Court Opinion

ID: 9839185
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-12 14:00:31.020666+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:37.853640
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13390    Document: 17-1     Date Filed: 09/12/2023   Page: 1 of 9

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-13390
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       JUSTIN LASTER,
                                                     Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
       MACON STATE PRISON,

                                                 Defendants-Appellees.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Middle District of Georgia
                    D. C. Docket No. 5:21-cv-00464-TES
USCA11 Case: 22-13390      Document: 17-1     Date Filed: 09/12/2023     Page: 2 of 9

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 22-13390

                            ____________________

       Before BRASHER, ABUDU, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Pro se plaintiff Justin Laster’s amended complaint alleged
       that his former employer, Georgia’s Macon State Prison, violated a
       litany of federal and state laws by engaging in gender discrimina-
       tion, disability discrimination, and retaliation. The district court
       dismissed that complaint; Laster appealed. We affirm with respect
       to the gender and disability discrimination claims, but we reverse
       the dismissal of the retaliation claim and remand for further pro-
       ceedings in the district court.
               Laster was a correctional officer. He had to perform a phys-
       ically demanding job assignment for over a year, even though state
       prison policy instructed that assignments should be rotated every
       three months. The rotations did not occur because prison officials
       would not assign female guards to the strenuous roles. Laster con-
       sidered this to be unlawful gender discrimination, and he let his su-
       pervisors know it. But his protests had no effect on his job assign-
       ment. Eventually, Laster suffered an on-the-job injury. After a se-
       ries of medical appointments over the span of two months, Laster’s
       doctor determined that Laster needed to avoid engaging in strenu-
       ous physical activity for several weeks. Laster provided his super-
       visors written documentation of those restrictions. Still, Laster con-
       tinued to receive assignments that required heavy lifting.
USCA11 Case: 22-13390      Document: 17-1      Date Filed: 09/12/2023     Page: 3 of 9

       22-13390               Opinion of the Court                          3

               About one month after notifying his supervisors of his phys-
       ical restrictions, Laster missed four straight days of work. He re-
       ceived a letter from the prison warden stating that Macon State
       Prison considered Laster to have voluntarily resigned his employ-
       ment. Laster responded in writing, explaining that he had not re-
       signed his position. In that response, Laster also recounted the de-
       tails of his on-the-job injury and restated his doctor’s order to avoid
       physical exertion. Although Laster does not explicitly say so, his
       point seemed to be that he decided not to go to work those four
       days to aid his recovery. Laster does not say what happened next.
       The district court inferred that Laster was terminated; neither
       party contests that reading of the complaint.
              Laster’s operative complaint invokes several federal and
       Georgia state laws. He brings gender discrimination claims under
       Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the Four-
       teenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (via 42 U.S.C.
       § 1983), and Georgia’s Fair Employment Practices Act. He says that
       the refusal to reassign him after his on-the-job injury was retaliation
       for accusing his supervisors of gender discrimination and thus vio-
       lated Title VII. Finally, Laster asserts that the refusal to accommo-
       date his post-injury physical limitations was disability discrimina-
       tion in violation of Titles I and II of the Americans with Disabilities
       Act and Georgia’s Equal Employment for the Handicapped Code.
              The district court dismissed the operative complaint.
               We review the district court’s decision de novo. Boyle v. City
       of Pell City, 866 F.3d 1280, 1286 (11th Cir. 2017). We apply the same
USCA11 Case: 22-13390       Document: 17-1       Date Filed: 09/12/2023      Page: 4 of 9

