Justia U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

On remand from the Supreme Court for further proceedings regarding a sovereign immunity issue, the court reviewed the district court's conclusion that plaintiff's official-capacity claim against the former president of CACC for equitable relief was barred by the Eleventh Amendment. In this case, plaintiff seeks equitable relief in the form of reinstatement of his employment and such relief falls within the scope of the Ex parte Young exception and is not barred by the Eleventh Amendment. In light of the court's reinstatement precedents, the court concluded that the district court erred in dismissing plaintiff's official-capacity claim against the president as barred by the Eleventh Amendment. View "Lane v. Central Alabama Community College, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against a Georgia post-judgment garnishment statute. Plaintiff obtained funds from a workers' compensation settlement after suffering a permanent disability on the job. Plaintiff also received Social Security disability payments. One of plaintiff's creditors issued a garnishment summons that resulted in the freezing of plaintiff's worker's compensation funds for four months before plaintiff's creditor finally conceded that plaintiff's funds were exempt from garnishment and agreed to the dissolution of the hold on his funds. The court concluded that plaintiff had Article III standing and that his claim is not moot. The court declined to pass on the constitutionality of Georgia's post-judgment garnishment statute before ensuring that all interested parties have had notice and a chance to present all evidence and argument, and the district court has had an opportunity to examine and consider that evidence and argument on the merits. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's sua sponte dismissal of plaintiff's suit for lack of standing and remanded, because it was substantially likely that plaintiff and his wife's exempt funds will soon be the subject of a garnishment summons again. View "Strickland v. Alexander, et al." on Justia Law

After his termination, plaintiff, a tenured university professor at Georgia Tech, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against Georgia Tech's President and others. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's grant of defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). The court concluded that plaintiff was afforded adequate procedural due process prior to revocation of his tenure and termination of his employment with Georgia Tech where the pre-termination procedures afforded plaintiff satisfied the established guidelines for minimum procedural due process. Plaintiff received prior, written notice of the charges against him, he presented argument and evidence on his own behalf, he had a right to appeal his termination to the Board of Regents, and he submitted a written appeal to the Board of Regents. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Laskar, Ph.D. v. Peterson, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the School District, her former employer, for violations of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2601 et seq., and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq. The court held that the School District is not an "arm of the State," and instead operates more like a county or similar political subdivision to which Eleventh Amendment immunity does not extend. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's finding that the School District was entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. In regards to plaintiff's ADA retaliation claim, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the School District where the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to construe plaintiff's ADA retaliation claim as being based on different facts than the ones actually pled in her ADA count. Even when construed liberally, plaintiff's complaint did not give the School District notice that her ADA retaliation claim was based on her request for FMLA leave. View "Lightfoot v. Henry Cnty. Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

Jose Morabito, an Argentinian national, filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC, alleging that RCCL violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12112, when RCCL refused to renew his employment contract after he was diagnosed with HIV and Kaposi Sarcoma, even though he had been declared fit for duty. In this appeal, the EEOC challenged the district court's denial of its application for enforcement of an administrative subpoena issued to RCCL. The court concluded that the disputed portions of the subpoena are aimed at discovering members of a potential class of employees or applicants who suffered from a pattern or practice of discrimination, rather than fleshing out Mr. Morabito's charge. Even if the information sought has some tenuous relevance to the charge filed by Mr. Morabito, the court found no error in the district court's holding that compliance with the subpoena would be unduly burdensome to RCCL. The district court's weighing of the burden to RCCL and the likely irrelevance of the information to Mr. Morabito's charge was not an abuse of discretion, especially in light of the jurisdictional issues raised by RCCL. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, LTD." on Justia Law

