pl oyee s. F i nal l y, F ryst at ed thatshe r ec ei ved an e va l ua t i on on 14 M a r c h 2002, a dvi s i ng he rtha t , ba s e d on M i l e s ’ s obs e rva t i ons of F ry ’ s pe r f

orm a nc e a nd f

e e dba c k f

r om F ry ’ s c ounty - l e ve l s upe rvi s or , M i l e s w a s not r e n o m in a tin g F ry f

o rth e 2 0 0 2 - 2 0 0 3 s c h o o l y e a r . A s e x h ib it s to F ry ’s d ep o siti o n , th e d ef en d an ts attach ed a c o p y o f F ry ’s spri ng eval uat i on , dat ed 11 F ebruary20 02 , i n w hi ch M i l es no t ed, i nt eral i a, that F ryneeded i m prov em enti n u si ng t i m e e ff i ci ent l y, fol l ow i ng st andards of ethi ca l c onduc t , s e e ki ng a nd us i ng c ol l abor a t i ve c ons ul t a t i on w i th c ol l e a gue s a nd a dm i ni s tr a t or s , a nd m a i nt a i ni ng f l e xi bi l i ty i n pe r f

orm a nc e of

r e s pons i bi l i t i e s ; a nd w a s uns a t i s f

a c t ory i n w orki ng w i th am i ni m a l a m ountof s upe rvi s i on, de m ons tr a t i ng s ki l l s i n m e nt a l he a l th c ouns e l i ng, a nd s pe a ki ng pos i t i ve l y a nd c ons truc t i ve l y w i th s tude nt s . A l s o a tt a c he d w a s al e tt e ra ddr e s s e d t o F ry f r om M i l e s , da t e d 14 M a r c h 2002, s um m a r i z i ng the r e a s ons f orF ry ’ s s pr i ng e va l ua t i on, in clu d in g th at: (1 ) F ry h ad an ex ce ss iv e n u m b ero f late a rr iv als to sc h o o l; (2 ) F ry ’s10

com m ent s a nd ac t i on s i nd i ca t ed an un w i l l i ng ness t o res pectand con si der other po i nt s of vi ew ; (3) on severa l occa si on s, F ryabando ned h erre spon si bi l i t i es atO ak P ark; (4) F ryhad m ade di spar agi ng re m arks abou tthe stud entpo pu l at i on thathad m a de M i l e s unc om f

or t abl e ; a nd ( 5) F ry ha d notc om pl e t e d ar e a s onabl e num be rof eval uat i on s duri ng the course of the ye ar . In her deposi t i on , A l exander t es t i fi ed thatshe w as em pl oyed by the B oard as a departm ent al supervi sor f or the sc ho ol di stri ct ’ s psy chol og y program . S he st at ed th a t F ry w a s m o v e d to O a k P a rk b e c a u s e s h e w a s h a v in g in te r - p e r s o n a l is s u e s w ith th e s ta f f a t L o p e z , a n d th e s ta f

f e s s e n tia lly h a d th r e a te n e d to q u it if F ry r e tu rn e d . A l e xa nde r ’ s de c i s i on t o s uppor tF ry ’ s non- r e nom i na t i on a tO a k P a rk w a s ba s e d on m a ny f a c t or s , i nc l udi ng tha tF ry m a de the s t a f f unc om f or t abl e by r e f

e rr i ng t o the chi l dren as “ A D D , cr ac k b abi es and d rug exp osed” a nd a handi capp ed cond i t i on as a “ gi m p. ” R . E xh . 1-12 2 (A l exander D eposi t i on ) a t10 8-09 . S he no t ed thatF ry c o u ld n o t g e t a lo n g w ith o th e r s a n d r e q u ir e d “a n e n o rm o u s a m o u n t o f s u p e rv is io n ,” a nd tha ts he ha d “ ne ve rs e e n as i tua t i on tha tr e qui r e d tha tm uc h a dm i ni s tr a t i ve supp orto[f] a psy chol og i st . ” I d. at12 2-23 . A l exander expl ai ned that , w hi l e there i s notam i ni m um num be rof e va l ua t i ons r e qui r e d, aps y c hol ogi s tm us ta ddr e s s the eval uat i on needs w i tho utthe as si st ance of anyone el se , bu t“ [t ] hatdi d n otoccur at O a k P a rk .” I d . a t 1 2 6 .11