       4                       Opinion of the Court                    22-13390

       standards as the district court, liberally construing Laster’s pro se
       complaint and taking as true the factual allegations within that
       complaint. Mitchell v. Peoples, 10 F.4th 1226, 1229 (11th Cir. 2021).
               For starters, Laster’s ADA, section 1981, section 1983, and
       Georgia state law claims fail for lack of jurisdiction. Laster sued the
       Georgia Department of Corrections and the Macon State Prison,
       both of which are “arm[s] of the State” and thus enjoy Eleventh
       Amendment immunity from suit in federal court. Manders v. Lee,
       338 F.3d 1304, 1308 (11th Cir. 2003) (en banc); Myrick v. Fulton
       Cnty., 69 F.4th 1277, 1294 (11th Cir. 2023) (“An assertion of Elev-
       enth Amendment immunity essentially challenges a court’s subject
       matter jurisdiction.” (citation omitted)). Neither Title I of the ADA,
       nor section 1981, nor section 1983 abrogate that immunity. Bd. of
       Trs. of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001); Will v. Mich. Dep’t
       of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989); Sessions v. Rusk State Hosp., 648
       F.2d 1066, 1069 (5th Cir. 1981). Title II of the ADA abrogates Elev-
       enth Amendment immunity only if the alleged misconduct consti-
       tutes disability discrimination under both Title II and the Four-
       teenth Amendment. Black v. Wiginton, 811 F.3d 1259, 1269 (11th
       Cir. 2016). But Laster’s ADA theory of liability—that his supervi-
       sors did not accommodate his physical limitations—is not a Four-
       teenth Amendment violation. See Schwarz v. City of Treasure Island,
       544 F.3d 1201, 1212 n.6 (11th Cir. 2008). Finally, nothing in the
       Georgia statutes under which Laster sues waives Eleventh Amend-
       ment immunity, see Ga. Const. art. I, § II, para. IX, cl. (f) (prohibit-
       ing legislative waivers of “any immunity provided . . . by the United
USCA11 Case: 22-13390       Document: 17-1       Date Filed: 09/12/2023      Page: 5 of 9

       22-13390                Opinion of the Court                            5

       States Constitution”), nor have defendants otherwise consented to
       suit in federal court.
              The district court had jurisdiction over Laster’s Title VII
       gender discrimination and retaliation claims because those claims
       are not barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer,
       427 U.S. 445 (1976); see Wu v. Thomas, 863 F.2d 1543, 1549–50 (11th
       Cir. 1989). But a court’s ability to hear the Title VII claims is only
       helpful to Laster if he carries his burden of alleging “enough facts
       to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face, i.e., facts that
       will nudge a plaintiff’s claims across the line from conceivable to
       plausible.” Holland v. Carnival Corp., 50 F.4th 1088, 1093 (11th Cir.
       2022) (cleaned up).
               Both Title VII claims require Laster to plausibly allege that
       he suffered an adverse action. See Holland v. Gee, 677 F.3d 1047, 1056
       (11th Cir. 2012) (“In a Title VII case, an adverse employment action
       is not only an element of the prima facie case, but also of the claim
       itself.” (internal citations omitted)). What constitutes an adverse
       action depends on the particular Title VII claim. In the discrimina-
       tion context, a plaintiff must plausibly allege that his or her em-
       ployer materially and negatively altered the terms or benefits of the
       plaintiff’s employment. See Monaghan v. World Pay US, Inc., 955 F.3d
       855, 860 (11th Cir. 2020) (stating that adverse employment actions
       “consist of things . . . like terminations, demotions, suspensions
       without pay, and pay raises or cuts . . . .”). The adverse action stand-
       ard for Title VII retaliation claims is “decidedly more relaxed . . . .”
       Crawford v. Carroll, 529 F.3d 961, 973 (11th Cir. 2008). An action is
USCA11 Case: 22-13390     Document: 17-1      Date Filed: 09/12/2023    Page: 6 of 9

       6                      Opinion of the Court                22-13390

       sufficiently adverse for purposes of a Title VII retaliation claim
       when that action “well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker
       from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.” Burlington
       N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 68 (2006) (internal quo-
       tation marks and citation omitted). Thus, the same action could
       satisfy the adverse action element of a retaliation claim but not a
       discrimination claim.
              Laster relies on the same allegation—that he was assigned to
       a physically demanding post—for the adverse action element of
       both Title VII claims. He says that assignment was always discrim-
       inatory because his supervisors allowed female employees to avoid
       similar duties. He says that assignment became retaliatory because
       his supervisors kept him in that strenuous job, even after he hurt
       himself and was told by a doctor to avoid physical exertion, in order
       to punish him for accusing them of gender discrimination.
               The district court correctly concluded that Laster’s alleged
       adverse action was insufficient to maintain a Title VII discrimina-
       tion claim. Requiring an employee to perform an undesirable job
       is not an adverse employment action for the purposes of a discrim-
       ination claim, as long as there is no allegation that the assignment
       came with any material change in the terms or benefits of employ-
       ment (e.g., a reduced salary). See Gupta v. Fla. Bd. of Regents, 212
       F.3d 571, 587–89 (11th Cir. 2000), abrogation on other grounds recog-
       nized by Crawford, 529 F.3d at 970–74 & n.14; Kidd v. Mando Am.
       Corp., 731 F.3d 1196, 1203 (11th Cir. 2013) (“Work assignment
       claims strike at the very heart of an employer’s business judgment
USCA11 Case: 22-13390      Document: 17-1       Date Filed: 09/12/2023      Page: 7 of 9

