![]() As a result of the way she was treated within the building department, Chance filed a lawsuit in federal district court for, among other claims, the County’s violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and for the County’s violation of Title VII of the Florida Civil Rights Act. Ultimately, she was suspended and faced a demotion from her position within the building department, and she was later transferred to another job within the County. USCA11 Case: 20-11699 20-11699 Date Filed: Opinion of the Court Page: 3 of 13 3 in the department to do the same. The defense attorneys’ conduct in the sexual harassment case is the basis for Chance’s conspiracy claims under 42 U.S.C. She also explained that this supervisor made inappropriate comments to her and harassed her both personally and indirectly when he directed other employees with- 1 These background facts are drawn from the complaint in Chance’s first case against the County for sexual harassment (“the sexual harassment case”). 1 She maintained that her supervisor within the building department prevented her from being promoted because she had a preexisting hip injury. Beginning in 2004, Chance, a female employee of Wakulla County (“the County”), worked for the County’s building department. Because Chance has not sufficiently alleged that the defendants in this case acted outside the scope of their representation, we affirm. TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge: Tracey Chance appeals the dismissal of her complaint against several attorneys under 42 U.S.C. 4:19-cv-00335-MW-CAS _ Before LAGOA, BRASHER, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges. _ USCA11 Case: 20-11699 2 Date Filed: Page: 2 of 13 Opinion of the Court 20-11699 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida D.C. CHANCE, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus ARIEL COOK, HEATHER ENCINOSA, MARGARET ZABIJAKA, CONSTANGY BROOKS SMITH & PROPHETE LLP, NABORS GIBLIN & NICKERSON PA, Defendants-Appellees. USCA11 Case: 20-11699 Date Filed: Page: 1 of 13 In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit _ No. Here, Plaintiff but in no way suggests that the defense attorneys were acting outside the scope of their representation, thus her Section 1985(2) claims were properly dismissed. The court explained that per Farese, it is Plaintiff’s burden to allege facts that establish that the County defense attorneys were acting outside the scope of their representation when they told law enforcement about Plaintiff’s recordings. Plaintiff’s complaint suggested that the defense attorneys filed the complaint for the “sole benefit of their client rather than for their own personal benefit.” Alternatively, Plaintiff points to the fact that the County defense attorneys had been aware of Plaintiff’s recordings for many months and only reported her recordings to law enforcement when they learned that Plaintiff “insist on her right to testify in federal court about the recordings and present them as evidence” in the sexual harassment case. ![]() The district court dismissed the complaint, explaining that Plaintiff’s alleged facts did not demonstrate that the defense attorneys for the County had engaged in a conspiracy that met the elements of 42 U.S.C. The defense attorneys and their law firms filed several motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). In the present case, Plaintiff filed a five-count complaint against the defense attorneys for the County. Plaintiff filed a lawsuit in federal district court for, among other claims, the County’s violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Plaintiff a female employee of Wakulla County (“the County”), worked for the County’s building department.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |