Webb v. Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendant's Motion for More Definite Statement is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. [ECF No. 9 ] It is granted insofar as Plaintiff is directed to file an amended complaint on or before January 19, 2018, with each claim presented in a separate count. It is denied in all other respects. Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on 12/19/2017. (KCB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
HOWARD WEBB,
Plaintiff,
v.
COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS
CORPORATION,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:17-CV-2701 RLW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This employment discrimination was filed in state court and removed here on the grounds
of diversity. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, 1446.

1

Now pending is the motion of Cognizant

Technology Solutions Corporation (Defendant) for a more definite statement of the claims of
Howard Webb (Plaintiff).
Background
Plaintiff titled his complaint "Discrimination in Violation of Missouri Human Rights
Act." (Compl. at 1, ECF No. 7.) He alleges that he worked for Defendant from December 2014
to September 23, 2016. (Id
bonus in 2015. (Id

~7.)

~2.)

His work performance was satisfactory; indeed, he was given a

In his job as a Director of Business Process Transformation, he

supervised and worked with primarily people of Indian descent. (Id

~9.)

He also conducted

sales activities with teams which were primarily comprised of people of Indian descent. (Id) He
alleges that these co-workers "impeded his contact and access to customer accounts over which
they had control[,] ... prevent[ing] him from expanding his team's business analyst services."
1

Plaintiff is a resident of Missouri; Defendant is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal
place of business in Texas. (Notice at 2; ECF No.I.)

(Id. ~10.) And, these co-workers spoke in a foreign language when he was present, thereby
excluding him from their conversation. (Id.) Plaintiff complained of these behaviors to his two
supervisors. (Id.
~13.)

(Id.

~~11,

13.) He also complained to Hetal Joshi, a director of consulting. (Id.

Subsequently, Plaintiff was transferred to a position in the Cognizant Deployable Pool.

~16.)

People in this Pool are given five weeks within which to be placed in a new position

or assignment. (Id.

~16.)

Plaintiff was offered neither, and was then discharged. (Id.

~17,

18.)

On the other hand, Joshi, of Indian descent and approximately 35 to 40 years of age, was
assigned Plaintiffs former responsibilities and "effectively replaced" Plaintiff.

(Id.

~16.)

Plaintiff further alleges that Joshi had similar billing deficiencies to those cited as reasons for
Plaintiffs demotion to the Pool and that Defendant has a pattern of discriminatory behavior. (Id.
~~19,

20-22.)
Based on the foregoing allegations, Plaintiff claims he has been discriminated against

because of his color (white) and national origin, in violation of Mo.Rev.Stat. § 213.055.l(l)(a),
and his age (he was born in 1955), in violation of§ 213.055.l(l)(a). (Id.

~~2,

24-25.) This

discrimination was a contributing factor to his discharge. (Id.) Plaintiff also claims he was
discharged in retaliation for his complaints about the discrimination, in violation of Mo.Rev.Stat.
§ 213.070.2.

(Id.~

26.) He seeks monetary damages. (Id.

~27.)

Defendant moves for a more definite statement, arguing the complaint erroneously fails
to (a) be organized into counts; (b) include sufficient supporting factual allegations; and (c) state
the correct standard, i.e., the discriminatory behavior must be a motivating, not contributing,
factor. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e) (allowing a party to "move for a more definite statement of a
pleading to which a responsive pleading is allowed but which is so vague or ambiguous that the
party cannot reasonably require a response"). Plaintiff opposes the motion.

2

Discussion
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) and (3) require that a complaint contain "a short
and plain statement" showing the plaintiff "is entitled to relief' and a demand for the relief
sought. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1O(b) states, in relevant part: "If doing so would
promote clarity, each claim founded on a separate transaction or occurrence . . . must be stated in
a separate count or defense."
Plaintiff's complaint includes factual allegations sufficient to show violations of the
Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA), Mo.Rev.Stat. § 213.010 et seq.

He alleges he was

demoted and then transferred to a position from which he was certain to be discharged, although
a similarly-situated man younger than he and of a different national origin was not treated the
same and was, instead, given Plaintiff's responsibilities and position.

See Mo.Rev.Stat.

§ 213.055.l(a)(making it illegal for an employer to discharge "or otherwise to discriminate
against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of
employment, because of such individual's race, color, ... national origin, ... ancestry, age .... ").
Plaintiff also alleges he was demoted and discharged in retaliation for his complaints of
discrimination. See Mo.Rev.Stat.§ 213.070.1(2) (making it unlawful to retaliate or discriminate
against any person who has opposed a practice prohibited by the MHRA).
As presently presented, Plaintiff's complaint includes in one count allegations of
discrimination based on age, color, and national origin and of retaliation. The three claims of
discrimination arise from the same occurrences.

The claim of retaliation does not.

"[B]y

including multiple claims in one 'count,' confusion results." Linzie v. City of Columbia, Mo.,
651 F.Supp. 740, 745 (W.D. Mo. 1986) (holding that, although plaintiffs were "technically
correct" when arguing that their multiple federal and state claims were properly presented in one

3

count because they all arose from the same occurrence, they should amend their complaint to
state one claim per count). Plaintiff shall be directed to amend his complaint to assert each of his
claims in a separate count.
Defendant further argues that Plaintiffs references to the complained-of acts being
"contributing" factors to his discharge should be stricken because the MHRA was amended prior
to his filing suit to abrogate case law so defining the burden of proof under the MHRA. See
Mo.Rev.Stat. § 213.101.4 (amended eff. Aug. 28, 2017). Plaintiff counters that the difference
between "contributing factors" and "motivating factors," the standard advocated by Defendant, is
negligible and, regardless, the amendment does not apply to events occurring before August
2017. The Court declines to reach in a Rule 12(e) challenge the question of what burden-ofproof standard to apply to Plaintiffs MHRA claims.
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendant's Motion for More Definite Statement is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

[ECF No. 9] It is granted insofar as Plaintiff is

directed to file an amended complaint on or before January 19, 2018, with each claim presented
in a separate count. It is denied in all other respects.

Dated

this~y

of December 2017.

RONNIE L. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4