CONNER v. ASSOCIATION OF FLIGHT ATTENDANTS-CWA et al

Filing 62

ORDER AS FOLLOWS: 1. THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE HONORABLE RICHARD A. LLORET DATED NOVEMBER 3, 2014, IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED. 2. DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS IS GRANTED AND PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUD ICE; AND 3. PLAINTIFF MAY FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT THAT PROPERLY PLEADS "BUT FOR" CAUSATION WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER, IF SHE CAN DO SO IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JEFFREY L. SCHMEHL ON 12/9/2014. 12/10/2014 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(lbs, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
STEPHANI LEWIS CONNER,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 13-2464

ASSOCIATION OF FLIGHT ATTENDANTSCWA and COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF
AMERICA,
Defendants.

ORDER
AND NOW, this 9th

day of December, 2014, upon review of Defendants’

Second Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Docket No. 23), Plaintiff’s
Response thereto, and Defendants’ Reply, as well as the Report and Recommendation of
the Honorable Richard A. Lloret dated November 3, 2014, Plaintiff’s Objections to the
R&R and Defendants’ Response, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation of the Honorable Richard A. Lloret
dated November 3, 2014, is APPROVED and ADOPTED;
2. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice; and
3. Plaintiff may file a Second Amended Complaint that properly pleads
“but for” causation within ten (10) days of the date of this order, if she
can do so in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 1

1

As thoroughly discussed in Judge Lloret’s Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff has been unable to
plead a set of facts that could possibly support her allegation that she would not have been fired by
Defendants but for her initiation of a 2010 discrimination lawsuit against them. As recommended by Judge

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Jeffrey L. Schmehl
Jeffrey L. Schmehl, J.

Lloret, I will provide Plaintiff with one final opportunity to satisfy the pleading standard set forth in
University of Texas Southwest Medical Center v. Nassar, 133 S.Ct. 2517 (2013), on this issue.
Accordingly, Plaintiff must carefully consider whether she can file a Second Amended Complaint that
properly pleads “but for” causation under Nassar, Twombly, and Iqbal. Judge Lloret expressed doubts as to
whether Plaintiff could overcome the challenges she faces pleading her case in a manner consistent with
Nassar. I share Judge Lloret’s doubts as to whether Plaintiff can satisfy the appropriate pleading standard,
and therefore reiterate Judge Lloret’s admonition that a second amended complaint should be filed if and
only if Plaintiff can sufficiently plead her case without violating Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

2