This morning, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a “threadbare”
complaint under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Smithv. Wrigley Mfg Co., No. No. 18-5397 (6th Cir. 10-18-19). The plaintiff alleged simply that she had
been a good and long-time employee and that she had been unfairly fired when
younger employees had not been. While
this allegation asserts the basic elements of an ADEA claim, it did not contain
any facts showing the differences in ages, behavior or treatment that are
necessary to survive a motion to dismiss under Civil Rule 12(b)(6). A court must only accept as true factual
allegations and need not defer to mere legal conclusions. Accordingly, the case was dismissed before
the plaintiff was permitted to conduct any discovery.
According to the Court’s opinion, the complaint in its
entirety provided:
Plaintiff was a longtime employee of [Wrigley] and its
predecessor company. Despite Plaintiff’s
good record with [Wrigley], [Wrigley] discharged the employment of Plaintiff on
or about March 3, 2016. This discharge
was largely based upon the pretext of alleged misconduct when the real
motivation was age discrimination in violation of 29 U.S.C. § Sections [sic]
621 to 634. Plaintiff is and was over 40
years of age at the time of discharge.
The conduct of [Wrigley] in discharging Plaintiff was inconsistent with
the way Plaintiff was treated in her many years of service with [Wrigley] and
its predecessors, and inconsistent with the way other employees similarly
situated, who were younger, were treated.
Plaintiff was qualified for her position and had been so during her many
years of service. [Wrigley] did not
object to Plaintiff drawing unemployment.
Plaintiff before being terminated always gave [Wrigley] her best effort
as she had always done for years.
Younger employees that were performing on a par with Plaintiff were
still working with [Wrigley] after Plaintiff’s discharge.
The Court found that dismissal prior to discovery was
appropriate because the complaint had failed to allege facts from which any
court could “draw a reasonable inference of discrimination. . . .
. In the absence of facts regarding the ages or positions of the younger, similarly-situated employees, or any example
of how those employees were treated differently, the court could not do so.”
Though [the plaintiff] mentioned that younger employees who
were “performing on a par” with her were
still employed when she was fired, she offered no names, ages, or qualifications
for the younger employees who were treated differently, or any examples of how their
treatment differed. Without additional
facts, the court cannot infer that [the employer] fired [the plaintiff] because
of her age.
NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent
legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to
any particular situation because different facts could lead to different
results. Information here can be changed or amended without notice.
Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have
any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain
an employment attorney.