M i l e s t e s t i f

i e d tha ts he w a s the pr i nc i pa l of O a k P a rk dur i ng the 2001- 2002 sc ho ol ye ar . S he expl ai ned thatpartof her deci si on no tt o renom i nat e F ryw as base d o n F ry ’ s i nt erpers on al ski l l s. S he st at ed thatshe m etw i th F ryse vera l t i m es t o t a l k t o he raboutw orki ng w i th the t e a m a nd i m pr ovi ng he rc a s e l oa d a nd i nt erpers on al ski l l s. M i l es al so t es t i fi ed thatF ryca m e i nt o w ork l at e e i gh t ee n tim e s w ith o u t ad o c to r ’s e x c u s e , a n d th a t, d u r in g o n e m e e tin g , F ry r e f u s e d to te s t a c hi l d, e ve n though the r e s tof the t e a m r e c om m e nde d tha tthe c hi l d w a s r e a dy f or testin g . A d d it io n ally, acc o rd in g to M il es , w h en a p ar en t d isag re ed w ith F ry ’s co m m en ts at a m ee ti n g , F ry left th e r o o m an d “d idn o t w an t t o h ea r th at p ar en t’ s po i ntof vi ew . ” R . E xh . 2-12 1 (M i l es D eposi t i on ) a t20 0. A ny t i m e thatF ryw as up se tabou tsom ethi ng , M i l es cont i nu ed, F ryw ou l d d ri ve t o h ersupervi sor’ s off i ce t o ask thatshe handl e the si tuat i on . O ne t i m e, ac cordi ng t o M i l es , F ry ’ s purse w as ta k e n , a n d F ry c a lle d th e c h ild r e n th ie v e s a n d th r e a te n e d to h a v e th e m a ll a rr e s te d . M i l e s f ur the re xpl a i ne d: [W ] h en ev er th ere w as a m eet i n g an d i td i d n ’ tseem t o b e g o i n g [F ry’ s] w a y . . . , e i the rs he w oul d l e a ve the m e e t i ng orhi ton the de s k or c ur s e m e outf

or- - f oras c he dul e , a nd I thoughttha tw a s be i ng in s u b o r d in a te . A n d w h e n [ F ry ] w a s a s k e d to d o s o m e te s tin g , if it w a s n’ tthe . . . s tude nttha ts he w a nt e d t o do i t , s he w oul d i gnor e the r e q u e s t . . . . I d. a t215- 16. I n he ra f f i da vi t , M i l e s s t a t e d tha ts he ne ve rr e pr i m a nde d F ry f or s e n d in g a n e m a il r e g a r d in g E S E s e rv ic e s ; th a t F ry h a d a t le a s t e ig h te e n la te a rr iv a ls12

t o schoo l , and she coul d n otexcuse F ry ’ s r epea t ed t ar di ness for r ea sons such as tr a f f i c ; tha tF ry ’ s a s s i gnm e ntt o O a k P a rk w a s notpuni t i ve ; a nd tha ts he di d not re t al i at e a gai nstF ryfor e xerc i si ng her F i rs tA m endm entri gh t s, bu tre com m ended thatF ry ’ s c on tra ctno tbe re new ed for the re as on s s etforth i n h erperf orm ance e v a lu a tio n . In supp ortof her m ot i on for s um m ary j ud gm ent , A l exander ar gu ed thatF ry fa i l ed t o p rove a F i rs tA m endm entvi ol at i on because F rydi d n otspea k o n a m att er of publ i c c onc e rn, he rs pe e c h w a s notas ubs t a nt i a l f a c t ori n he rt e rm i na t i on, a nd h e rc o n tr a c t w o u ld h a v e b e e n te rm in a te d e v e n in th e ab s e n c e o f h e ra lle g e d ly prot ec t ed spee ch. A l exander al so ar gu ed thatshe w as ent i t l ed t o q ual i fi ed i m m uni ty be c a us e F ry f a i l e d t o pr ove tha tac ons t i tut i ona l vi ol a t i on ha d oc c urr e d, a nd the l a w w a s notc l e a rtha tA l e xa nde rw oul d be s ubj e c t e d t o l i abi l i ty f or re t al i at ory di sc harge, si nce s he t erm i nat ed F ryfor per form ance i ss ues. M i l es fi l ed an e a r ly id e n tic a l m o tio n a n d m e m o r a n d u m . F ry req u est ed an en l arg em en to f t i m e t o resp o n d t o th e d efen d an t s’ m o t i o n s, i ndi c a t i ng, i nt e ra l i a , tha ts he ha d c om pl e t e d num e r ous di s c ove ry t a s ks , i nc l udi ng t aki ng t en depo si t i on s a nd m aki ng re cord re qu es t s, bu tneeded m ore t i m e t o revi ew the de f e nda nt ’ s e vi de nc e a nd c om pl e t e he row n di s c ove ry . O n 10 J une 2005, the di s tr i c tc our tgr a nt e d the m ot i on, or de r i ng tha tF ry ’ s r e s pons e be f i l e d by 27 J une13

