Kathryn Keys v. Humana, Inc.
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 13427
| 6th Cir. | 2012Background
- Keys, an African American woman, joined Humana in 2005 as a Director-position candidate but was offered and later corrected to a Director title; she was the sole African American on Teets’s management team.
- Caucasian hires for Director positions received higher compensation matters (MIP 25% vs Keys’s 15%), and Keys faced early title and compensation disparities.
- In Oct 2005, a Caucasian male named Thomas became a support person to all Directors, and Keys’s duties were effectively absorbed; Keys stopped being invited to weekly meetings.
- Feb 2006 Humana reorganized, removing Keys from Director to Individual Contributor while Caucasian Directors remained in their roles; Keys faced ongoing scrutiny.
- Aug 2006 Keys was placed on a performance improvement plan despite meeting expectations; similarly situated African American staff faced more severe actions.
- June 2008 Humana terminated Keys citing a 2006 negative review; no Caucasian Directors were terminated then; Keys alleged a broader pattern of race discrimination and filed suit on Oct 15, 2009.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is McDonnell Douglas prima facie pleading required at the pleading stage? | Keys argues no; Swierkiewicz invalidates mandatory prima facie pleading. | Humana contends McDonnell Douglas pleading standard applies. | Not required at pleading stage; standard is plausibility, not prima facie. |
| Whether the Amended Complaint plausibly alleges race discrimination? | Keys asserts a pattern of discrimination against African American staff. | Humana argues allegations are too conclusory or insufficient. | Yes; complaint plausibly alleges discrimination under the pleading standard. |
| Whether class-action claims are viable after individual claims survived? | If individual claims proceed, class claims may proceed with discovery. | Dismissing individual claims should foreclose class allegations. | Reversed; class claims may proceed and require discovery; no ruling on class certification. |
| What is the proper standard to evaluate causation in discrimination claims after Twombly and Iqbal? | Plausibility standard governs inference of discrimination. | Court should require more concrete facts before inference. | Plausibility standard applies; allegations must permit plausible inference of discrimination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (U.S. 2002) (prima facie case is an evidentiary standard, not a pleading requirement)
- Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (establishes plausibility pleading standard; not all facts needed)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (applies plausibility standard to claims; requires plausible termination of discrimination)
- HDC, LLC v. City of Ann Arbor, 675 F.3d 608 (6th Cir. 2012) (reiterates Rule 8 pleading viability and applicability of plausibility standard)
- Pedreira v. Ky. Baptist Homes for Children, Inc., 579 F.3d 722 (6th Cir. 2009) (McDonnell Douglas is not a pleading requirement; ordinary pleading standards apply)
- Back v. Hall, 537 F.3d 552 (6th Cir. 2008) (confirms non-application of McDonnell Douglas as pleading requirement)
- White v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 533 F.3d 381 (6th Cir. 2008) (discrimination claims reviewed under ordinary pleading standards; not at summary judgment)