Howard v. Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama (JOINT ASSIGN)(MAG+)

Filing 34

ORDER that the 33 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED, and Defendant's 28 Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. This action is REFERRED back to the Magistrate Judge for further procedings. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 11/30/2016. (dmn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
PONCE D. HOWARD,
Plaintiff,
v.
HYUNDAI MOTOR
MANUFACTURING ALABAMA,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 2:16-CV-230-WKW
[WO]

ORDER
On November 3, 2016, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation to
which no timely objections have been filed.

(Doc. # 33.)

Although the

recommendation is due to be ADOPTED, further elaboration is required.
Defendant argues that the Amended Complaint (Doc. # 25) does not contain
facts sufficient to make out the elements of a prima facie discrimination claim based
on McDonnell Douglas, relying in part on the proposition that to be successful
Plaintiff’s allegations must “speak to each and every one” of the elements. (Doc. #
28, at 4.) But this is a misstatement of the law. Contrary to Defendant’s argument,
a plaintiff need not plead each and every one of the elements of McDonnell Douglas
to avoid dismissal. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 515 (2002)
(“[W]e hold that an employment discrimination plaintiff need not plead a prima facie

case of discrimination . . . to survive respondent’s motion to dismiss”); Davis v.
Coca–Cola Bottling Co. Consol., 516 F.3d 955, 974 (11th Cir. 2008) (“[A] Title VII
complaint need not allege facts sufficient to make out a classic McDonnell Douglas
prima facie case.”), abrogated on other grounds by Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662
(2009). Thus, as long as Plaintiff has pleaded “enough factual matter (taken as true)
to suggest” intentional race discrimination, Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 556 (2007), specifically alleging each element is not necessary. For this reason
and for those already articulated in the Recommendation, the court—having
independently reviewed the Amended Complaint—finds that Plaintiff has alleged
facts sufficient to survive Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
It is ORDERED that the Recommendation is ADOPTED, and Defendant’s motion
to dismiss (Doc. # 28) is DENIED.
This action is REFERRED back to the Magistrate Judge for further
proceedings.
DONE this 30th day of November, 2016.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2