2 0 0 5 . O n 2 7 Jun e 200 5, F ryfi l ed an em er gency m ot i on for a n add i t i on al enl ar gem entof t i m e t o res po nd , st at i ng thather c om pu t erhad cras hed, w hi ch c a us e d he rt o l os e num e r ous doc um e nt s , buts he ha d r e c e i ve d the r e m a i ni ng depo si t i on s a nd w as re ady t o res ca n h ersupp ort i ng do cum ent s a nd prepare her re spon se s. T he di stri ctcourtgrant ed the m ot i on , orderi ng thatF ry ’ s r es po nses w e r e d u e b y 5 Ju ly 2 0 0 5 , a n d th a t th e r e w o u ld b e n o f u r th e re x te n s io n s o f

tim e . O n 5 Jul y 200 5, F ryre spon ded t o the m ot i on s, ci t i ng t o the l egal st andard f ors um m a ry j udgm e nta nd a r gui ng tha tthe c om pl a i nt , a ns w e r s t o the i nt errogat ori es , depo si t i on s, af fi davi t s, and n um er ou s e xh i bi t s dem on stra t ed that A l ex an d er an d M i l es h ad ret al i at ed ag ai n sth er i n v i o l at i o n o f th e F i rst A m e ndm e nt . S pe c i f

i c a l l y , s he a r gue d, i nt e ra l i a , tha t , be c a us e A l e xa nde r ’ s a nd M i l e s ’ s a c t i ons vi ol a t e d the “ ba s i c s t a nda r d f orpubl i c of

f i c i a l s , ” the y w e r e not e n title d to q u a lif

ie d im m u n ity . F ry a ls o f ile d as ta te m e n t o f

m a te r ia l f

a c ts a s to w h i ch a g en u i n e i ssu e ex i st ed an d su b m i tt ed n u m ero u s d o cu m en t ary m at eri al s, i ncl ud i ng depo si t i on s, exhi bi t s, ph ot og raph s, m edi ca l re cords, and cop i es of ca se s th a t s h e b e lie v e d w e r e r e le v a n t. I n a n or de rda t e d 19 J ul y 2005, the di s tr i c tc our tf ound tha tA l e xa nde ra nd M i l es w er e e nt i t l ed t o q ual i fi ed i m m un i ty a nd grant ed thei r m ot i on s f or sum m ary14

j udgm e nt . F i r s t , the c ourtf ound tha t , t a ki ng F ry ’ s a l l e ga t i ons a s true f orthe purpos e s of

s um m a ry j udgm e nt , the a c t i ons t a ke n by A l e xa nde ra nd M i l e s c oul d be se en as a vi ol at i on of F ry ’ s F i rs tA m endm entri gh t s. H ow ever , the court de t e rm i ne d tha t , be c a us e the de f e nda nt s a s s e r t e d a n a de qua t e l a w f ul m ot i ve f

or F ry ’s d is c h a r g e , n a m e ly , h e rjo b p e r f o rm a n c e , ar e a s o n ab le p u b lic o f f ic ia l in th e ir pos i t i ons c oul d notha ve be e n c e r t a i n tha tthe i ra c t i ons w e r e unl a w f ul ba s e d on c le a r ly e s tab lis h e d la w . T h e c o u r t f o u n d th a t, e v e n a s s u m in g th a t th e d e f e n d a n ts h a d ad is c r im in a to ry m o tiv e f o rd is c h a r g in g F ry , th e y s till w e r e e n title d to q u a lif ie d im m u n ity b e c a u s e a n a d e q u a te la w f u l m o tiv e a ls o w a s p r e s e n t. F ry f i l e d a n e m e r ge nc y m ot i on, pur s ua ntt o R ul e 59( e ) , t o a l t e rora m e nd the d i stri ctco u rt ’ s o rd er g ran t i n g su m m ary j u d g m en tas t o A l ex an d er an d M i l es, a r gui ng tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d by f oc us i ng on the a dve r s e a c t i on of he rnonr e nom i na t i on a nd f

a i l i ng t o a ddr e s s a l l of

the othe ra dve r s e a c t i ons by the de f e nda nt s , not i ng tha ts he ha d f i l e d as uppl e m e nt a l E E O C c ha r ge i n M a r c h 2004. S he c om pl a i ne d tha ts he w a s nota w a r e tha ts he w a s r e qui r e d t o f ul l y a r gue the m e r i t s of he rc a s e a tthe s um m a ry j udgm e nts t a ge . S he a r gue d tha t , be c a us e the r e c or d di d noti ndi s put abl y e s t abl i s h tha tthe r e w a s al a w f ul m ot i ve f

orhe rnonr e nom i na t i on, a nd the r e w a s age nui ne i s s ue of m a t e r i a l f

a c ta s t o w he the rhe rj ob p e r f o rm a n c e w a s la c k in g , th e d e f e n d a n ts w e r e n o t e n title d to q u a lif ie d im m u n ity .15

