Khalik v. United Air Lines
671 F.3d 1188
| 10th Cir. | 2012Background
- Khalik, Arab-American Muslim, was employed by United Air Lines from 1995 until termination in 2009.
- Plaintiff asserted Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims based on race, religion, national origin, and ethnic heritage, plus a FMLA retaliation claim and several state-law claims.
- Plaintiff alleged she was assaulted in the office and targeted for discrimination after internal complaints and about denied FMLA leave; she also referenced an email about a potential criminal act.
- The district court dismissed the federal claims under Rule 12(b)(6), declined to exercise jurisdiction over some state-law claims, and dismissed others with prejudice under pendent jurisdiction; an amended complaint was deemed futile.
- On appeal, Khalik challenges only the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of discrimination, retaliation, and FMLA claims, while the court evaluates plausibility under Twombly/Iqbal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint plausibly states Title VII discrimination claim | Khalik alleges targeted discrimination based on race, religion, national origin, and ethnicity. | Allegations are conclusory and insufficient under Twombly/Iqbal for plausibility. | Discrimination claim dismissed for lack of plausible facts. |
| Whether the complaint plausibly states Title VII retaliation claim | Khalik contends retaliation for reporting discrimination and other protected activity. | Allegations are conclusory and fail to show a causal link or adverse action with plausible details. | Retaliation claim dismissed for lack of plausible facts. |
| Whether the complaint plausibly states an FMLA retaliation claim | Khalik alleges retaliatory termination after her FMLA-related complaints. | No substantial, non-conclusory facts linking FMLA activity to termination. | FMLA retaliation claim dismissed for lack of plausible facts. |
| Whether the district court properly applied the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard | Argues the court misapplied pleading standards, requiring too much specificity early on. | Court properly required plausible facts beyond mere labels and conclusions. | Court applied Twombly/Iqbal correctly; allegations insufficient. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard; not mere conclusory statements)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (requires plausible claims; de-emphasizes bare conclusions)
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (U.S. 2002) (prior notice-pleading standard considerations)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (U.S. 2007) (specific facts not required; fair notice required)
- Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242 (10th Cir. 2008) (plausibility guidance; context-specific analysis)
- Kansas Penn Gaming, LLC v. Collins, 656 F.3d 1210 (10th Cir. 2011) (plausibility as context-specific assessment)
- Teigen v. Renfrew, 511 F.3d 1072 (10th Cir. 2007) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) de novo)
- Crowe v. ADT Sec. Servs. Inc., 649 F.3d 1189 (10th Cir. 2011) (application of plausibility in employment cases)
- Johnson v. Weld County, Colo., 594 F.3d 1202 (10th Cir. 2010) (state and federal discrimination standards aligned)