952 F.3d 935
8th Cir.2020Background
- Jerry Cook alleged mental and physical impairments that affect communication, information processing, and lifting, and that he previously could perform his job with reasonable accommodations.
- While previously employed, George’s placed a HR code “333” in Cook’s file marking him not eligible for rehire because of a known or perceived medical condition.
- In October 2015 Cook applied for rehire; management allegedly instructed HR they could interview but “not hire [him] no matter what.” Cook missed an initial interview, sought to reschedule, and HR refused while rescheduling others.
- Cook filed an EEOC charge and a class-action complaint under the ADA and Arkansas Civil Rights Act alleging discriminatory refusal to consider applicants coded “333”; he also asserted retaliation (later abandoned on appeal).
- The district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), concluding Cook failed to allege a prima facie case and that missing the interview was a legitimate non-discriminatory reason; it also denied leave to amend as futile.
- The Eighth Circuit reversed: it held the complaint plausibly alleged an ADA discrimination claim (including potential direct evidence via the “333” code and management instruction) and that denial of leave to amend was erroneous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Must a plaintiff plead a McDonnell Douglas prima facie case to survive a 12(b)(6) dismissal in an ADA claim? | Cook: No — prima facie is an evidentiary standard; notice pleading suffices. | George’s: Yes — plaintiff must plead elements of a prima facie case. | Court: No — Swierkiewicz controls; prima facie not required at pleading stage. |
| Did Cook sufficiently allege disability and that he was a "qualified individual"? | Cook: Alleged specific impairments, effects, and past ability to work with accommodations. | George’s / dissent: Allegations are conclusory; complaint fails to identify the job or essential functions. | Majority: Allegations are sufficient at this stage to state a plausible claim; dissent would find them deficient. |
| Was the employer’s asserted nondiscriminatory reason (missed interview) a basis to dismiss? | Cook: The employer’s defense is speculative; cannot resolve on motion to dismiss. | George’s: Missing interview is a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason to not rehire. | Court: Defendant’s speculative reason cannot support dismissal; draw reasonable inferences for plaintiff. |
| Was denial of leave to amend appropriate (futility)? | Cook: Proposed amendment added factual detail and was not futile. | George’s: (argued futility below) | Court: Denial was erroneous; amendment would not have been futile and should have been allowed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002) (under notice pleading, plaintiff need not plead a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must plead facts sufficient to make claim plausible)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ring v. First Interstate Mortg., Inc., 984 F.2d 924 (8th Cir. 1993) (prima facie case is an evidentiary standard, not a pleading requirement)
- Blomker v. Jewell, 831 F.3d 1051 (8th Cir. 2016) (elements of a claim inform plausibility analysis)
- Hager v. Arkansas Dep’t of Health, 735 F.3d 1009 (8th Cir. 2013) (Swierkiewicz means plaintiff need not plead prima facie elements to survive dismissal)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for employment discrimination cases)