[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 20-12289

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 0:19-cv-62967-AHS

ODEIU JOY POWERS, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

SECRETARY, U.S. HOMELAND SECURITY, 

 Defendant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(February 9, 2021)

Before MARTIN, BRANCH, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

USCA11 Case: 20-12289 Date Filed: 02/09/2021 Page: 1 of 11
2

Pro se litigant Odeiu Powers appeals the district court’s grant of the 

defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing her claims of race 

discrimination and retaliation. Because the district court erred in using the 

McDonnell Douglas evidentiary standard to evaluate Powers’s claims at the 

pleading stage and abused its discretion by dismissing the action without first 

providing notice of the complaint’s deficiencies and an opportunity to amend, we 

vacate the dismissal and remand for further proceedings consistent with this 

opinion.

I.

Powers was hired to work as an auditor for the Department of Homeland 

Security on a one-year probationary period, but she was terminated after nine 

months. After pursuing administrative remedies through the Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission and the Merit Systems Protection Board, Powers, who is 

African-American, filed a complaint against the Secretary of Homeland Security 

alleging that her supervisor began treating her unfairly after she wore her hair in an 

afro style during a training seminar. Powers alleged that her supervisor tried to 

have her fired immediately after the training and that “months of disparate 

treatment followed,” including the supervisor giving a white coworker credit for 

Powers’s work. She further alleged that she filed formal and informal grievances, 

which were not addressed, and that when she appealed to her supervisor’s 

USCA11 Case: 20-12289 Date Filed: 02/09/2021 Page: 2 of 11
3

superiors to “review [her] work for fairness,” her supervisor immediately initiated 

her termination. Powers used a form for pro se employment discrimination 

complaints and checked blanks on the form indicating that she was claiming 

harassment, discrimination, and retaliation based on race in violation of Title VII

of the Civil Rights Act.

Before serving the Secretary with her complaint, Powers filed her initial 

disclosures, which provided more factual background for her complaint and 

clarified that she was alleging race discrimination and retaliation under both Title 

VII and 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(1)(A), and reprisal in violation of the Whistleblower 

Protection Act, 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8)–(9).

1

 She also alleged that her termination 

was illegal because she had been fired without the notice and other procedural 

protections to which she was entitled by statute and regulation—regardless of her 

probationary status—as a preference-eligible veteran who had completed an initial 

service period with another federal agency. 

The defendant filed an answer denying the claims of discrimination and 

retaliation alleged in Powers’s complaint, and after the scheduling-order deadline 

1 Section 2302 prohibits federal supervisory employees from engaging in certain personnel 

practices. Specifically, 2302(b)(1)(A) prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, 

color, religion, sex, or national origin. Section 2302(b)(8) prohibits adverse employment action 

because of an employee’s disclosure of, among other things, a “violation of any law, rule, or 

regulation,” or “gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a 

substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.” And § 2302(b)(9) forbids federal 

supervisory employees from taking any personnel action because of, among other things, “the 

exercise of any appeal, complaint, or grievance right granted by any law, rule, or regulation.”

USCA11 Case: 20-12289 Date Filed: 02/09/2021 Page: 3 of 11
4

for amending the pleadings passed, it moved for judgment on the pleadings 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). In response, Powers argued in 

part that her claims were not limited to the race discrimination and retaliation 

claims made in her complaint, but also included claims that the defendant violated 

her due process rights and whistleblower protection laws as described in her 

subsequent filings. She reminded the court that she was representing herself and 

was unfamiliar with the legal precedents cited by the defendant, and she requested 

that, if her “initial filing was as deficient as” the Secretary claimed, she be given 

“the opportunity to do so [sic] with more than seven days to respond instead of 

having my case outright dismissed.” 

The district court granted the defendant’s motion and entered judgment in its

favor. In its order, the court characterized Powers’s contention that her supervisor 

began treating her unfairly after she wore her hair in an afro as an allegation that 

her supervisor made “discriminatory remarks on her looks and fashion.” The court 

evaluated the race discrimination claims in Powers’s complaint using the burdenshifting framework established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 

792 (1973), stating that it was required to do so because Powers relied on 

circumstantial evidence to support her claims. The court found that Powers had 

not stated a claim of race discrimination under Title VII because she had not 

identified a comparator—that is, a similarly situated employee of another race who 

