Opinion ID: 2750299
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Lightfoot’s ADA Retaliation Claim

Text: In her second issue on appeal, Lightfoot contends that the district court erred in granting the School District summary judgment on her ADA retaliation claim. Count IV of Lightfoot’s complaint alleged retaliation under the ADA, stating: In February 2011, Plaintiff engaged in protected activity under the ADA[] when she told Defendant that she believed she was being 30 Case: 13-14631 Date Filed: 11/10/2014 Page: 31 of 33 disciplined more harshly than her non-disabled coworkers because of her disability. Immediately thereafter, Defendant began to retaliate against Plaintiff for engaging in protected conduct. [Doc. 7 ¶¶ 78–79]. Her ADA count contains no allegation that Lightfoot engaged in protected conduct by requesting FMLA leave. By contrast, Count V, alleging retaliation under the FMLA, stated that “[b]y disciplining Plaintiff more harshly than her coworkers who have not taken medical leave . . . Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff for exercising her rights under the FMLA.” [Id. ¶ 86]. In analyzing Count IV, Lightfoot’s ADA retaliation claim, the district court found that Lightfoot presented no evidence that she had in fact complained to school administrators about being disciplined. Therefore, the court concluded that she had not established a prima facie case of retaliation, and granted the School District’s motion for summary judgment. [Doc. 71 at 15–16]. On appeal, Lightfoot argues that the district court should have construed her allegations regarding her request for intermittent FMLA leave, which formed the basis of her FMLA count, as also forming a basis for her ADA retaliation count. She contends that, even though these allegations were not specifically included in her ADA count, they were sufficiently set forth elsewhere in her complaint, where she alleged that: (1) she requested and was granted FMLA leave to accommodate her disability, (2) the School District “discriminated and retaliated against her . . . because of her use of medical leave and her disability,” and (3) she suffered 31 Case: 13-14631 Date Filed: 11/10/2014 Page: 32 of 33 adverse employment action because she took FMLA leave. [Doc. 7 ¶¶ 1, 23–25, 29–36, 84–90]. Lightfoot further contends that the district court erred because, in her opposition to the School District’s summary judgment motion, she expressly argued that her request for FMLA leave was protected conduct under the ADA, for which she suffered retaliation. The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to construe Lightfoot’s ADA retaliation claim as being based on different facts than the ones actually pled in her ADA count. Even when construed liberally, Lightfoot’s complaint did not give the School District notice that her ADA retaliation claim was based on her request for FMLA leave. Indeed, Count IV, her ADA retaliation count, was expressly and solely based on her complaint to administrators, while Count V, her FMLA retaliation count was expressly based on her use of FMLA leave. The general allegations that appear elsewhere in the complaint merely supported Lightfoot’s FMLA retaliation count, and did not put the School District on notice that they also pertained to her ADA retaliation count. The School District properly responded to, and the district court properly relied on, Lightfoot’s ADA count as it was pled. See Gilmour v. Gates, McDonald & Co., 382 F.3d 1312, 1315 (11th Cir. 2004) (“Liberal pleading does not require that, at the summary judgment stage, defendants must infer all possible claims that could arise out of facts set forth in the complaint.”); cf. Bogovich v. Sandoval, 189 F.3d 999, 32 Case: 13-14631 Date Filed: 11/10/2014 Page: 33 of 33 1001 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[C]ourts should not undertake to infer in one cause of action when a complaint clearly states a claim under a different cause of action.”). Finally, the district court did not err in declining to consider this new factual basis when it was raised in Lightfoot’s opposition to summary judgment. “A plaintiff may not amend her complaint through argument in a brief opposing summary judgment.” Gilmour, 382 F.3d at 1315. Accordingly, the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the School District on this claim is affirmed.