888 F.3d 1002
8th Cir.2018Background
- Douglas McPherson applied for a USPS Criminal Investigator position and alleged he was denied hire because of age (ADEA) and that he was entitled to veteran’s preference.
- McPherson attached the job description and alleged he met the education and experience requirements for the role.
- The district court dismissed his suit under Rule 12(b)(6), ruling (1) the veteran’s-preference claim could not be brought in federal district court and (2) his ADEA claim failed because he admitted he lacked an “1811” criminal investigator classification listed in the job description.
- McPherson appealed only the ADEA dismissal; he did not challenge the veteran’s-preference dismissal on appeal.
- The Eighth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo and considered whether McPherson sufficiently pleaded that he was qualified for the job despite not having the 1811 classification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McPherson pleaded a prima facie ADEA hiring claim | McPherson alleged he was over 40, met the job’s education and experience requirements, was not hired, and a younger person was hired | USPS argued McPherson failed to plead he met all minimum qualifications because he lacked the 1811 classification listed in the job posting | Reversed: complaint sufficiently alleged he was qualified because selection criteria used differed from job posting and OPM standards did not require 1811; pleading standard does not require full prima facie proof |
| Whether veteran’s-preference claim could proceed in district court | (Abandoned on appeal) | USPS successfully argued it was precluded | Affirmed: dismissal of veteran’s-preference claim stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Plymouth Cty. v. Merscorp, Inc., 774 F.3d 1155 (review standard for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Minn. Majority v. Mansky, 708 F.3d 1051 (pleading facts assumed true on Rule 12(b)(6) review)
- Tusing v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 639 F.3d 507 (elements of prima facie ADEA hiring claim)
- Blomker v. Jewell, 831 F.3d 1051 (prima facie case is evidentiary, not pleading, requirement)
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, 534 U.S. 506 (plaintiff need not plead facts establishing prima facie case to survive dismissal)
- Hager v. Ark. Dep’t of Health, 735 F.3d 1009 (pleading standards in discrimination suits)
- Wilson v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 850 F.3d 368 (prima facie burden at hiring stage is not onerous)