USCA11 Case: 20-12289 Date Filed: 02/09/2021 Page: 4 of 11
5

was treated more favorably—as required to make out a prima facie case of 

discrimination under the McDonnell Douglas framework. It rejected Powers’s 

retaliation claims on the ground that Powers’s alleged complaints about unfair 

treatment did not amount to a protected activity under Title VII, and Powers 

therefore had not alleged facts showing that she had been terminated for opposing 

a practice made unlawful by the statute. The court did not address the additional 

claims and factual allegations in Powers’s initial disclosures; nor did it address her 

inartfully worded request to amend her complaint in response to the defendant’s

motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Powers filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the court had 

“patently misunderstood the full extent of” her claims and referring the court to her 

initial disclosures. The district court denied the motion for reconsideration in a 

paperless order. Powers now appeals.

II.

We review an order granting judgment on the pleadings de novo. Perez v. 

Wells Fargo N.A., 774 F.3d 1329, 1335 (11th Cir. 2014). We review a district 

court’s denial of leave to amend a complaint for an abuse of discretion. Woldeab 

v. Dekalb Cty. Bd. of Educ., 885 F.3d 1289, 1291 (11th Cir. 2018).

“In determining whether a party is entitled to judgment on the pleadings, we 

accept as true all material facts alleged in the non-moving party’s pleading, and we 

USCA11 Case: 20-12289 Date Filed: 02/09/2021 Page: 5 of 11
6

view those facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Perez, 774 

F.3d at 1335. “Judgment on the pleadings is appropriate where there are no 

material facts in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of 

law.” Id. (citation omitted). The ultimate question on a motion for judgment on 

the pleadings under Rule 12(c) is the same as on a motion to dismiss under Rule 

12(b)(6)—whether the complaint states a claim for relief. See Strategic Income 

Fund, L.L.C. v. Spear, Leeds & Kellogg Corp., 305 F.3d 1293, 1295 n.8 (11th Cir. 

2002).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires a complaint to contain “a 

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” 

The plaintiff’s allegations must be sufficient to “give the defendant fair notice” of 

the nature of the plaintiff’s claim “and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citation omitted). “To 

survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, 

accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). A claim is 

plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw 

the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”

Id. Although courts “must make reasonable inferences in Plaintiffs’ favor” at the 

pleadings stage, we are not required to draw every inference that the plaintiff 

USCA11 Case: 20-12289 Date Filed: 02/09/2021 Page: 6 of 11
7

suggests. Aldana v. Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A., Inc., 416 F.3d 1242, 1248 

(11th Cir. 2005).

We construe pro se filings liberally, and we “hold the allegations of a pro se 

complaint to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”

Campbell v. Air Jamaica Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168 (11th Cir. 2014). But “this 

leniency does not give a court license to serve as de facto counsel for a party, or to 

rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an action.” Id. at 1168–

69. And “conclusory allegations, unwarranted deductions of facts or legal 

conclusions masquerading as facts will not prevent dismissal.” Oxford Asset 

Mgmt., Ltd. v. Jaharis, 297 F.3d 1182, 1188 (11th Cir. 2002). “Thus, at a 

minimum, notice pleading requires that a complaint contain inferential allegations

from which we can identify each of the material elements necessary to sustain a 

recovery under some viable legal theory.” Roe v. Aware Woman Ctr. for Choice, 

Inc., 253 F.3d 678, 684 (11th Cir. 2001). 

Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer to discharge or discriminate 

against an employee because of the employee’s “race, color, religion, sex, or 

national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). Title VII’s retaliation provision 

makes it unlawful for an employer to retaliate against an employee because the 

employee “has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by 

this subchapter” or “made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any 

USCA11 Case: 20-12289 Date Filed: 02/09/2021 Page: 7 of 11
8

manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this subchapter.” Id.

§ 2000e-3(a). 

As “a general matter, Title VII protects persons in covered categories with 

respect to their immutable characteristics, but not their cultural practices.” EEOC

v. Catastrophe Mgmt. Solutions, 852 F.3d 1018, 1030 (11th Cir. 2016). “So, for 

example, discrimination on the basis of black hair texture (an immutable 

characteristic) is prohibited by Title VII, while adverse action on the basis of black 

hairstyle (a mutable choice) is not.” Id. (citing with approval Jenkins v. Blue Cross 

Mut. Hosp. Ins., Inc., 538 F.2d 164, 168 (7th Cir. 1976) (en banc), which 

recognized a claim for racial discrimination based on the plaintiff’s allegation that 

she was denied a promotion because she wore her hair in a natural afro). “To state 

a race-discrimination claim under Title VII, a complaint need only ‘provide 

enough factual matter (taken as true) to suggest intentional race discrimination.’” 

