Haygood v. Orange County Public Schools et al

Filing 56

ORDER -- The Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 39) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to Defendant Florida Department of Education Practices Commission. The Clerk is DIRECTED to TERMINATE Florida Department of Education Practices Commission as a party. On or before Monday, October 23, 2017, Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file a response to Defendant Orange County Public Schools Dispositive Motion to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint with Prejudice (Doc. 55). Failure to timely respond may result in dismissal of this action with prejudice. Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 10/16/2017. (VMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
WILSONIA W. HAYGOOD,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 6:16-cv-2105-Orl-37GJK

ORANGE COUNTY PUBLIC
SCHOOLS; and FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
PRACTICES COMMISSION,
Defendants.
_____________________________________
ORDER
On July 19, 2017, pro se Plaintiff filed her second amended complaint (“SAC”)
purporting to sue three Defendants under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
(“Title VII”) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”).
(Doc. 39.) These claims stem from Plaintiff’s termination as a teacher from Bridgewater
Middle School. (See id. ¶ 16.) Upon Florida Education Association’s (“FEA”) motion, the
Court dismissed the SAC as it was a shotgun pleading and for failure to properly allege
either a Title VII claim or an ADEA claim against FEA. (Doc. 51 (“Dismissal Order”).) In
so doing, the Court dismissed the claims against FEA with prejudice and terminated it as
a party. (Id. at 9.)
In light of the pleading deficiencies and insufficient service of process, the Court
also dismissed Plaintiff’s claims without prejudice against the remaining defendants—
Orange County Public Schools (“OCPS”) and Florida Department of Education Practices
-1-

Commission (“Commission”). (Id.) The Court: (1) granted Plaintiff leave to file a third
amended complaint as to these remaining defendants; and (2) directed Plaintiff to file
proofs of service thirty days after filing her third amended complaint. (Id. at 9–10.)
On October 2, 2017, Plaintiff filed: (1) a document titled “Notification to the Court
of Matters Concerning a Third Amended Complaint in Response to [the Court’s
Dismissal Order]” (Doc. 52 (“Notice”)); and (2) proofs of service indicating that she had
served the SAC on FEA, OCPS, and the Commission (Doc. 53). In her Notice, Plaintiff
appears to contest the dismissal of the SAC. (See Doc. 52, pp. 3–5.) As such, the Court
construes the Notice as Plaintiff’s intent to stand on the allegations asserted therein and
will treat the SAC as the operative pleading as to OCPS and the Commission.
On review, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s allegations against the Commission are
deficient. Title VII and the ADEA apply only to “employers.” See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b);
29 U.S.C. § 630(b). Plaintiff alleges that the Commission “is a quasi-judicial body” that
“issues penalties against an educator’s certificate.” (Doc. 39, ¶ 9.) So, because Plaintiff did
not allege that the Commission employed her, she has failed to properly plead her claims
against the Commission.
On more than one occasion, the Court has provided Plaintiff with specific
instructions on how to comply with basic pleading requirements. (See Docs. 17, 38, 51.) It
is now apparent that Plaintiff cannot make out a Title VII or ADEA claim against the
Commission. In light of Plaintiff’s repeated failure to cure the deficient allegations, the
Court finds that Plaintiff’s claims against the Commission are due to be dismissed with
prejudice. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) (noting that dismissal with prejudice
-2-

is appropriate where a plaintiff has repeatedly failed to cure deficiencies by amendment).
As for OCPS, it responded to the Notice by filing a Motion to Dismiss the Third
Amended Complaint With Prejudice on October 5, 2017. (Doc. 55 (“Motion”).) Despite
its label, OCPS construes the Notice as incorporating and restating the SAC’s allegations
and directs its arguments to the same. (See Doc. 55, p. 4, 8 (presenting argument “as to
why the [SAC] should be dismissed on the merits”).) Consequently, Plaintiff must now
respond to the Motion.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1.

The Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 39) is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE as to Defendant Florida Department of Education Practices
Commission.

2.

The Clerk is DIRECTED to TERMINATE Florida Department of Education
Practices Commission as a party.

3.

On or before Monday, October 23, 2017, Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file a
response to Defendant Orange County Public Schools Dispositive Motion
to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint with Prejudice (Doc. 55). Failure to
timely respond may result in dismissal of this action with prejudice.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on October 16, 2017.

-3-

Copies to:
Pro se party
Counsel of Record

-4-