Body by Cook, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 16226
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Body by Cook, a 100% African-American–owned auto body shop in Slidell, LA, and owner Robert Cook sued several national insurers and a State Farm employee, alleging racial discrimination, conspiracy, and retaliation for denial of entry into insurers’ "Direct Repair Programs."
- Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, § 1985, Title VII, § 1981 retaliation, and state-law negligent training/supervision.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); the district court found the pleading met Rule 8 but dismissed all federal claims with prejudice and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims. Plaintiffs appealed.
- On review, the Fifth Circuit applied the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard and clarified that satisfying Rule 8 does not bar a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal for substantive insufficiency.
- The Fifth Circuit reversed only as to Body by Cook’s § 1981 discrimination claim against State Farm (finding plausible allegations that State Farm inspected and certified the shop met criteria but denied admission while admitting inferior non-minority shops) and remanded the related state-law claims; all other federal claims were affirmed dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaint met Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility despite satisfying Rule 8 | Rule 8 compliance should preclude dismissal under Twombly/Iqbal | Rule 8 formal sufficiency does not foreclose dismissal if claims lack substantive plausibility | Rule 8 compliance alone insufficient; dismissal may follow under Rule 12(b)(6) when claims are implausible |
| § 1981 discrimination (contract) — against State Farm and others | Body by Cook: insurers refused to admit minority-owned shop while admitting less-qualified non-minority shops, showing racial intent and impairment of prospective contract rights | Defs: allegations are generalized group pleadings and legally insufficient to show discriminatory intent or a contractual relationship | Reverse dismissal as to Body by Cook v. State Farm § 1981 claim (plausible facts about inspection, qualification, and denial); affirm dismissal as to Robert Cook individually and as to other defendants |
| § 1985(3) conspiracy | Plaintiffs alleged insurers conspired (including by coordinated briefing and patterns) to exclude minority shops | Defs: Plaintiffs provided only conclusory or circumstantial similarities, no factual agreement alleged | Affirm dismissal — Plaintiffs failed to plead facts showing an agreement among defendants |
| § 1981 / Title VII retaliation and Title VII discrimination (individual Cook) | Plaintiffs claim reduced business and refusals followed complaints/EEOC filing; Cook claims Title VII employment-type discrimination | Defs: adverse acts preceded complaints or are unrelated; Cook did not allege any employment relationship or prospective employment with insurers | Affirm dismissal — retaliation causal link not plausibly pled; Cook’s Title VII claims fail for lack of an employment relationship or plausible prospective employment |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: courts need not accept conclusory legal allegations)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must state a plausible claim to survive dismissal)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (prima facie framework for proof of discrimination at summary judgment)
- Domino’s Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald, 546 U.S. 470 (2006) (§ 1981 protects both existing and prospective contractual relationships)
- Covington Cty. Sch. Dist. ex rel. Keys v. Doe, 675 F.3d 849 (5th Cir. 2012) (standard of review for 12(b)(6) dismissal; accept well-pleaded factual allegations)
- Jones v. Robinson Prop. Grp., L.P., 427 F.3d 987 (5th Cir. 2005) (analysis of § 1981 and Title VII discrimination claims is identical)
- Bellows v. Amoco Oil Co., 118 F.3d 268 (5th Cir. 1997) (elements required to state a § 1981 contractual discrimination claim)
- Leal v. McHugh, 731 F.3d 405 (5th Cir. 2013) (retaliation requires causal connection between protected activity and adverse action)