Surtain v. Hamlin Terrace Found., 789 F.3d 1239, 1246 (11th Cir. 2015) (citation 

omitted). 

Both the Supreme Court and this Court have held that it is error to require an 

employment discrimination plaintiff to plead the elements of a McDonnell Douglas 

prima facie case at the pleading stage. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 

506, 510–11 (2002); Surtain, 789 F.3d at 1246. “This is because McDonnell 

Douglas’s burden-shifting framework is an evidentiary standard, not a pleading 

USCA11 Case: 20-12289 Date Filed: 02/09/2021 Page: 8 of 11
9

requirement.” Surtain, 789 F.3d at 1246; see Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 510. “In 

addition, under a notice pleading system, it is not appropriate to require a plaintiff 

to plead facts establishing a prima facie case because the McDonnell Douglas

framework does not apply in every employment discrimination case.”

Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 511. For example, the McDonnell Douglas framework 

does not apply, even at the summary judgment stage, when the plaintiff alleges a 

mixed-motive discrimination claim. Quigg v. Thomas Cty. Sch. Dist., 814 F.3d 

1227, 1237–38 (11th Cir. 2016).

“A district court’s discretion to deny leave to amend a complaint is ‘severely 

restricted’ by Fed. R. Civ. P. 15, which stresses that courts should freely give leave 

to amend ‘when justice so requires.’” Woldeab, 885 F.3d at 1291. Where it 

appears that a more carefully drafted complaint might state a claim, a pro se 

plaintiff “must be given at least one chance to amend the complaint before the 

district court dismisses the action with prejudice.” Bank v. Pitt, 928 F.2d 1108, 

1112 (11th Cir. 1991), overruled in part by Wagner v. Daewoo Heavy Indus. Am. 

Corp., 314 F.3d 541, 542 (11th Cir. 2002) (en banc) (holding that this rule does not 

apply to counseled plaintiffs). This is true even when “the plaintiff never seeks 

leave to amend in the district court, but instead appeals the district court’s 

dismissal.” Id. A district court need not grant leave to amend, however, if the 

plaintiff has made clear that she does not wish to amend, or if amendment would 

USCA11 Case: 20-12289 Date Filed: 02/09/2021 Page: 9 of 11
10

be futile. Id. “Leave to amend a complaint is futile when the complaint as 

amended would still be properly dismissed or be immediately subject to summary 

judgment for the defendant.” Cockrell v. Sparks, 510 F.3d 1307, 1310 (11th Cir. 

2007).

Here, the district court erred in evaluating Powers’s race discrimination 

claim under the McDonnell Douglas framework at the pleading stage. It also 

abused its discretion by entering judgment for the defendants without first giving 

Powers leave to amend her complaint or assessing whether such amendment would 

be futile. Given that Powers’s factual allegations are somewhat ambiguous and 

scattered throughout several filings and attachments, it is unclear whether she can 

allege facts supporting her claims under Title VII, the Whistleblower Protection 

Act, or other federal laws and regulations if she were given leave to file an 

amended complaint incorporating all of her claims against the defendants and the 

factual allegations supporting those claims. Still, the district court should have 

offered her that opportunity. 

We therefore vacate the district court’s order granting the defendants’ 

motion for judgment on the pleadings and remand with instructions for the district 

court to advise Powers of the deficiencies in her complaint and give her an 

USCA11 Case: 20-12289 Date Filed: 02/09/2021 Page: 10 of 11
11

opportunity to amend. Powers’s request to have her case reassigned to a different 

district court judge on remand is DENIED.2

 

VACATED AND REMANDED.

2 A federal judge must disqualify himself if his “impartiality might reasonably be questioned,”

where he “has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed 

evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding,” or in other specified circumstances not applicable 

here. 28 U.S.C. § 455(a)–(b). Powers has not alleged that the assigned district court judge has 

personal knowledge of disputed facts, and we find no basis in the record to question the judge’s 

impartiality. See, e.g., McWhorter v. City of Birmingham, 906 F.2d 674, 678 (11th Cir. 1990). 

USCA11 Case: 20-12289 Date Filed: 02/09/2021 Page: 11 of 11