I have written about the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bell Atlantic Corp., et al. v. Twombly et al., in which the high court looked at Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals for failure to state a claim. While Twombly was an antitrust case, its principles apply to employment cases, and on Dec. 5 the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals applied Twombly to one. Twombly rejected the idea that a court could only grant a 12(b)(6) motion if there was no way, no how, that the plaintiff could state a claim. Rather, the court said that a plaintiff, to survive a 12(b)(6) motion, had to state enough facts to support a plausible claim. No speculation allowed. So what did the 5th Circuit do with this allegation regarding a complaint filed by Christopher Landavazo? Here’s the 5th Circuit, quoting from the complaint:
‘Mr. Landavazo was terminated on or about December 9, 2004. Defendant purportedly terminated because Plaintiff supposedly claimed unworked overtime. This purported reason is false, pretextual and a mere excuse for unlawful motivations. The real reasons Mr. Landavazo was discriminated and retaliated against in the terms, conditions and privileges of his employment is because of his race, color, national origin and or ethnicity and or in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.’
I generally don't like to quote this much, but on a 12(b)(6), the devil is in the details. What did the 5th Circuit do? The court said that this complaint was just a bunch of legal conclusions. The complaint set out the reasons why the employer supposedly terminated Landavazo. Fair enough. But it did not, as required by Twombly, set out why a protected characteristic played a role in the termination. Under Twombly, a plaintiff must play to win and not play not to lose. Here, he did not show why he was entitled to relief, just blanket assertions of entitlement to relief. Case dismissed.
Comments