Johnston v. Hunter Douglas Window Fashions
17-1099
| 10th Cir. | Nov 2, 2017Background
- Johnston worked at Hunter Douglas from 1999 and alleges satisfactory performance until age- and disability-related mistreatment after turning 60.
- He claims a workplace injury (Dec. 19, 2011) produced a disabling impairment; he alleges inadequate accommodation and hostile treatment thereafter.
- He alleges internal sexual-harassment complaint led to retaliation, interference with medical treatment (including insurer collusion with doctors), and eventual termination on June 14, 2013, replaced by someone outside his protected class.
- Johnston sued asserting federal claims: age discrimination (ADEA), disability discrimination (ADA), and retaliation; state claims were also pleaded.
- The district court dismissed all federal claims under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to plead plausible claims; state claims were dismissed for lack of independent jurisdiction. Johnston appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Johnston's Argument | Hunter Douglas' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court violated right to jury trial by dismissing complaint | Court dismissal deprived him of jury decision on factual disputes | Dismissal on pleading grounds is proper where claims are implausible | Not considered on appeal (argument not raised below) |
| Whether district court applied improper, heightened pleading standard | District court required too much detail, contrary to Rule 8 and Swierkiewicz | District court applied Iqbal/Twombly plausibility standard and examined elements to test plausibility | Rejected; court applied correct standard and did not require prima facie showing |
| Sufficiency of age discrimination allegations | Alleged satisfactory performance and replacement outside protected class | Allegations were conclusory, internally inconsistent, lacked facts (timeline, identity of replacement) | Age claim implausible and properly dismissed |
| Sufficiency of retaliation and ADA disability claims | Alleged protected activity (internal complaint), adverse action, and disabling injury; alleged interference and failure to accommodate | Allegations lacked fair notice, causal connection for retaliation; disability not pleaded within ADA definition nor that he was qualified with/without accommodation | Retaliation and ADA claims implausible and properly dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must contain sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002) (employment-plaintiff need not plead full prima facie case, pre-Iqbal context)
- Rivera v. City and County of Denver, 365 F.3d 912 (10th Cir. 2004) (elements for ADEA prima facie case)
- Thomas v. Berry Plastics Corp., 803 F.3d 510 (10th Cir. 2015) (requirements for circumstantial retaliation showing)
- Khalik v. United Air Lines, 671 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2012) (elements inform plausibility assessment)
- Johnson v. Weld County, 594 F.3d 1202 (10th Cir. 2010) (elements of ADA prima facie case)
- S.E.C. v. Shields, 744 F.3d 633 (10th Cir. 2014) (de novo review of 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Ruiz v. McDonnell, 299 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2002) (distinguishing well-pleaded facts from conclusory allegations)