McCleary-Evans v. Maryland Department of Transportation, State Highway Administration

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
780 F.3d 582 (2015)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under the plausibility pleading standard established by Twombly and Iqbal, a Title VII employment discrimination complaint must allege sufficient factual matter to support a reasonable inference of discriminatory intent. Conclusory allegations that an employer was biased, without factual enhancement, are insufficient to state a claim for relief.

Facts:

Dawnn McCleary-Evans, an African American woman, had over 20 years of experience as a project manager on environmental regulatory compliance projects.
In late 2009 and early 2010, McCleary-Evans applied for two open positions at the Maryland Department of Transportation’s State Highway Administration: assistant division chief and environmental compliance program manager.
McCleary-Evans alleged she was 'more than qualified' for both positions.
The review panel for her applications was significantly influenced by Gregory Keenan, a white male, and Sonal Sangahvi, a non-Black woman.
McCleary-Evans was not selected for either position.
The two positions were filled by non-Black candidates.
McCleary-Evans believed that Keenan and Sangahvi had predetermined to select white candidates for the positions based on her interview experience and a perceived history of hires within the department.

Procedural Posture:

Dawnn McCleary-Evans commenced an action in the U.S. District Court against the Maryland Department of Transportation’s State Highway Administration, alleging violations of Title VII.
The Highway Administration filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
The district court granted the Highway Administration's motion, concluding the complaint failed to allege facts that plausibly supported a claim of discrimination.
McCleary-Evans (appellant) filed an appeal of the district court's dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, where the Highway Administration was the appellee.

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 complaint state a plausible claim for relief when it alleges that a qualified member of a protected class was rejected in favor of someone outside that class, but supports the claim of discriminatory motive with only conclusory allegations of bias?

Opinions:

Majority - Judge Niemeyer

No. A complaint in an employment discrimination case fails to state a plausible claim for relief if it does not allege facts sufficient to support a reasonable inference that the employer acted with discriminatory animus. While a plaintiff need not plead a prima facie case of discrimination, the complaint must contain more than conclusory allegations and formulaic recitations of the elements of a cause of action. Here, McCleary-Evans's complaint alleged that the decisionmakers were biased but offered no supporting facts beyond the races of the parties involved. These 'naked assertions' are merely consistent with discrimination but do not plausibly suggest it, as there is an obvious alternative explanation that the hired candidates were simply better qualified. Allowing such a complaint to proceed would mean any qualified member of a protected class could survive a motion to dismiss by merely alleging they were passed over for someone outside their class, which is inconsistent with the plausibility standard of Twombly and Iqbal.

Dissenting - Judge Wynn

Yes. The complaint states a plausible claim for race discrimination under the standard set forth in Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., which remains good law and is more applicable to a routine employment discrimination case than the national security context of Iqbal. McCleary-Evans detailed her extensive qualifications, identified the decisionmakers and their races, stated that non-African American candidates were hired, and alleged that her race played a role based on her interview and the department's hiring history. This is sufficient to give the defendant fair notice of the claim and its grounds, nudging the claim across the line from conceivable to plausible. To require more specific facts about the employer's intent before discovery is unrealistic, as such evidence is often in the exclusive control of the defendant, and dismissing such claims prematurely undermines the purpose of Title VII.

Analysis:

This case solidifies the application of the heightened Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard to routine Title VII employment discrimination claims. It clarifies that while a plaintiff is not required to plead every element of a McDonnell Douglas prima facie case, they must do more than recite legal conclusions. The decision raises the bar for plaintiffs at the pleading stage, requiring them to allege concrete facts that make the inference of discrimination plausible, not just possible, which can be difficult before discovery. This holding effectively tempers the more liberal pleading standard for discrimination cases suggested by the Supreme Court's earlier decision in Swierkiewicz.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: McCleary-Evans v. Maryland Department of Transportation, State Highway Administration (2015)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"