560 F. App'x 57
2d Cir.2014Background
- Plaintiff Deborah W. Caskey, proceeding pro se on appeal, sued the County of Ontario claiming age discrimination (ADEA), disability discrimination (ADA), and ADA retaliation after she retired following workplace incidents and an EEOC charge.
- District court dismissed her complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim; judgment entered July 16, 2013.
- Caskey alleged she was compelled to retire (constructive discharge) and that post-EEOC incidents and a denied leave request constituted adverse employment actions.
- At oral argument in district court, Caskey’s counsel conceded she received all requested leave.
- The Second Circuit reviewed de novo whether the complaint plausibly alleged an adverse employment action necessary to state ADA, ADEA, and ADA-retaliation claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaint plausibly alleged an adverse employment action (ADEA/ADA discrimination) | Caskey: changes to duties and being forced to retire amount to materially adverse actions/constructive discharge | County: allegations do not show a materially adverse change or intolerable conditions forcing resignation | Held: Dismissal affirmed; complaint fails to plausibly allege an adverse employment action or constructive discharge |
| Whether complaint plausibly alleged ADA retaliation | Caskey: denial of leave and post-EEOC incidents show retaliation | County: no actionable adverse action; plaintiff conceded she received requested leave | Held: Retaliation claim fails and is dismissed |
| Whether district court applied an improperly strict pleading standard (relying on Swierkiewicz) | Caskey: district court applied a higher standard than Swierkiewicz permits | County: dismissal was based on lack of plausible adverse action, not failure to plead inference of discrimination | Held: Court rejects Swierkiewicz argument; dismissal was proper under Iqbal/Twombly pleading standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Lundy v. Catholic Health Sys. of Long Island Inc., 711 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2013) (de novo review of Rule 12(b)(6) and pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002) (discusses pleading requirements in discrimination cases)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must be plausible)
- Carlton v. Mystic Transp. Inc., 202 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2000) (elements of ADEA claim)
- Capobianco v. City of New York, 422 F.3d 47 (2d Cir. 2005) (elements of ADA discrimination claim)
- Treglia v. Town of Manilus, 313 F.3d 713 (2d Cir. 2002) (elements of ADA retaliation claim)
- Sanders v. N.Y.C. Human Res. Admin., 361 F.3d 749 (2d Cir. 2004) (definition of materially adverse employment action)
- Morris v. Schroder Capital Mgmt. Int’l, 481 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 2007) (constructive discharge standard)