Sam Han v. University of Dayton
541 F. App'x 622 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To survive a motion to dismiss, an employment discrimination complaint must allege sufficient factual content, beyond conclusory statements, from which a court can draw a reasonable inference that the adverse employment action was plausibly motivated by the plaintiff's protected status.
Facts:
- In August 2008, Sam Han, an Asian-American male, was hired by the University of Dayton as a non-tenured faculty member at its School of Law.
- A Promotion, Retention and Tenure (PRT) Committee, composed of six faculty members, was appointed to oversee Han's professional development.
- Throughout his employment, Han received positive student evaluations, published articles in law journals, and spoke at numerous professional events.
- On April 8, 2011, the PRT Committee gave Han a poor evaluation.
- Based on the PRT Committee's evaluation, the University of Dayton notified Han that it would not be renewing his teaching contract for the following year.
- After Han's contract was not renewed, the university hired a white male as an adjunct professor to teach one of the patent law classes Han had previously taught.
Procedural Posture:
- Sam Han filed a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Ohio (state trial court) alleging various state law claims.
- Han later filed a new, separate lawsuit in the same state court alleging federal and state discrimination claims against the same defendants.
- Before the state court could consolidate the cases, Defendants removed the second lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (federal trial court).
- Han filed a Second Amended Complaint in the federal action, alleging race and gender discrimination.
- The district court granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, holding that the Title VII claims were time-barred and the remaining discrimination claims failed to state a plausible claim for relief.
- Han (Plaintiff-Appellant) appealed the district court's dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth 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 discrimination complaint that alleges the plaintiff's protected status (race and gender) and an adverse employment action, but provides no specific facts linking the two, state a plausible claim for relief sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss under the Twombly/Iqbal standard?
Opinions:
Majority - Clay, J.
No. A discrimination complaint fails to state a plausible claim for relief if it merely provides conclusory allegations of discrimination without sufficient factual matter to create a reasonable inference that the adverse action was due to the plaintiff's protected status. The court reasoned that under the plausibility standard established in Twombly and Iqbal, a complaint must do more than create speculation or suspicion of a legally cognizable cause of action. Han's complaint was devoid of facts that would allow a court to infer how his race or gender factored into the University’s decision not to renew his contract. Simply pleading his protected status and an adverse employment action amounts to a bare and conclusory assertion, which is insufficient to show an entitlement to relief. The court also affirmed the dismissal of Han's Title VII claims as time-barred, as they were filed more than 300 days after he was definitively notified of the non-renewal of his contract.
Analysis:
This case exemplifies the application of the heightened Twombly/Iqbal pleading standard to employment discrimination claims, reinforcing that plaintiffs cannot rely on formulaic recitations of the elements of a cause of action. The decision underscores that federal courts will act as gatekeepers at the pleading stage, requiring plaintiffs to allege specific facts that make a discriminatory motive plausible, not just possible. This precedent makes it more challenging for discrimination cases built on conclusory allegations to survive a motion todismiss and proceed to the discovery phase, where evidence of motive might be uncovered.
