Court Opinion

ID: 9880675
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-28 14:00:48.396062+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:57:09.577770
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-11446    Document: 40-1      Date Filed: 09/28/2023   Page: 1 of 10

                                                    [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                           ____________________

                                 No. 22-11446
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

        RUFUS HAMILTON,
                                                       Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
        versus
        FULTON COUNTY SCHOOLS,

                                                     Defendant-Appellee.

                           ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Georgia
                     D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cv-01437-LMM
                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-11446      Document: 40-1          Date Filed: 09/28/2023   Page: 2 of 10

        2                      Opinion of the Court                   22-11446

        Before JORDAN, BRANCH, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
               Rufus Hamilton, proceeding pro se, appeals the district
        court’s dismissal of his amended complaint against his former em-
        ployer, the Fulton County Schools (“FCS”). Hamilton purported
        to assert claims against FCS for unlawful discrimination based on
        his race and age, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42
        U.S.C. § 2000e-2 (“Title VII”), and the Age Discrimination in Em-
        ployment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 623(a) (“ADEA”). No reversible error has
        been shown; we aﬃrm.
                                              I.
               Hamilton ﬁled pro se this civil action in April 2021. Hamilton
        ﬁled his initial complaint against FCS using the district court’s “Pro
        Se Employment Discrimination Complaint Form.” On the com-
        plaint form, Hamilton checked boxes indicating (1) that he was
        bringing claims for violations of Title VII and the ADEA; (2) the
        alleged discrimination took place on 16 December 2020; and (3)
        that his lawsuit involved a failure-to-promote and the termination
        of his employment. Hamilton checked a box indicating that he be-
        lieved he was discriminated against because of his race and identi-
        ﬁed himself as being black. Hamilton left un-checked the box indi-
        cating that he believed he was discriminated against based on his
        age. Nor did Hamilton provide his date of birth or his age on the
        date of the complained-of conduct in December 2020.
USCA11 Case: 22-11446      Document: 40-1     Date Filed: 09/28/2023     Page: 3 of 10

        22-11446               Opinion of the Court                        3

               In the section of the form directing plaintiﬀs to describe the
        essential facts of their case, Hamilton alleged that he was ﬁred “for
        taking home pallets” even though his director purportedly gave
        him permission to do so. Hamilton alleged further that “every
        body was taking trees home as ﬁrewood and they still have a job.”
        Hamilton did not identify the race or age of the employees who
        purportedly took home ﬁrewood. Hamilton attached to his com-
        plaint a notice of right-to-sue letter received from the EEOC: a let-
        ter that referenced only a charge of discrimination alleging viola-
        tions of Title VII.
              FCS moved to dismiss Hamilton’s complaint for failure to
        exhaust administrative remedies and for failure to state a claim.
                On 13 May 2021, Hamilton ﬁled pro se a one-page document
        titled “Amend Complaint.” Hamilton sought to add a claim for
        wrongful termination. Hamilton also alleged that he applied for a
        position but that “they” hired “their friend” instead. Hamilton al-
        leged that -- although he was not selected for the position -- he was
        expected to do the work that the newly-hired person did not want
        to do.
               On the same day, Hamilton also ﬁled pro se a one-page doc-
        ument titled “Motion to Not Dismiss.” In that document, Hamil-
        ton said again that he was terminated unlawfully for taking pallets
        even though he had permission to do so and stopped when he was
        asked. Hamilton also said again that “they wanted [him] to do the
        work the new guy didn’t want to do.” Hamilton attached a photo-
        graph of wood pallets and several letters from FCS’s Supervisor of
USCA11 Case: 22-11446      Document: 40-1      Date Filed: 09/28/2023     Page: 4 of 10

        4                      Opinion of the Court                 22-11446

        Maintenance discussing Hamilton’s job-performance issues during
        October and November 2020.
                FCS again moved to dismiss Hamilton’s amended complaint
        for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and for failure to
        state a claim.
                On 4 June 2021, Hamilton ﬁled pro se a one-page document
        titled “Add to ﬁle.” Hamilton said that FCS “clearly falls under Title
        VII.” About his failure-to-promote claim, Hamilton alleged that he
        applied for a position but that Dennis Downs gave the position to
        “his friend” instead. Because the newly-hired person did not want
        to do the job, Hamilton said he was pressured “to do his job with
        the same pay.” Hamilton alleges that “[t]hey came up with this tak-
        ing from the trash pallet when everybody else taking property
        home as ﬁrewood. Trees!!” (emphasis in original). Hamilton then
        attached two photographs showing piles of cut wood.
               A magistrate judge issued a non-ﬁnal report and recommen-
        dation (“R&R”). Construing all of Hamilton’s pro se ﬁlings to-
        gether as a single complaint, the magistrate judge determined that
        Hamilton had failed to allege facts suﬃcient to state a plausible
        claim for relief. The magistrate judge also determined that -- be-
        cause Hamilton had not provided a copy of his EEOC charge --
        Hamilton had failed to demonstrate that he had exhausted properly
        his administrative remedies. Given Hamilton’s pro se status, the
        magistrate judge recommended that Hamilton be given an oppor-
        tunity to amend his complaint to correct the identiﬁed deﬁciencies.
USCA11 Case: 22-11446      Document: 40-1     Date Filed: 09/28/2023    Page: 5 of 10

