Lexplug logoLexplug

Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, N.A.

United States Supreme Court
534 U.S. 506 (2002)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An employment discrimination complaint does not need to contain specific facts establishing a prima facie case of discrimination. Instead, it must only contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2).


Facts:

  • Akos Swierkiewicz, a 53-year-old native of Hungary, was employed by Sorema N. A., a reinsurance company controlled by a French parent corporation.
  • Swierkiewicz initially held the position of senior vice president and chief underwriting officer (CUO).
  • Francois M. Chavel, Sorema's CEO and a French national, demoted Swierkiewicz and transferred the bulk of his duties to Nicholas Papadopoulo, a 32-year-old French national with significantly less experience.
  • About a year later, Chavel appointed Papadopoulo as the new CUO.
  • Following his demotion, Swierkiewicz alleged he was isolated and excluded from business decisions.
  • After Swierkiewicz sent a memo outlining his grievances and requesting a severance package, he was given the option to resign without severance or be dismissed.
  • When Swierkiewicz refused to resign, Chavel fired him.

Procedural Posture:

  • Akos Swierkiewicz sued his former employer, Sorema N. A., in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for national origin and age discrimination.
  • The District Court (trial court) granted Sorema's motion to dismiss, finding that Swierkiewicz's complaint failed to adequately allege a prima facie case of discrimination.
  • Swierkiewicz, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
  • The Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court) affirmed the trial court's dismissal, holding that its precedent required a plaintiff to plead facts constituting a prima facie case of discrimination.
  • The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the circuit courts on the proper pleading standard.

Locked

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 an employment discrimination complaint need to contain specific facts establishing a prima facie case of discrimination under the McDonnell Douglas framework to survive a motion to dismiss?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Thomas

No. An employment discrimination complaint need not contain specific facts establishing a prima facie case of discrimination. The McDonnell Douglas framework is an evidentiary standard for the allocation of proof, not a pleading requirement that a plaintiff must satisfy to survive a motion to dismiss. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) only requires a 'short and plain statement of the claim' that gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff's claim and the grounds upon which it rests. Imposing a heightened pleading standard for discrimination cases would conflict with this simplified 'notice pleading' system, which reserves such specific pleading requirements for limited circumstances like fraud under Rule 9(b). Furthermore, the McDonnell Douglas framework is not always applicable, such as when a plaintiff has direct evidence of discrimination, making it incongruous to require pleading its elements before discovery has occurred. Swierkiewicz's complaint, which detailed the events, dates, and the national origins and ages of the relevant parties, sufficiently met the Rule 8(a) standard.



Analysis:

This unanimous decision resolves a circuit split and firmly rejects a heightened pleading standard for employment discrimination cases. It clarifies the distinction between pleading standards under Rule 8(a) and evidentiary burdens like the McDonnell Douglas framework, which applies later in litigation. The ruling ensures that potentially meritorious discrimination claims are not dismissed prematurely before plaintiffs have the opportunity to gather evidence through the discovery process. By reaffirming the liberal notice pleading standard, the Court lowered the initial barrier for plaintiffs to bring discrimination claims in federal court.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, N.A. (2002)

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