Thomas P. Barber

In Baxter v. Miscavige, Barber held that the defendants could enforce the parties’ arbitration agreements and compelled arbitration of the plaintiffs’ claims. He denied the alternative dismissal request and stayed the case pending arbitration.

“However, Defendants are not entitled to dismissal of the action. In accordance with Eleventh Circuit precedent, this case must be stayed rather than dismissed.”

In Frishberg v. University of South Florida Board of Trustees, he dismissed the plaintiff's housing discrimination and retaliation claims against the state university on Eleventh Amendment grounds. He explained that a possible waiver for Rehabilitation Act claims did not waive immunity for claims under other statutes.

“just because the state may waive immunity for one type of claim (such as the Rehabilitation Act) does not mean that it waives immunity for all possible claims”

In Frishberg v. University of South Florida Board of Trustees, Barber dismissed the student's ADA Title II claim with prejudice because the alleged emotional support cat was not a service animal. After partial appellate review, the court allowed only a Rehabilitation Act claim to be pursued on remand.

“It is undisputed that Plaintiff’s cat is not a service animal. Consequently, any ADA claim fails as a matter of law.”

In Mead v. Life Insurance Company of North America, he granted the insurer summary judgment in an ERISA disability-benefits dispute. Applying deferential review, he found reasonable grounds in the medical and vocational evidence for the benefit decision and found no evidence that the insurer's structural conflict affected it.

“Under that deferential standard, the Court must affirm the administrator’s decision if it was reasonable based on the available evidence, even if the Court would have reached a different decision in the first instance.”

In United States v. Vogel, he found that possession and attempted concealment of unidentified pills supported further investigation but did not establish probable cause for arrest or the ensuing vehicle search.

“The possession of unidentified pills – even when coupled with an attempt to conceal them – simply did not establish probable cause to believe Defendant was committing any criminal offense.”

In Glazman v. Citigroup, Barber compelled arbitration after finding that the plaintiff’s conclusory harassment allegations did not state a plausible sexual harassment claim under the EFAA exception. He denied the request to dismiss the federal case and stayed it pending arbitration.

“EFAA’s exclusion of sexual harassment claims from arbitration ‘applies only when the plaintiff states a plausible claim of sexual harassment, which requires that the claim be capable of surviving a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.’”

On promotion pretext, an employee's own view that she was better qualified does not suffice; the comparative disparity must be so weighty that no reasonable impartial decisionmaker could have selected the other candidate.

“To meet the burden of showing pretext, it is insufficient for Plaintiff to point to evidence that she was, in fact, the better candidate.”

In Murphy, he dismissed an amended complaint that incorporated 158 general paragraphs into every count, while allowing another amendment directed to separate claims and their supporting facts.

“This type of over-incorporation constitutes an impermissible shotgun pleading.”

In Ruether v. City of Clearwater, the court dismissed the third amended civil-rights complaint with prejudice after earlier opportunities to amend and identified pleading defects did not produce sufficient factual allegations.

“Further amendment is unwarranted, and so each of the claims are dismissed with prejudice.”

In Krambeck, an ERISA disability-benefits case under de novo review, Barber denied both sides summary judgment on the benefits claim because conflicting evidence required a bench trial absent agreement on a paper record.

“the Court declines to weigh the conflicting evidence and grant judgment for either side at this point.”