English v. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development

Filing 27

ORDER Denying 10 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (LVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JINANE ENGLISH,
Plaintiff,

CASE NUMBER: 11-10047
HONORABLE VICTORIA A. ROBERTS

v.
SHAUN DONOVAN, SECRETARY,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
Defendant.
/
ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Jinane English brings this Title VII employment discrimination action
against Defendant Shaun Donovan as Secretary, U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development. Plaintiff alleges national origin discrimination, sex discrimination,
and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Pending is
Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.
The Court DENIES the motion.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires a plaintiff to plead “a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” The factual
allegations must raise a right to relief above the speculative level so that the complaint

1

is “plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007).
In determining whether a complaint meets the plausibility standard, a court is allowed to
draw reasonable inferences based on the facts pled. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, ___ U.S. ___,
129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009).
In the employment discrimination context, the Supreme Court stated that the
complaint need not “contain specific facts establishing a prima facie case of
discrimination under the framework set forth” in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411
U.S. 792 (1973). Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 508 (2002). The prima
facie case under McDonnell Douglas is an evidentiary standard, not a pleading
requirement, that relates to the employee’s burden of presenting evidence that raises an
inference of discrimination. Id. at 510. Recognizing this distinction, the Supreme Court
“has never indicated that the requirements for establishing a prima facie case under
McDonnell Douglas also apply to the pleading standard that plaintiffs must satisfy in
order to survive a motion to dismiss.” Id. at 511.

III. ANALYSIS
Applying the relevant standard, Plaintiff’s Complaint satisfies the requirements of
Rule 8(a); it gives Defendant fair notice of the basis of Plaintiff’s claims and the factual
allegations state a plausible right to relief. Plaintiff alleges she was mocked because of
her foreign accent and gestures; that her supervisior disciplined her in a Letter of
Admonishment; that she could be subject to enhanced discipline in the future; and, that
she lost benefits. Plaintiff meets the low threshold for surviving a motion to dismiss.

2

Defendant’s arguments to the contrary are premature at this stage.
In its Motion to Dismiss, Defendant conflates the elements of a prima facie case
with the pleading requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As the
Supreme Court explained in Swierkiewicz, supra, a complaint need not set forth specific
facts establishing a prima facie case of discrimination under the framework set forth in
McDonnell Douglas. To require otherwise would create a “heightened pleading
standard” under which a plaintiff without direct evidence of discrimination would need to
plead a prima facie case even though she might uncover direct evidence during
discovery. Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 511-12. Though the prima facie elements of
retaliation are distinct from those of Plaintiff’s discrimination claims, the above analysis
applies with equal force to that claim.
The Court declines Defendant’s invitation to consider Plaintiff’s claim for lost
benefits regarding her request for time off under a summary judgment standard. The
Court believes this matter will be best decided after the parties supplement the record
through discovery.
V.

CONCLUSION
Defendant’s motion is DENIED. Defendant must answer Plaintiff’s Complaint on

or before October 4, 2011.
IT IS ORDERED.

/s/ Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
Dated: September 13, 2011
3

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this
document was served on the attorneys of
record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on
September 13, 2011.
s/Linda Vertriest
Deputy Clerk

4