Marie Dorival v. Cole, Scott & Kissane

── Marie Dorival v. Cole, Scott & Kissane ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: April 10, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 25-11224 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 04/10/2026 Page: 1 of 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-11224 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ MARIE DORIVAL, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, ANDREA GUNDERSEN, Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 0:25-cv-60070-WPD ____________________ Before NEWSOM, GRANT, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Marie Dorival appeals the district court’s dismissal of her Title VII claims. We affirm. USCA11 Case: 25-11224 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 04/10/2026 Page: 2 of 5 2 Opinion of the Court 25-11224 I. Marie Dorival works as a legal assistant at the law firm of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A. Back in 2023, she reported to Andrea Gundersen, a partner at the firm. In a closed-door meeting with Dorival and a coworker, Gundersen told Dorival, a black woman, that “Lincoln may have freed the slaves, but I’m keeping you.” Dorival complained to higher-ups at the firm, who promptly “apologize[d] for that hurtful experience,” reassigned her to another attorney, and relocated her to a cubicle further away from Gundersen’s office. Still, Dorival felt targeted on the basis of her race, alluding to her receipt of “a harassing email from a managing attorney” and the “invasive” intrusion of her workspace by “unidentified individuals.” Proceeding pro se, Dorival sued both her employer and Gundersen, claiming that they violated Title VII by creating a hostile work environment. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that Gundersen’s remark, albeit “inappropriate,” did not rise to severe and pervasive harassment and Dorival’s remaining allegations were vague and conclusory. In lieu of a response, Dorival filed an amended complaint to address those “deficiencies.” So the district court denied the motion as moot. The defendants renewed their motion to dismiss, pointing out that the amended complaint is “virtually identical” to the original. In response, Dorival decided to stand on her amended complaint, arguing that she has “sufficiently pled facts supporting USCA11 Case: 25-11224 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 04/10/2026 Page: 3 of 5 25-11224 Opinion of the Court 3 her claims for relief.” The district court granted the motion to dismiss. In its view, Gundersen’s single remark did not create an objectively hostile work environment. Dorival’s “extremely vague” allegations regarding “harassing” emails and intrusions on her workspace were insufficient as well. And because Dorival amended her complaint once before, the court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice and closed the case. This is Dorival’s appeal. Her three-page brief appears to contend that Gundersen’s comment created a hostile work environment, and the district court erred by declining to allow her to file a second amended complaint. II.