T he di stri ctcourtdeni ed the m ot i on , no t i ng thati tfoun d n othi ng i n the m ot i on that w o u ld r e q u ir e it to r e v e r s e its d e c is io n . O n ap p e a l, F ry r a is e s tw o is s u e s : ( 1 ) w h e th e rth e d is tr ic t c o u r t ab u s e d its di sc re t i on by denyi ng F ry ’ s num er ou s pro se pl ea di ng s, i ncl ud i ng her m ot i on s f or a de f a ul tj udgm e nta nd t o a l t e rora m e nd the s um m a ry j udgm e ntor de r ; a nd ( 2) w he the rthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n gr a nt i ng s um m a ry j udgm e ntt o A l e xa nde ra nd M i l e s , ba s e d on the i rqua l i f i e d i m m uni ty . B e c a us e w e di s m i s s e d F ry ’ s appe a l of the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s gr a ntof s um m a ry j udgm e ntt o the B oa r d f orw a ntof prosec ut i on , w e do n otaddres s thati ss ue. I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . T he D e ni a l of

F ry ’ s N um e r ous P r o S e P l e a di ngs F ry a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tabus e d i t s di s c r e t i on by “ r out i ne l y ” de ny i ng her m ot i on s f

or procedural cl ar i fi ca t i on s, a def aul tj ud gm ent , a pre l i m i nary in ju n c tio n , d is c o v e ry g u id a n c e , aw r it o f m a n d a m u s , a n d to a lte ro ra m e n d its s um m a ry j udgm e ntor de r , a nd by a s s um i ng tha ts he kne w w ha tw a s be i ng de ni e d, w hi ch, as a pro se party, she di d n ot . S he cont ends thatthe di stri ctcourt ’ s s tri ct com pl i ance w i th p roce du ra l rul es vi ol at ed i t s duty t o l i bera l l y c on strue her p le a d in g s . W e r e vi e w m os tof

the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l s of F ry ’ s pr e tr i a l m ot i ons f or16

a n abus e of

di s c r e t i on. S e e C l i f

f v. P a y c o G e n. A m . C r e di t s , I nc . , 363 F . 3d 1113, 1121 ( 11th C i r . 2004) ( r e vi e w i ng di s tr i c tc our t ’ s di s c ove ry rul i ngs ) ; M i t c he l l v. B r ow n & W i l l i a m s on T oba c c o C orp. , 294 F . 3d 1309, 1316 ( 11th C i r . 2002) ( r e v ie w in g d e n ia l o f

m o tio n f o rad e f a u lt ju d g m e n t) ; S ie rr aC lu b v . G a . P o w e rC o ., 18 0 F . 3d 13 09 , 13 10 (11th C i r. 19 99 ) ( per c uri am ) ( re vi ew i ng deni al of a prel i m i naryi nj un ct i on ); C am pb el l v. E m ory C l i ni c, 16 6 F . 3d 11 57 , 11 62 (11th C i r. 1999) ( r e vi e w i ng rul i ng on m ot i on t o a m e nd ac om pl a i nt ) ; D i s t . L odge N o. 166, I n te rn . A s s ’n o f

M a c h in is ts & A e r o s p a c e W o rk e r s , A F L - C I O v . T W A S e rv s ., I n c ., 73 1 F . 2d 71 1, 71 8 (11 th C i r. 19 84 ) ( re vi ew i ng rul i ng on w ri tof m andam us); Th o ma s v . Fa rmv i l l e M f g . Co . , 7 0 5 F. 2 d 1 3 0 7 , 1 3 0 7 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 1 9 8 3 ) ( p e rc u r i a m) (r evi ew i ng rul i ng on R ul e 59(e) m ot i on t o al t eror am end j ud gm ent ). F urtherm ore,

“ di stri ctcourt s e nj oy broad d i sc re t i on i n d ec i di ng ho w bestt o m anage the ca se s before them . ” C hu dasa m a v. M az da M ot or C orp. , 12 3 F . 3d 13 53 , 13 66 (11th C i r. 1997) . “ C our t s do a nd s houl d s how al e ni e nc y t o pr o s e l i t i ga nt s note nj oy e d by th o s e w ith th e b e n e f

it o f ale g a l e d u c a tio n . Y e t e v e n in th e c a s e o f p r o s e litig a n ts thi s l eni encydo es no tgi ve a c ou rtl i ce nse t o serve as de fa ct o cou nsel for aparty. ” G J R I nvs . v. C ounty of

E s c a m bi a , F l a . , 132 F . 3d 1359, 1369 ( 11th C i r . 1998) ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . “ [ O ] nc e apr o s e . . . l i t i ga nti s i n c our t , [ s ] he i s s ubj e c tt o the re l evantl aw and rul es of court , i ncl ud i ng the F eder al R ul es of C i vi l P roce du re . ”17