       22-13390                Opinion of the Court                           7

       and expertise . . . . And it is by now axiomatic that Title VII is not
       designed to make federal courts sit as a super-personnel depart-
       ment that reexamines an entity’s business decisions.” (internal quo-
       tation marks and citations omitted)).
               The district court erred, however, in dismissing Laster’s Ti-
       tle VII retaliation claim. The sole basis for the dismissal was the
       district court’s conclusion that Laster failed to plausibly allege a suf-
       ficiently adverse action. The district court read Laster’s complaint
       as “only mention[ing] a retaliatory constructive discharge as the
       only possible adverse employment action” and then relied on the
       Supreme Court’s decision in Green v. Brennan, 578 U.S. 547 (2016),
       to conclude that, because Laster never actually quit his job, he did
       not sufficiently plead the elements of constructive discharge. See
       Green, 578 U.S. at 555 (stating that an employee “actually re-
       sign[ing]” is an element of a constructive discharge claim).
              We think the district court read Laster’s complaint too nar-
       rowly. It is true that Laster’s operative complaint alleged that his
       supervisors sought “to force [him] out of [his] employment and
       thus constructively discharged” Laster. But Laster alleged that his
       supervisors did so “by subjecting [him] to unfair, unsafe working
       conditions . . . .” Giving Laster the appropriate amount of leniency
       as a pro se litigant, we do not read his complaint as solely and nar-
       rowly alleging a claim under the constructive discharge doctrine,
       but instead as more broadly attacking his working conditions and
       his supervisors’ motivations for creating those conditions. And that
       type of Title VII retaliation claim is properly analyzed under the
USCA11 Case: 22-13390      Document: 17-1       Date Filed: 09/12/2023      Page: 8 of 9

       8                       Opinion of the Court                   22-13390

       “decidedly more relaxed” standard set forth in Burlington. Crawford,
       529 F.3d at 973; see Monaghan, 955 F.3d at 861–63.
               Applying the Burlington standard to Laster’s Title VII retalia-
       tion claim, we cannot agree with the district court that Laster failed
       to plausibly allege an adverse action. Doing so would require us to
       hold that, as a matter of law, no reasonable person in Laster’s shoes
       would have felt “dissuaded . . . from making or supporting a charge
       of discrimination.” Burlington, 548 U.S. at 68 (internal quotation
       marks and citation omitted). But the reasonableness of an em-
       ployee’s fear of reprisal is generally a question of fact for a jury. See
       Monaghan, 955 F.3d at 862–63 (acknowledging that the “‘well might
       have dissuaded’ standard is contextual and remanding retaliation
       claim for trial (quoting Burlington, 548 U.S. at 69)). And we are not
       prepared to say that forcing an employee who has complained of
       discrimination and suffered an on-the-job injury to continue work-
       ing a physically demanding assignment is such a “petty and trivial
       action[]” that it can never form the basis of a Title VII retaliation
       claim. Crawford, 529 F.3d at 973 n.13. Accordingly, we reverse the
       district court’s dismissal of Laster’s Title VII retaliation claim.
               Having addressed the claims dismissed by the district court,
       we note that throughout his pro se briefing in this Court, Laster re-
       fers to other labor laws (e.g., the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938,
       the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and the Reha-
       bilitation Act of 1973). If those references are meant to be separate
       legal claims, we do not consider them because those claims were
       not raised in the operative complaint or otherwise addressed by the
USCA11 Case: 22-13390      Document: 17-1       Date Filed: 09/12/2023     Page: 9 of 9

       22-13390                Opinion of the Court                          9

       district court. Ramirez v. Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 686 F.3d 1239,
       1249 (11th Cir. 2012) (“It is well-settled that we will generally refuse
       to consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal.”).
              The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED IN PART
       and REVERSED IN PART. Laster’s Title VII retaliation claim is
       REMANDED to the district court for further proceedings con-
       sistent with this opinion.