Okeke v. Biomat USA, Inc.
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25936
D. Nev.2013Background
- Okeke, Nigerian national origin, employed by Biomat as Operations Supervisor since 2009; terminated in 2012 after alleged unwarranted discipline.
- Okeke alleges discrimination, harassment avoidance, and lack of raises/promotions compared to less-qualified coworkers.
- Okeke asserts eight claims against Biomat and Grifols; Grifols’ claims are dismissed; Biomat moves to dismiss remaining claims under Rule 12(b)(6).
- Court applies Iqbal/Twombly plausibility standard; accepts non-conclusory factual content and reasonable inferences.
- Court determines some claims survive (Title VII national origin discrimination, retaliation, Nevada discrimination, defamation, negligent training/supervision) and others are dismissed; Biomat’s motion granted in part and denied in part; clerks to file Okeke’s amended complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Okeke pleads Title VII national origin discrimination plausibly | Okeke is Nigerian, qualified, disciplined more harshly, and treated less favorably than non-Nigerians. | Plaintiff failed to properly plead the national origin discrimination elements. | Survives (prima facie established). |
| Whether Okeke pleads Title VII retaliation plausibly | Filing EEOC charges and one month later termination shows causation. | Causation not sufficiently pleaded. | Survives (causal link plausibly inferred). |
| Whether Nevada discrimination claim mirrors Title VII and is adequately pleaded | Nevada statute mirrors Title VII elements; exhaustion alleged. | Defect in pleading identical to Title VII claim. | Survives (claims properly pleaded). |
| Whether Okeke pleads defamation as to statements related to harassment | Defamatory per se due to imputation of lack of fitness in professional context. | Heightened pleading standard not required; specific statements not enumerated. | Defamation per se recognized; damages presumed; survives. |
| Whether negligent training/supervision claim is viable | Employer failed to exercise reasonable care when supervising discriminatory conduct. | Claims require factual inquiries; potential jury issue. | Survives (sufficient factual basis pleaded). |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court 2009) (pleading plausibility standard; non-conclusory facts required)
- Moss v. United States Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2009) (nonconclusory facts must plausibly show entitlement to relief)
- Flowers v. Carville, 310 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2002) (heightened pleading standard not clearly adopted for defamation)
- Franchise Realty Interstate Corp. v. San Francisco Local Joint Executive Board of Culinary Workers, 542 F.2d 1076 (9th Cir. 1976) (antitrust pleading standard discussed in defamation context)
- Shoen v. Amerco, Inc., 111 Nev. 735 (Nev. 1995) (employment context recognized as capable of supporting IIED under certain circumstances)