M o o n v . N e w s o m e , 8 6 3 F .2 d 8 3 5 , 8 3 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 9 ) . H e r e , b e c a u s e F ry f a ils to i d en t i fy an y sp eci fi c erro r i n th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s d en i al s o f h er n u m ero u s m o t i o n s, a n d th e r e is n o e v id e n c e in th e r e c o r d th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s m a n a g e m e n t o f its doc ke tw a s unf

a i rt o F ry , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on by de ny i ng the s e pr e - tr i a l m ot i ons . F ore xa m pl e , be c a us e F ry ’ s m ot i on t o a l t e rora m e nd the d is tr ic t c o u r t’s s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t o r d e rm e r e ly r e a r g u e d h e ro p p o s itio n to s um m a ry j udgm e nt , a nd f a i l e d t o i de nt i f

y a ny m a ni f

e s te rr or s of

l a w orf a c tor ne w l y di s c ove r e d e vi de nc e , the di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on by d e n y in g th e m o tio n . In addi t i on , al tho ug h a di stri ctcourtm ayent erde f a ul tj udgm e nta g a in s t a d e f e n d a n t w h o h a s f

a ile d to r e s p o n d to ac o m p la in t a g a in s t h im , d e f a u lt ju d g m e n ts s houl d onl y be e nt e r e d i f e xc e pt i ona l c i r c um s t a nc e s e xi s ttha tpr e j udi c e the p la in tif f . M itc h e ll, 2 9 4 F .3 d a t 1 3 1 6 - 1 7 ; s e e F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 5 ( a ) , ( b ) ( 2 ) . M oreover, w e have hel d that“ [t ] he on l y groun ds for gra nt i ng [aR ul e 59(e)] m ot i on ar e new l y- di sc ov er ed [previ ou sl y unavai l abl e] evi dence or m ani fe sterrors of l aw or fa ct . ” I n re K el l og g, 19 7 F . 3d 11 16 , 11 19 (11th C i r. 19 99 ). R ul e 59(e) m a y notbe us e d t o r e l i t i ga t e ac l a i m . M i nc e y v. H e a d, 206 F . 3d 1106, 1137 n. 69 ( 11th C i r . 2000) . B e c a us e the r e i s no e vi de nc e tha tF ry w a s pr e j udi c e d by the t e n- da y de l a y i n the de f e nda nt s ’ r a i s i ng of

the de f e ns e of qua l i f i e d i m m uni ty , the18

d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n b y d e n y in g th e m o tio n . R egar di ng F ry ’ s m ot i on t o d i squal i fycoun se l , “ [w ] e r evi ew the di stri ct court ’ s f i nd i ng s of f

ac tfor c l ea r e rr or and care ful l y e xam i ne de no vo the di stri ct court ’ s app l i ca t i on of ethi ca l st andards. ” B ay shore F ord T ruck S al es , Inc. v. F ord M ot orC o. , 380 F . 3d 1331, 1338 ( 11th C i r . 2004) . H e r e , be c a us e the r e w a s no e vi de nc e tha tG onz a l e z pr e vi ous l y r e pr e s e nt e d F ry , s uc h tha the w a s ope r a t i ng u n d e rac o n f

lic t o f in te r e s t, o ro th e rw is e b e h a v e d in ap p r o p r ia te ly , a n d F ry p o in ts to n o n e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t p r o p e r ly d e n ie d h e rm o tio n f o rd is q u a lif

ic a tio n o f

c o u n s e l. B . G r a n t o f

S u m m a ry J u d g m e n t to D e f e n d a n ts W e r e vi e w adi s tr i c tc our t ’ s gr a ntof s um m a ry j udgm e ntde novo. P a tr i c k v. F l oyd M ed. C tr, 20 1 F . 3d 13 13 , 13 15 (11th C i r. 20 00 ). F eder al R ul e 56(c) st at es th a t s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t is ap p r o p r ia te “if th e p le a d in g s , d e p o s itio n s , a n s w e r s to i nt e rr oga t or i e s a nd a dm i s s i ons on f i l e , t oge the rw i th the a f

f i da vi t s , i f

a ny , s how th a t th e r e is n o g e n u in e is s u e a s to a n y m a te r ia l f a c t a n d th a t th e m o v in g p a r ty is ent i t l ed t o a j ud gm entas a m att erof l aw . ” R e ga r di ng the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s gr a ntof s um m a ry j udgm e ntt o A l e xa nde ra nd M i l es , F ryra i se s three ar gu m ent s. F i rs t , she a rgues thatshe di d n otre ce i ve ac tual or construct i ve no t i ce of her r equi re m entt o res po nd t o the defendant s’ sum m ary j udgm e ntm ot i ons . S e c ond, s he a r gue s tha t , be c a us e the de f e nda nt s w a i ve d the19