        22-11446               Opinion of the Court                       5

              Hamilton ﬁled no objections to the R&R. The district court
        adopted the R&R and granted Hamilton leave to ﬁle one more
        amended complaint.
               On 14 September 2021, Hamilton ﬁled an amended com-
        plaint consisting of one page of narrative text. Hamilton asserted
        that he applied for a “lead position” he says he was well-qualiﬁed
        for, but that he was passed over in favor of a friend of his immedi-
        ate supervisor, Dennis Downs. Because the new hire purportedly
        did not want to complete some of his assigned duties, Hamilton
        was expected -- but refused -- to perform those tasks without an
        accompanying pay raise.
               Hamilton also alleged that he was ﬁred for theft after he re-
        moved pallets from outside the trash can, even though his director
        had given him permission to do so. Hamilton said he believed tak-
        ing the pallets would not cause “a problem because several mainte-
        nance workers were taking cut trees home for ﬁrewood.” Hamil-
        ton said he knows the reason he was terminated was not because
        of the pallets but, instead, because he complained about not getting
        the promotion. Hamilton also said, “I did not include race in this
        letter because then [I] would be labeled as a racist.” Never did
        Hamilton mention his race or age, nor the race or age of any of his
        co-workers or supervisors. Nor did Hamilton attach a copy of his
        EEOC charge to his amended complaint.
                  FCS again moved to dismiss Hamilton’s amended com-
        plaint.
USCA11 Case: 22-11446          Document: 40-1         Date Filed: 09/28/2023          Page: 6 of 10

        6                          Opinion of the Court                         22-11446

                A magistrate judge issued a ﬁnal R&R recommending that
        the district court grant FCS’s motion and dismiss Hamilton’s
        amended complaint. The magistrate judge determined that -- de-
        spite the district court’s detailed instructions -- Hamilton’s
        amended complaint still failed to allege factual content suﬃcient to
        state a plausible claim for unlawful discrimination. In the alterna-
        tive, the magistrate judge determined that Hamilton’s claims were
        subject to dismissal because Hamilton had failed to demonstrate
        that he had exhausted properly his administrative remedies.

              Hamilton objected to the R&R. 1 The district court over-
        ruled Hamilton’s objections, adopted the R&R, and dismissed the
        case.
                                                    II.
                We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to
        state a claim, accepting all properly alleged facts as true and con-
        struing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiﬀ. See Butler
        v. Sheriﬀ of Palm Beach Cty., 685 F.3d 1261, 1265 (11th Cir. 2012).

        1 In his objections, Hamilton alleged -- for the first time -- that he was treated

        differently from a white employee whom Hamilton said is still employed after
        taking home cut-up trees to use as firewood. In reviewing the R&R, the dis-
        trict court declined to consider this new factual allegation, noting that Hamil-
        ton omitted this fact from his amended complaint and from his response to
        FSC’s motion to dismiss. On appeal, Hamilton raises no challenge to the dis-
        trict court’s refusal to consider facts raised for the first time in his objections
        to the R&R.
USCA11 Case: 22-11446       Document: 40-1        Date Filed: 09/28/2023      Page: 7 of 10