In consolidated appeals, the Jefferson County Board of Education and the Madison City Board of Education ask the court to recede from its opinion in Stewart v. Baldwin Cnty. Bd. of Educ., which held that school boards in Alabama are not arms of the state and therefore not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. The court declined to read Versiglio II in a way which violates the court's prior panel precedent rule and creates interpretive problems for panels in the future; although the court recognized the principle of state sovereign immunity law in Stewart, the court did not find it determinative, and held that Alabama school boards could not assert Eleventh Amendment immunity; the court's precedent does not provide a basis for it to conclude that Stewart has been abrogated; the court noted that the Alabama courts do not view state sovereign immunity and Eleventh Amendment immunity as one and the same; and the Alabama Supreme Court's Ex Parte Madison Cnty. Bd. of Educ. decision agrees with Stewart. The court concluded that both cases before it concern employment-related decisions and under Stewart, local school boards in Alabama are not arms of the state with respect to such decisions. Consequently, the Jefferson County Board of Education and the Madison City Board of Education are not immune under the Eleventh Amendment from suits challenging those decisions under federal law; the district court's dismissal of the complaint in Walker (Case Nos. 13-14182 and 13-14927) is reversed; and the district court's denial of the motion of dismiss in Weaver (Case No. 13-14624) is affirmed. View "Walker, et al. v. Jefferson Cnty. Bd. of Educ., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 2671-2680, against the United States, alleging that they experienced various health problems after being exposed to toxic substances in the drinking water while living at Camp Lejeune, a military base in North Carolina. The United States argued that the North Carolina statute of repose, N.C. Gen. Stat. 1-52(16), precluded plaintiffs from bringing the case. The district court disagreed and certified two questions for interlocutory appeal. The court held that the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9568, does not preempt North Carolina's statute of repose. The court also held that North Carolina's statute of repose applies to plaintiffs' claims and does not contain an exception for latent diseases. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Bryant, et al. v. United States" on Justia Law

After victims of a terrorist kidnapping in Colombia (plaintiffs) received a nine-figure default judgment against their captor (FARC), they attempted to collect through a series of ex parte garnishments and executions against third parties with purported illicit ties to the captor. Third-party claimants appealed the various orders granting plaintiffs' motions seeking to collect on their judgment using claimants' assets and denying the motions filed by claimants seeking relief. The court concluded that plaintiffs should have provided formal notice of the garnishment and execution proceedings to the owners of the property, as Florida law provides; the district court incorrectly concluded that no process was due to the owners of the property here; ultimately, claimants bear their share of the blame for either sitting on their rights to challenge the allegations against them or simply failing to rebut the changes; and, therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court with the exception of the turnover judgment against Brunello Ltd.'s account. View "Stansell, et al. v. Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia, (FARC), et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a Florida resident, wanted to file suit against his doctor for medical negligence. Before filing suit, plaintiff had to comply with Florida's presuit requirements. At issue was whether the presuit authorizations in Fla. Stat. 766.1065, requiring that plaintiff execute a written authorization form for release from protected health information, is preempted by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), 45 C.F.R. 164.508, 164.5. The court concluded that the written authorization form required in section 766.1065 fully complied with HIPAA and, therefore, there was no federal preemption of section 766.1065. The court reversed the judgment of the district court holding otherwise. View "Murphy v. Dulay, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of their deaf son and his deaf sister, filed a disability discrimination suit against defendants after the son was hospitalized and was not offered or provided with a trained sign language interpreter. The district court dismissed the individual claims asserted by plaintiffs and the sister for lack of standing, and granted summary judgment to defendants on the claims that plaintiffs brought on the son's behalf for damages and injunctive relief. The court concluded that the district court properly dismissed the claims that defendants denied benefits to, or discriminated against plaintiffs or the sister, because of their association with the son, where plaintiffs and the sister lacked standing under the Rehabilitation Act (RA), 29 U.S.C. 701 et seq., and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.; the district court properly concluded that the son lacked standing to seek injunctive relief where there is no immediate threat of future injury; and the son has not presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact about whether defendants acted with deliberate indifference. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "McCullum, et al. v. Orlando Regional Healthcare, et al." on Justia Law