Abdul Alansari v. Tropic Star Seafood Inc. , 395 F. App'x 629 ( 2010 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
SEPTEMBER 9, 2010
No. 09-15152
JOHN LEY
Non-Argument Calendar
CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 07-00438-CV-4-SPM
ABDUL ALANSARI,
THERESA BENDER,
as Bankruptcy Trustee for Abdul Alansari,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
versus
TROPIC STAR SEAFOOD INC.,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
_________________________
(September 9, 2010)
Before EDMONDSON, BLACK, and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Defendant-Appellant Tropic Star Seafood, Inc., appeals the order denying its
motion for attorneys’ fees on Plaintiff’s retaliation claims brought pursuant to the
Florida Whistleblower Act and the Florida Workers’ Compensation Act. The
district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant on all of Plaintiff’s
employment discrimination claims, including claims brought pursuant to Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act and the Florida Civil Rights Act (“FCRA”). No reversible
error has been shown; we affirm.
Pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 768.79, Defendant made Plaintiff an offer of
judgment on the whistleblower and workers’ compensation claims; Plaintiff
rejected the offer. The district court denied Defendant’s motion for attorneys’ fees
on the these claims because the claims arose from the same facts and circumstances
as Plaintiff’s Title VII and FCRA claims; and Defendant was unentitled to
attorneys’ fees on those claims because they were not frivolous.
On appeal, Defendant argues that the district court erred in not granting it
attorneys’ fees on the whistleblower and workers’ compensation retaliation claims
because an award of attorneys fees under the offer-of-judgment statute is not
restricted to frivolous or bad faith claims.1 We review a district court’s denial of
1
Defendant does not challenge the denial of attorneys’ fees on the Title VII and FCRA
claims.
2
attorneys’ fees for an abuse of discretion. Matter of Trinity Indus., Inc., 876 F.2d
1485, 1496 (11th Cir. 1989). And we review questions of law de novo and fact
findings for clear error. Jones v. United Space Alliance, L.L.C., 494 F.3d 1306,
1309 (11th Cir. 2007).
The Florida offer-of-judgment statute provides that in a civil action where
the defendant prevails, if, before judgment, the “defendant file[d] an offer of
judgment which [was] not accepted by the plaintiff within 30 days, the defendant
shall be entitled to recover reasonable costs and attorney’s fees incurred.” Fla.
Stat. § 768.79(1).2 Per Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment
Opportunity Comm’n, 98 S.Ct. 694, 700 (1978), prevailing defendants cannot
recover attorneys’ fees in Title VII cases unless the underlying claim was
“frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.” In Jones, we applied
Christiansburg to limit the application of section 768.79 to cases brought under the
FCRA. We concluded that defendants cannot recover attorneys’ fees under the
FCRA, even after an offer of judgment, unless the action is determined to be
frivolous because
(1) Florida courts have limited the application of [section] 768.79 in
federal civil rights cases under [section] 1988 [the federal attorneys’
fee statute] to those that are “frivolous, unreasonable, or without
2
Because the offer-of-judgment statute is substantive law, we look to Florida law to
determine whether section 768.79 should be applied in this case. Jones, 494 F.3d at 1309-10.
3
foundation”; (2) cases brought under [section] 1988 and Title VII
attorneys’ fees provisions are to be governed by the same standard;
and (3) the FCRA is to be interpreted consistently with Title VII.
Jones, 494 F.3d at 1310-11 (internal citations omitted).
The district court relied on Jones in concluding that Defendant was
unentitled to attorneys’ fees on the whistleblower and workers’ compensation
claims. We discern no error in the court’s decision. Title VI and whistleblower
retaliation claims employ the same analysis, just as Title VII and FCRA claims do.
See Sierminski v. Transouth Fin. Corp., 216 F.3d 945, 950 (11th Cir. 2000);
Harper v. Blockbuster Entm’t Corp., 139 F.3d 1385, 1389 (11th Cir. 1998). And
Florida courts have recognized the similarity and overlap between claims under the
FCRA and the Florida Whistleblower Act. See Rivera v. Torfino Enter., Inc., 914
So.2d 1087, 1089-90 (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. App. 2005) (noting that the FCRA and the
Whistleblower Act both protect against retaliation); Underwood v. Rhone-Poulenc
Rorer Pharm., 890 So.2d 429, 431 (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. App. 2004) (concluding that
appellant’s FCRA claim was intertwined with his whistleblower claim because the
claims had a similar factual basis).
All of Plaintiff’s civil rights claims were based on the same set of facts. And
these facts -- whether brought pursuant to state or federal civil rights statutes -- are
governed by the same legal standards. Thus, because Florida law prevents awards
4
of attorneys’ fees, even after an offer of judgment, in state and federal civil rights
cases absent a showing of frivolity, the court did not err in declining to award fees
under section 768.79.3
The record also supports the district court’s alternative ruling that the offer
of judgment was facially invalid and also precluded an award of attorneys’ fees.
The offer failed to discuss specifically Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief and
failed to address how much of the settlement was attributable to each plaintiff.4
See Dudley v. McCormick, 799 So.2d 436, 441 (Fla. 1st Dist. Ct. App. 2001)
(reversing an award of attorneys’ fees based on Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.442(c)(3), because
the settlement proposal neither specified separate amounts for each plaintiff nor
designated one plaintiff as the offeree); Di Paola v. Beach Terrace Ass’n, Inc., 718
So.2d 1275, 1277 (Fla. 2nd Dist. Ct. App. 1998) (reversing an award of attorneys’
fees because offer of judgment failed to state whether defendant agreed to the entry
of injunctions to satisfy the plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief, yet it claimed to
allow judgment on “all claims”).
AFFIRMED.
3
Defendant does not argue that Plaintiff’s whistleblower and workers’ compensation
claims were frivolous.
4
Alansari included his bankruptcy trustee as a plaintiff in his complaint.
5