Fouche v. St. Charles Hospital, 64 F. Supp. 3d 452

Plaintiff Gilberte Fouche, a Black female nurse of Haitian origin, worked at St. Charles Hospital from 2005–2011 and was covered by a collective bargaining agreement.
On October 21, 2011, while covering the Telemetry Unit as the sole RN, Plaintiff encountered defective defibrillator/monitoring machines, treated a patient in A‑Fib after consulting a physician, and filed a written report documenting the defects.
One week later she was summoned by administrators and placed on indefinite unpaid leave; she was then given an ultimatum to resign or face investigation that could affect her RN license.
Plaintiff resigned on November 16, 2011, and filed suit alleging discrimination (race, color, gender, national origin) and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981; earlier claims under ERISA, NY labor/civil service law, and Title VII had been dismissed.
Defendant moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); the district court granted the motion and denied leave to replead, dismissing the amended complaint in its entirety.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Fouche pleaded a § 1981 discrimination claim	Fouche alleges she was treated worse because of race/national origin (e.g., assigned to Telemetry and later forced to resign)	Defendants argue the complaint contains only conclusory allegations and lacks facts showing racially motivated intent	Court: Dismissed — allegations are bald/conclusory and do not plausibly show intentional racial discrimination
Whether Fouche pleaded a § 1981 retaliation claim for complaining about discrimination	Fouche claims she was retaliated against after complaining (filed report about defective machines)	Defendants argue her complaint about equipment was race‑neutral and did not put employer on notice of discrimination	Court: Dismissed — protected activity not sufficiently tied to racial discrimination; no prima facie retaliation alleged
Whether leave to amend should be granted	Fouche requested leave to replead (no specifics provided)	Defendants opposed; court may deny if plaintiff gives no basis how amendment would cure defects	Court: Denied — plaintiff failed to explain what additional facts would cure pleading deficiencies

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (established "plausibility" pleading standard)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (legal conclusions not entitled to assumption of truth)
Domino's Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald, 546 U.S. 470 (§ 1981 protects contract rights against racial discrimination)
Patterson v. County of Oneida, 375 F.3d 206 (§ 1981 covers terms and conditions of employment)
Yusuf v. Vassar Coll., 35 F.3d 709 (plaintiff must plead facts giving rise to plausible inference of discriminatory intent)
CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, 553 U.S. 442 (§ 1981 includes retaliation cause of action)
Hicks v. Baines, 593 F.3d 159 (elements of retaliation claim mirror Title VII framework)