Littlejohn v. City of New York
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 13475, 2015 WL 4604250, 795 F.3d 297 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employment discrimination complaint must allege sufficient facts to state a plausible claim for relief, which requires only plausibly alleging the minimal facts necessary to support an inference of discriminatory motivation under the McDonnell Douglas framework, not facts sufficient to prove the ultimate question of discrimination.
Facts:
- Dawn F. Littlejohn, an African-American woman, was the Director of the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Office for the New York City Administration for Children’s Services (ACS).
- After a new supervisor, Amy Baker, a white woman, took over, Littlejohn alleged that Baker treated her with hostility, diminished her duties, and excluded her from management meetings.
- During a merger between ACS and the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), Littlejohn complained to Baker and ACS Commissioner John Mattingly that they were showing preferential treatment to white employees while terminating or demoting African-American and Latino employees.
- Littlejohn believed her supervisors were failing to abide by proper anti-discrimination policies during the merger process and voiced these objections.
- In March 2011, Littlejohn was involuntarily demoted from her EEO Director position to a non-managerial role, which included a pay cut.
- Littlejohn was replaced as EEO Director by Fredda Monn, a white woman who Littlejohn alleged had no prior EEO experience.
- In her new position, Littlejohn's supervisor, Brandon Stradford, allegedly began sexually harassing her through repeated requests for sex and other unwanted advances.
Procedural Posture:
- Dawn Littlejohn filed an Intake Questionnaire and a formal Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC, alleging race discrimination and retaliation.
- After receiving a Notice of Right to Sue, Littlejohn filed a pro se lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- After retaining counsel, Littlejohn filed an amended complaint against the City of New York and three individual supervisors, alleging disparate treatment, retaliation, hostile work environment, and sexual harassment.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
- The district court granted the defendants' motion, dismissing all of Littlejohn's claims.
- Littlejohn (appellant) appealed the district court's dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a Title VII employment discrimination complaint need to allege facts that give plausible support to the minimal inference of discriminatory motivation required to establish a prima facie case under the McDonnell Douglas framework to survive a motion to dismiss?
Opinions:
Majority - Droney, J.
Yes. A Title VII complaint must allege facts sufficient to state a claim that is plausible on its face, but this standard is applied in light of the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. At the pleading stage, a plaintiff does not need to allege facts that give plausible support to the ultimate question of discrimination, but only facts that give plausible support to a minimal inference of discriminatory motivation. For her disparate treatment claim, Littlejohn met this standard by alleging she is a member of a protected class, was qualified for her position, suffered an adverse employment action (demotion), and was replaced by a less-qualified individual outside of her protected class. For her retaliation claim, Littlejohn plausibly alleged that she engaged in a protected activity by complaining about discrimination, her employer was aware of it, she suffered an adverse action, and the demotion occurred in close temporal proximity to her ongoing complaints, establishing a causal connection. The court clarified that an EEO officer's personal complaints about discriminatory practices qualify as a protected 'oppositional' activity.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for reconciling the Supreme Court's heightened 'plausibility' pleading standard from Iqbal with the plaintiff-friendly McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework for Title VII cases. The court clarifies that a plaintiff can survive a motion to dismiss without providing extensive evidence of discriminatory intent in the complaint. By holding that facts supporting a 'minimal inference' of discrimination are sufficient, the decision prevents the pleading stage from becoming an insurmountable barrier for plaintiffs who have not yet had access to discovery. Furthermore, the ruling broadens the scope of protected activity for retaliation claims, confirming that employees in compliance or HR roles can engage in protected opposition when they personally complain about their employer's discriminatory practices, rather than merely performing their job duties of investigating others' claims.
Unlock the full brief for Littlejohn v. City of New York