de f e ns e of qua l i f i e d i m m uni ty by f

a i l i ng t o r a i s e i tunt i l the i runt i m e l y s e c ond a m e n d e d a n s w e r , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d b y d e te rm in in g th a t th e y w e r e e n title d to qua l i f i e d i m m uni ty . T hi r d, F ry c ont e nds tha t , be c a us e the r e w a s a n i s s ue of m a te r ia l f

a c t a s to w h e th e rth e d e f e n d a n ts h a d la w f

u l r e a s o n s f

o rd e c id in g n o t to re new her c on tra ctfor a no ther y ea r, the di stri ctcourterre d b y f i nd i ng thatthey w e r e e nt i t l e d t o s um m a ry j udgm e nt , poi nt i ng outtha ts he di s put e d M i l e s ’ s a nd A le x a n d e r ’s e v a lu a tio n s o f F ry , a n d th e irr e a s o n s f o rn o t r e n e w in g h e rc o n tr a c t. S he ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourterre d b y m i ni m i zi ng the ci rc um st ant i al and d i re ct evi dence of re t al i at i on thatshe s ub m i tt ed. S he cont ends thatthe di stri ctcourterre d by e s s e nt i a l l y a l l ow i ng the de f e nda nt s t o na rr ow l y c ons true he rc om pl a i ntby lim itin g h e rF ir s t A m e n d m e n t c la im s to p r o te c te d s p e e c h a n d ig n o r in g h e rc la im th a t s h e e n g a g e d in p r o te c te d a c tiv itie s , in c lu d in g h e ru n io n a c tiv itie s . 1. W hether the N ot i ce R equi re m entof R ul e 56(c) W as S at i sf i ed

“ [A ] co u rtsh o u l d b e p art i cu l arl y carefu l t o en su re p ro p er n o t i ce t o a p ro se litig a n t.” G r if

f ith v . W a in w r ig h t, 7 7 2 F .2 d 8 2 2 , 8 2 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 5 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) . W e have hel d thatR ul e 56(c) “ re qu i re s thatsum m ary j ud gm entca nn otbe ent er ed a g a in s t ap a r ty u n le s s th a t p e r s o n h a s b e e n g iv e n e x p r e s s n o tic e , te n d a y s in advance, of hi s r i gh t s und erthatrul e a nd ho w he m i gh tbestdefe nd them . ” I d. at 8 2 4 . ( q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ) . T h e n o tic e r e q u ir e m e n t o f R u le 5 6 ( c ) r e q u ir e s , a t a20

m i ni m um , “ tha ta n a dve r s e pa r ty . . . be gi ve n e xpr e s s , t e n- da y not i c e of the s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t ru le s , o f h is r ig h t to f

ile a f f id a v its o ro th e rm a te r ia l in oppos i t i on t o the m ot i on, a nd of the c ons e que nc e s of

de f a ul t . ” I d. a t825. H e r e , e ve n a s s um i ng tha tthe di s tr i c tdi d notgi ve F ry e xpr e s s not i c e , the r e c o r d c o n c lu s iv e ly e s tab lis h e s th a t, u n d e rth e c ir c u m s ta n c e s , it w a s r e a s o n ab ly ap p a r e n t to F ry th a t s h e w a s r e q u ir e d to s u b m it a ll o f h e re v id e n c e in o p p o s itio n to th e m o t i o n . M o reo v er, aft er th e d efen d an t s fi l ed th ei r su m m ary j u d g m en tm o t i o n s, F ry r e c e iv e d tw o u n o p p o s e d e x te n s io n s o f tim e to p r e p a r e h e rs u b m is s io n s in o p p o si t i o n t o su m m ary j u d g m en t . A d d i t i o n al l y, h er resp o n ses t o th ese m o t i o n s, w hi c h i nc l ude d de pos i t i on t e s t i m ony , a f f i da vi t s , a nd doc um e nt s pr oduc e d dur i ng di sc ov ery, spec i fi ca l l y r ef er ence d the l egal st andard for sum m ary j ud gm entun der R ul e 56 a nd de m ons tr a t e the F ry unde r s t ood i t s r e qui r e m e nt s . T hus , a ny e rr orby the di s tr i c tc our ti n f

a i l i ng t o gi ve F ry e xpr e s s not i c e of he rr i ght s a nd r e s pons i bi l i t i e s unde rR ul e 56 w a s ha rm l e s s . S e e R e s t i gouc he , I nc . v. T ow n of Jupi t er , 59 F . 3d 12 08 , 12 13 (11th C i r. 19 95 ) ( fi nd i ng thatfa i l ure t o g i ve no t i ce unde rR ul e 56 w a s ha rm l e s s e rr orw he n appe l l a nt“ ha [ d] notbe e n de pr i ve d of the op po rtun i ty t o p re se ntfa ct s or a rgum ent s w hi ch w ou l d h ave prec l ud ed sum m ary j udgm e nt ” ) ; s e e a l s o S a w y e rv. A m . F e d’ n of G ov’ tE m pl oy e e s , A F L - C I O , 180 F . 3 d 3 1 , 3 4 -3 5 (2 d C i r. 1 9 9 9 ) (h o l d i n g th atn o t i ce i s su ffi ci en tw h en th e p ro se21

