Portia Surtain v. Hamlin Terrace Foundation
789 F.3d 1239, 24 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1517, 31 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1259 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When assessing a plaintiff's motion for default judgment, a court must determine if the complaint's well-pleaded factual allegations state a plausible claim for relief under the Twombly/Iqbal standard, not whether the complaint establishes a prima facie case under an evidentiary framework like McDonnell Douglas.
Facts:
- Portia Surtain, an African-American woman, was employed by Hamlin Terrace Foundation from 2006 to 2010.
- Surtain requested medical leave from Hamlin.
- Surtain alleged that Hamlin handled her request for medical leave differently than it handled the requests of white employees.
- She visited a doctor for an unspecified health issue and provided Hamlin with a doctor's note stating she could not return to work until further notice.
- Hamlin was aware of the doctor's visit and the contents of the note.
- Hamlin terminated Surtain's employment for being absent from work for ten days without filing a written request for leave, which was a violation of Hamlin's employee leave policy.
Procedural Posture:
- Portia Surtain sued Hamlin Terrace Foundation in U.S. District Court.
- After Hamlin failed to respond, the Clerk of Court entered a default against it.
- Surtain moved for default judgment; the District Court dismissed some claims with leave to amend but found the FMLA claim sufficient.
- Surtain filed an amended complaint, Hamlin again defaulted, and Surtain again moved for default judgment.
- The District Court held a status conference, found service of process had been improper, and denied the motion.
- Surtain filed a second amended complaint and properly served Hamlin; Hamlin again failed to respond, and a third default was entered.
- Surtain filed a third motion for default judgment.
- The District Court denied Surtain's motion and sua sponte dismissed her entire complaint with prejudice.
- Surtain (appellant) appealed the District Court's order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, where Hamlin was the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a district court abuse its discretion by applying the McDonnell Douglas prima facie evidentiary standard, rather than the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard, when determining whether a plaintiff's complaint provides a sufficient basis for entering a default judgment?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, a district court abuses its discretion by applying the wrong legal standard. A motion for default judgment requires the court to assess whether the complaint states a plausible claim for relief, which is the same standard used to evaluate a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework is an evidentiary standard for later stages of litigation, not a pleading requirement. The district court erred by requiring Surtain to plead a prima facie case of race and disability discrimination. Therefore, its denial of the default judgment on the race discrimination claim must be vacated and reconsidered under the correct plausibility standard. However, even under the correct standard, Surtain's disability discrimination and FMLA claims fail because the complaint lacks sufficient factual allegations to make them plausible; for example, knowledge of a doctor's note alone does not plausibly suggest an employer perceived an employee as having a disability under the ADA.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the distinction between pleading standards and evidentiary burdens, clarifying that the plausibility standard of Twombly/Iqbal governs the sufficiency of a complaint for default judgment purposes. By rejecting the application of the McDonnell Douglas prima facie framework at this stage, the court aligns the default judgment inquiry with the Rule 12(b)(6) standard. This decision prevents courts from prematurely terminating potentially valid claims by holding plaintiffs to a higher, evidence-focused standard before discovery. It serves as a crucial reminder that a defendant's default does not absolve a plaintiff of the need to plead a legally plausible claim, but it also protects plaintiffs from having to prove their entire case in the complaint.
Unlock the full brief for Portia Surtain v. Hamlin Terrace Foundation