Last month, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal on a Civil Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss under Twombly a complaint alleging race and gender discrimination in the termination of a law school professor. Han v. University of Dayton, No. 13-3048 (6th Cir. 11-5-13). In that case, the plaintiff's employment contract was not renewed after he received a poor performance evaluation. One of his classes was reassigned to a white adjunct professor, but he was otherwise not replaced. He alleged that his evaluation and termination were motivated by race and gender discrimination in violation of federal and state law. However, after finding some of his claims to be untimely, the Court concluded that the complaint failed to allege sufficient facts to make his remaining federal claims plausible on their face and, therefore, dismissed them. "A complaint that allows the court to infer only a "mere possibility of misconduct," is insufficient to "show" that the complainant is entitled to relief and fails to meet the pleading requirements of Rule 8.
Although the Complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, it must present sufficient factual context from which a court, "informed by its judicial experience and common sense," can draw reasonable inferences that a defendant unlawfully discriminated against the plaintiff. In this case, the Court concluded that the complaint contained only conclusory allegations which were unsupported by any factual context described in the Complaint.
Plaintiff alleges no set of facts, beyond these bare and conclusory assertions, from which a reasonable person could infer how his race o gender factored into the University's decisions regarding his employment or caused him to lose his job, as opposed to any other, non-discriminatory basis for decisions regarding his employment. The Court is therefore left to infer that the University's decision-making regarding Plaintiff's employment was discriminatory simply based on the fact that he is a man, or that he is Asian-American, or both.
Hiring an adjunct to teach one class is not a replacement hire for a tenure track professor teaching several classes. Further, being good at your job does not necessarily mean that a subsequent termination can be based only on unlawful discrimination. The Complaint also failed to describe how he was treated less favorably than similarly situated professors outside his protected class because he failed to specify any females or non-Asians who were treated better or how they were treated better. His claim of gender discrimination was particularly weak considering that the evaluating committee contained both men and women.
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 change or be 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.
