Opinion ID: 997603
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Timeliness of Hostile Environment Claim

Text: The district court ruled that, by failing to plead a claim of hostile environment before her opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff asserted her claim too late in the proceedings. Plaintiff-Appellant challenges that determination as erroneous. We believe the district court was correct in its assessment. All pleadings setting forth claims of relief must include a short and plain statement of the claim demonstrating that the claimant is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). A claimant need not set out in detail the facts upon which the claim for relief is based but must provide a statement sufficient to put the opposing party on fair notice of the claim. See Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Buell, 480 U.S. 557, 568 n.15 (1987). Appellant insists that her pro se Complaint clearly asserted a hostile environment theory. In the Complaint, Middlebrooks alleged that her alleged mistreatment by University officials resulted in a hostile learning environment ... in which it was impossible to learn. Additionally, in her response to Defendants' request for a more definite statement, Plaintiff charged that Defendants' conduct had created a hostile environment. In her first and second Amended Complaints, however, there is no mention of a hostile learning environment. Her amended pleading supersedes the original pleading and remains in effect throughout the action, unless it is subsequently modified. See Fritz v. Standard Security Life Insurance Company of New York, 676 F.2d 1356, 1358 (11th Cir. 1982); Bullen v. De Bretteville, 239 F.2d 824, 833 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 353 U.S. 947 (1956); accord Wright, Miller and Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d, § 1476 at 556 (1990). Once an amended pleading is filed, the original pleading no longer performs any function in the case. Consequently, it cannot be used to cure defects in the amended pleading, unless the relevant portion is specifically incorporated in the new pleading. See Bullen, 239 F.2d at 833; Wright, et al., supra, § 1476, at 557, 559. Middlebrooks' initial pleading, by virtue of filing her Amended Complaints, is no longer viable. So, the question becomes whether 5 Plaintiff's Amended Complaints properly plead her claim of hostile environment. The federal pleading rules require that the complaint give a defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957). By Plaintiff's own admission, the Amended Complaints merely state that Defendants were responsible for teaching students, including Plaintiff, in a nondiscriminatory environment. Otherwise, each claim alleges, in one form or another, disparate treatment. To the extent that the initial pleading set forth a claim of hostile environment, Middlebrooks abandoned it by failing to include it in her subsequent filing. Under the circumstances, Defendants reasonably concluded that Plaintiff's claims were based on allegations of disparate treatment only and not hostile environment. Consideration of the hostile environment claim for the first time at the summary judgment stage would require the gathering and analysis of facts not already considered by the opposing party. Therefore, we conclude that Defendants were afforded inadequate notice of Plaintiff's claim of hostile environment. The district court properly determined that the claim was untimely raised.