James Bryan v. Wal-Mart Stores
669 F. App'x 908
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- James H. Bryan, a former pharmacy employee, sued Wal‑Mart after termination, alleging disability discrimination (disparate impact) under the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12112.
- Bryan alleged he has a disability and that his pharmacy license was suspended because of that disability.
- Wal‑Mart had a neutral policy terminating employees with any history of adverse board action by the state board of pharmacy.
- Documentary records (undisputed for the Rule 12(b)(6) review) showed Bryan’s license suspension stemmed from prior adverse board action tied to forgery charges, not expressly from a disability.
- The district court granted Wal‑Mart’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; Bryan appealed.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding Bryan failed to plead the necessary causal nexus showing the neutral policy screened him out because of his disability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court properly considered only appropriate materials on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion | Bryan implicitly argued the court could consider pleadings and incorporated documents | Wal‑Mart relied on documentary records; court should not treat the motion as converted to summary judgment | Court: It properly limited consideration to the complaint and incorporated/public records and did not convert the motion to summary judgment (N. Star standard) |
| Whether Bryan stated a plausible disparate‑impact claim under the ADA | Bryan: He is disabled and was terminated; his license suspension was due to his disability, so the neutral policy disparately impacted him | Wal‑Mart: Termination followed a neutral policy applying to any adverse board action; records show suspension was for adverse board action from forgery, not disability | Court: Dismissed — plaintiff failed to allege a causal nexus showing the neutral policy screened him out on the basis of disability |
| Whether § 12112(b)(6) requires more than disability + termination to plead disparate impact | Bryan: Disability plus termination suffice | Wal‑Mart: Plaintiff must plead facts plausibly linking the selection criteria to the disability (causal nexus) | Court: § 12112 requires plausible factual allegations that the selection criteria screen out individuals because of disability; Bryan did not plead this |
| Standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal | Bryan: Complaint should be read in plaintiff's favor under Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard | Wal‑Mart: Same standards apply; documentary records defeat plaintiff's conclusory assertions | Court: Applied de novo review and Twombly/Iqbal plausibility framework; affirmed dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2001) (materials a court may consider on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion)
- N. Star Int’l v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, 720 F.2d 578 (9th Cir. 1983) (introduction of extraneous material does not automatically convert motion to summary judgment)
- Dougherty v. City of Covina, 654 F.3d 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (de novo review of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals)
- Steckman v. Hart Brewing, Inc., 143 F.3d 1293 (9th Cir. 1998) (appellate court may affirm on any record‑supported ground)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading must contain factual content to make relief plausible)