520 F. App'x 8
2d Cir.2013Background
- Gonzalez, age 60, alleged Carestream’s decision to terminate him was age-based discrimination.
- He asserted he had a stellar 34-year performance record and was terminated for pretextual reasons.
- Gonzalez also alleged FMLA leave-related retaliation by his supervisors after he exercised FMLA rights.
- The district court dismissed all claims for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The district court relied on two years of highly redacted performance evaluations and redacted performance improvement plans submitted by Carestream.
- The Second Circuit vacated the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings on the pleadings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint suffices to state an ADEA claim at the pleading stage | Gonzalez’s stellar record and younger coworkers create inference of age discrimination | Complaint lacks specific facts showing discriminatory motive | Yes; complaint plausibly states an ADEA claim |
| Whether the FMLA retaliation claim is adequately pleaded | Allegations show retaliation post-FMLA leave and performance discipline | Dismissal appropriate based on insufficient factual pleading | Yes; claim plausibly stated and should proceed |
| Whether the district court improperly relied on redacted documents | Documents were not properly before dismissal standard and not essential | Court may consider documents attached to motion | No; district court erred in relying on redacted materials; remand for full consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002) (pleading standards at the initial stage do not require heightened facts)
- Grady v. Affiliated Cent., Inc., 130 F.3d 553 (2d Cir. 1997) (elements of ADEA claim and minimal pleading requirements)
- Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (flexible plausibility standard for pleading)
- Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2009) (de novo review of failure-to-state-a-claim judgments; conduct of pleading)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 553 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleading; Nudge claims across line from conceivable to plausible)
- Hicks v. Baines, 593 F.3d 159 (2d Cir. 2010) (retaliation can be established by aggregate actions, not just proximity)
- Bucalo v. Shelter Island Union Free Sch. Dist., 691 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2012) (no bright-line rule on temporal relationship in retaliation claims)
- Leonard F. v. Isr. Discount Bank of N.Y., 199 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 1999) (district court may consider documents attached to motion without converting)