party “ re spon ds t o the sum m ary j ud gm entm ot i on w i th fac tual and l egal s ubm i s s i ons i ndi c a t i ng tha t[ s ] he unde r s t ood the na tur e a nd c ons e que nc e s of s um m a ry j udgm e nta nd the ne e d t o s e tf or th a l l a va i l abl e e vi de nc e de m ons tr a t i ng a g e n u in e d is p u te o v e rm a te r ia l f a c ts ” ( q u o ta tio n s a n d c ita tio n s o m itte d ) ) . 2. W hether D ef

endant s R ai se d A ff

i rm at i ve D ef

ense of Q ual i fi ed I m m u n ity Q ua l i f i e d i m m uni ty i s a n a f

f i rm a t i ve de f

e ns e t o pe r s ona l l i abi l i ty tha tthe d e f e n d a n th a s th e b u r d e n o f p l e a d i n g . G o me z v . To l e d o , 4 4 6 U . S. 6 3 5 , 6 4 0 , 1 0 0 S. C t . 1920, 1924 ( 1980) . T he f a i l ur e t o pl e a d qua l i f

i e d i m m uni ty m a yr e s ul ti n a w a iv e ro f

th e d e f e n s e . S e e B a rr e tt v . T h o m a s , 6 4 9 F .2 d 1 1 9 3 , 1 2 0 1 ( 5 th C ir . J u ly 1981) . H ow e ve r , w e ha ve he l d tha t“ qua l i f i e d i m m uni ty c a n be pl e d a tva r i ous s ta g e s in ac a s e [ , a n d ] . . . m a y b e g e n e r a lly a s s e r te d ( 1 ) o n ap r e tr ia l m o tio n to di s m i s s unde rR ul e 12( b) ( 6) f orf a i l ur e t o s t a t e ac l a i m ; ( 2) a s a n a f f i rm a t i ve de f e ns e i n the r e que s tf

orj udgm e nton the pl e a di ngs pur s ua ntt o R ul e 12( c ) ; ( 3) on as um m a ry j udgm e ntm ot i on pur s ua ntt o R ul e 56( e ) ; or( 4) a ttr i a l . ” S kr t i c h v. T ho rnt on , 28 0 F . 3d 12 95 , 13 06 (11th C i r. 20 02 ). W e w arned that“ [t ] he po t ent i al fo r ab u si v e d el ays o r m an i p u l at i v e u ses o f q u al i fi ed i m m u n i ty cl ai m s i s cl ear, as a de f e nda ntc a n r a i s e the de f e ns e a tva r i ous s t a ge s of l i t i ga t i on . . . . D e f

e nda nt s w ho ab u s e th e p r e tr ia l p r o c e s s th r o u g h s u c h s ta llin g , h o w e v e r , m a y w a iv e th e irr ig h t to22

ra i se the defense atthe pretri al st age. ” I d. (c i t at i on om i tt ed). H e r e , th e d e f

e n d a n ts a s s e r te d th e d e f e n s e o f q u a lif ie d im m u n ity in th e ir s e c o n d a m e n d e d a n s w e r , w h ic h w a s th e irf ir s t r e s p o n s iv e p le a d in g a f te rth e ir m ot i on t o di s m i s s a nd w hi c h, a l though unt i m e l y by t e n da y s , w a s a c c e pt e d by the co u rt. T h er e is n o ev id en ce th at th e d ef en d an ts’ failu re to ti m ely r es p o n d to F ry ’s c o m p la in t w a s in te n tio n a l, ab u s iv e , o rp r e ju d ic ia l to F ry . T h u s , th e d e f e n d a n ts d id n o t w a iv e th e d e f

e n s e . 3. W he the rthe D i s tr i c tC our tE rr e d i n G r a nt i ng D e f e nda nt s ’ M ot i ons f o rS u m m a ry J u d g m e n t o n th e B a s is o f Q u a lif ie d I m m u n ity Q u a lif ie d im m u n ity p r o v id e s c o m p le te p r o te c tio n f o rs ta te o f

f ic ia ls s u e d in thei r i nd i vi du al capaci t i es un l es s they have “ vi ol at ed a c l ea rl y e st abl i shed st atut ory or const i tut i on al ri gh t [] of w hi ch a r ea sonabl e per son w ou l d h ave kno w n. ” W i l l i ngha m v. L oughna n, 321 F . 3d 1299, 1301 ( 11th C i r . 2003) ( quot a t i ons om i tt e d) . T he S upr e m e C our tha s s e tf or th atw o- pa r tt e s tf

