Falley v. Friends University
787 F. Supp. 2d 1255
D. Kan.2011Background
- Falley sues Friends University for disability discrimination and breach of contract related to sick/vacation usage; case is in early stage with trial set roughly a year away.
- Defendant answered with several narrow affirmative defenses stated in brief form (acquiescence/waiver/estoppel; undue hardship; failure to mitigate; reservation of other defenses).
- Plaintiff moves toStrike Affirmative Defenses arguing Twombly/Iqbal standards require more factual pleading in defenses and provide fair notice; plaintiff contends defenses lack factual basis.
- Issue to resolve: whether Twombly/Iqbal pleading standards apply to affirmative defenses or only to complaints.
- Court reviews standards for striking defenses under Rule 12(f) and Rule 8; concludes Twombly/Iqbal do not apply to defenses and that the asserted defenses are sufficient under Rules 8(b) and (c); motion to strike denied.
- The ruling curtails use of heightened pleading standards for defenses and allows the defenses to proceed unless later amended or narrowed by discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do Twombly/Iqbal apply to affirmative defenses? | Plaintiff argues they should apply to defenses for fair notice. | Defendant argues defenses need not meet Twombly/Iqbal; standards for defenses are looser. | Twombly/Iqbal do not apply to defenses; defenses sufficient under Rules 8(b)/(c); motion denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard for complaints; not applicable to defenses)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (heightened plausibility standard for complaints; defenses not required to meet it)
- Lane v. Page, 272 F.R.D. 581 (D.N.M.2011) (district court applied Rule 8 to defenses; caution against extending Twombly to defenses)