        22-11446                 Opinion of the Court                            7

                A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of
        the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ.
        P. 8(a)(2). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must con-
        tain 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) (quotations omitted). To state a plausible claim for relief, a
        plaintiﬀ must go beyond pleading merely the “sheer possibility” of
        unlawful activity by a defendant and must oﬀer “factual content
        that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the de-
        fendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. In other words,
        the plaintiﬀ’s “[f ]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right
        to relief above the speculative level.” See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
        550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). “A pleading that oﬀers ‘labels and conclu-
        sions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
        will not do.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. “Nor does a complaint suﬃce
        if it tenders naked assertions devoid of further factual enhance-
        ment.” Id. (quotations and alteration omitted).
                A complaint ﬁled by a pro se litigant is construed more liber-
        ally than a formal pleading drafted by a lawyer. See Powell v. Lennon,
        914 F.2d 1459, 1463 (11th Cir. 1990). Despite this leniency toward
        pro se litigants, courts may not step into the role of de facto counsel
        or “rewrite an otherwise deﬁcient pleading in order to sustain an
        action.” GJR Invs. v. Cty. of Escambia, 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir.
        1998).
              Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer to discharge or
        otherwise discriminate against any person “with respect to his
USCA11 Case: 22-11446      Document: 40-1      Date Filed: 09/28/2023      Page: 8 of 10

        8                      Opinion of the Court                  22-11446

        compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” be-
        cause of the person’s race. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). The
        ADEA, meanwhile, prohibits employers from discriminating
        against an employee who is at least 40 years old because of the em-
        ployee’s age. See 29 U.S.C. §§ 623(a)(1), 631(a).
                The district court committed no error in dismissing Hamil-
        ton’s complaint for failure to state a claim. The district court ap-
        plied properly the federal pleading standards set forth in Fed. R. Civ.
        P. 8, and in Iqbal and Twombly.
                Accepting the allegations in Hamilton’s amended complaint
        as true and liberally construing them in Hamilton’s favor, Hamilton
        failed to allege facts demonstrating plausibly that he was discrimi-
        nated against unlawfully in violation of Title VII or the ADEA.
               About his ADEA claims, Hamilton alleged no facts from
        which we can infer reasonably that he was discriminated against
        unlawfully based on his age. Nowhere in Hamilton’s amended
        complaint did Hamilton allege that he was at least 40 years’ old at
        the time of the complained-of employment acts. Hamilton has
        thus failed to allege facts showing that he belonged to the class of
        persons protected by the ADEA. See 29 U.S.C. § 631(a). Nor has
        Hamilton alleged the ages of the pertinent decisionmakers, his co-
        workers, or the person hired for the “lead position.” On this rec-
        ord, the district court dismissed properly Hamilton’s claims under
        the ADEA for failure to state a claim.
              We next address Hamilton’s claims for race discrimination
        under Title VII. About his failure-to-promote claim, Hamilton
USCA11 Case: 22-11446      Document: 40-1      Date Filed: 09/28/2023      Page: 9 of 10

        22-11446               Opinion of the Court                          9

        alleged only that he applied for a position for which he was quali-
        ﬁed and that the position was given to a “friend” of his direct su-
        pervisor. Never has Hamilton identiﬁed the race or qualiﬁcations
        of the person who was hired for the position or identiﬁed the race
        of the person who made the hiring decision. In other words, Ham-
        ilton alleged no speciﬁc facts from which we can infer reasonably
        that the hiring decision was motivated by unlawful race discrimi-
        nation. That the hiring decision might have been made based on
        personal friendships does not support -- and seems to cut against -
        - a plausible inference that the decision was driven by a racially dis-
        criminatory animus.
               About the termination of his employment, Hamilton said
        he was ﬁred for taking home pallets even though he was given per-
        mission to do so. According to Hamilton, the real reason he was
        ﬁred was because he complained about not getting the promotion.
        Hamilton alleged no facts about the race of the decisionmaker or
        about the race, work history, or disciplinary record of those co-
        workers he said were undisciplined after taking home ﬁrewood.
        Nor has Hamilton alleged speciﬁc facts about his promotion-re-
        lated complaints, including the identity of the person(s) to whom
        he complained or whether he indicated in his complaints that he
        believed the hiring decision was motivated unlawfully by race.
                Without additional factual enhancement, Hamilton’s im-
        plied assertions that FCS’s decision to terminate his employment
        was motivated by unlawful race discrimination or was made in re-
        taliation for Hamilton’s promotion-related complaints are too
USCA11 Case: 22-11446        Document: 40-1         Date Filed: 09/28/2023        Page: 10 of 10

        10                        Opinion of the Court                       22-11446

        speculative to state a plausible claim against FCS for violation of
        Title VII. See Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949.
                On these pleadings and for these reasons, we aﬃrm the dis-
        trict court’s dismissal of Hamilton’s amended complaint pursuant
        to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 2
                AFFIRMED.

        2 Because we conclude that the district court dismissed properly Hamilton’s

        amended complaint for failure to state a claim, we need not address the district
        court’s alternative ruling that Hamilton’s amended complaint was subject to
        dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.