ore va l ua t i ng ac l a i m of q u al i fi ed i m m u n i ty, w i th th e th resh o l d q u est i o n b ei n g , “ [t ] ak en i n th e l i g h tm o st f a vor abl e t o the pa r ty a s s e r t i ng the i nj ury , do the f a c t s a l l e ge d s how [ tha tthe of f i c i a l ’ s ] c onduc tvi ol a t e d ac ons t i tut i ona l r i ght ? ” S a uc i e rv. K a t z , 533 U . S . 194, 20 1, 12 1 S . C t . 21 51 , 21 56 (200 1). If a c on st i tut i on al ri gh tw ou l d h ave been vi ol a t e d unde rthe pl a i nt i f f ' s ve r s i on of

the f a c t s , the c our tm us tthe n de t e rm i ne23

“w h e th e rth e r ig h t w a s c le a r ly e s tab lis h e d .” I d . “F o rth e la w to b e c le a r ly e s t abl i s he d t o the poi nttha tqua l i f i e d i m m uni ty doe s notappl y , the l a w m us tha ve e a r lie rb e e n d e v e lo p e d in s u c h c o n c r e te a n d f a c tu a lly d e f

in e d c o n te x t to m a k e it obvi ous t o a l l r e a s onabl e gove rnm e nta c t or s , i n the de f e nda nt ’ s pl a c e , tha tw ha the i s doi ng vi ol a t e s f

e de r a l l a w . ” R i l e y v. N e w t on, 94 F . 3d 632, 636 ( 11th C i r . 1996) ( q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ) . W e h a v e h e ld th a t: w hen an adequ at e l aw ful m ot i ve i s pre se nt , thata di sc ri m i nat ory m ot i ve m i ghta l s o e xi s tdoe s nots w e e p qua l i f i e d i m m uni ty f

r om the fi el d even atthe sum m ary j ud gm entst age. U nl es s i t , as a l egal m att er , i s pl a i n unde rthe s pe c i f i c f a c t s a nd c i r c um s t a nc e s of the c a s e tha tthe d e f e n d a n t’s c o n d u c t - - d e s p ite h is h a v in g a d e q u a te la w f u l r e a s o n s to s uppor tthe a c t- - w a s the r e s ul tof hi s unl a w f

ul m ot i ve , the de f

e nda nt i s e nt i t l ed t o i m m un i ty. W here the fa ct s a ss um ed for s um m ary j udgm e ntpurpos e s i n ac a s e i nvol vi ng qua l i f i e d i m m uni ty s how m i xed m ot i ves ( l aw ful and u nl aw ful m ot i vat i on s) and p re -e xi st i ng l aw d o e s n o t d ic ta te th a t th e m e r its o f th e c a s e m u s t b e d e c id e d in p l ai n t i ff’ s fav o r, th e d efen d an ti s en t i t l ed t o i m m u n i ty. F o y v . H o ls to n , 9 4 F .3 d 1 5 2 8 , 1 5 3 4 - 3 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ) ( e m p h a s is in o r ig in a l) . T h u s , “[ a ] d e f

e n d a n t is e n title d to q u a lif ie d im m u n ity u n d e rth e F o y r a tio n a le o n ly w h e r e , a m o n g o th e rth in g s , th e r e c o r d in d is p u tab ly e s tab lis h e s th a t th e d e f e n d a n t in f a c tw a s m ot i va t e d, a tl e a s ti n pa r t , by l a w f ul c ons i de r a t i ons . ” S t a nl e y v. C i ty of D al t on , G a. , 21 9 F . 3d 12 80 , 12 96 (11th C i r. 20 00 ) ( em ph as i s i n o ri gi nal ). H er e, ev en as su m in g , as th e d istrict co u rt d id , th at A lex an d eran d M il es ’s24

c onduc tvi ol a t e d F ry ’ s F i r s tA m e ndm e ntr i ght s , the r e i s undi s put e d e vi de nc e i n the r e c or d tha te s t abl i s he s tha tA l e xa nde ra nd M i l e s ha d l a w f ul r e a s ons f

orde c i di ng no tt o renew F ry ’ s e m pl oym entcontra ct , nam el y thatthe defendant s w er e m ot i vat ed, atl ea sti n p art , by F ry ’ s def i ci entw ork p er form ance and i nt erpers on al b e h a v io r . T h u s , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o rr e c tly d e te rm in e d th a t th e y w e r e e n title d to q u al i fi ed i m m u n i ty. I I I . CONCL US I ON I n he rappe a l of

he rpr o s e c i vi l r i ght s a c t i on, F ry ha s f a i l e d t o s how tha tthe di stri ctcourterre d i n d enyi ng her num er ou s pro se pl ea di ng s. S he has a l so fa i l ed t o s how tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n gr a nt i ng the de f e nda nt s ’ m ot i ons f

or s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. AF F I RME D.