Kathryn Sheppard v. David Evans and Assoc.
694 F.3d 1045
9th Cir.2012Background
- Plaintiff Kathryn Sheppard, over forty, sues Evans for ADEA discrimination and wrongful discharge in Oregon federal court.
- Sheppard alleges she was terminated while her younger comparators remained employed and that age was a determining factor.
- Before termination, Sheppard requested Family Medical Leave for a serious illness; she was terminated immediately after scheduling surgery.
- District court dismissed the initial complaint for insufficient factual detail under Rule 8(a)(2), then dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice.
- Amended complaint, though brief, asserts a plausible prima facie case under the ADEA and a wrongful-discharge claim under Oregon law.
- The district court’s dismissal is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the amended complaint states a plausible ADEA claim | Sheppard pleads age, satisfactory performance, and termination with younger comparators. | Rule 8 requires more factual detail; the pleading is insufficient. | Amended complaint plausibly states ADEA claim. |
| Whether the amended complaint states a plausible wrongful discharge claim | Termination followed timely after requesting medical leave; performance was good. | No clear causal linkage alleged beyond conclusions. | Amended complaint plausibly alleges wrongful discharge under Oregon law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (requirement of plausible, not merely possible, claims)
- Diaz v. Eagle Produce Ltd. P'ship, 521 F.3d 1201 (9th Cir. 2008) (circumstantial evidence analysis under McDonnell Douglas framework)
- Enlow v. Salem-Keizer Yellow Cab Co., Inc., 389 F.3d 802 (9th Cir. 2004) (circumstantial/direct evidence framework for age discrimination)
- Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400 (7th Cir. 2010) (illustrative plausibility of straightforward discrimination scenarios)
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (U.S. 2002) (pleading standards do not require prima facie case at pleading stage)
- Estes v. Lewis & Clark Coll., 954 P.2d 792 (Or. Ct. App. 1998) (wrongful discharge exception for legally protected activities)
- Babick v. Oregon Arena Corp., 40 P.3d 1059 (Or. 2002) (public-policy-based wrongful discharge examples)