Patricia Clark v. Law Office of Terrence Kennedy
709 F. App'x 826
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Patricia Clark, a legal assistant, worked at the Law Office of Terrence Kennedy from 2006 until her termination in June 2013.
- Beginning in 2011 (when Clark was 51), she alleges younger, similarly situated coworkers were treated better: she was excluded from meetings, stripped of duties, given a false poor performance review, and suspended.
- Clark filed an administrative age-discrimination charge; eight days after a fact-finding conference about that charge, the firm terminated her.
- She also alleged the firm made defamatory statements at the fact-finding conference and supplied the investigator with a personnel file containing falsehoods.
- The district court dismissed Clark’s amended complaint for failure to state a claim and denied leave to file a second amended complaint, in part reasoning Clark had not plausibly alleged the firm employed 20+ persons (a statutory ADEA threshold).
- The Seventh Circuit vacated dismissal as to age-discrimination and retaliation claims and affirmed dismissal of the defamation claims (statute of limitations and official- proceeding privilege).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Clark pleaded a plausible ADEA discrimination claim | Clark alleged age-based adverse actions (exclusion, duty removal, suspension, termination) and younger comparators; this suffices under Rule 8 | Firm argued more factual detail required (e.g., specific replacement by younger worker) to make age motive plausible | Pleading standard is minimal; Clark adequately pleaded discrimination; dismissal vacated |
| Whether Clark pleaded a plausible retaliation claim | Clark alleged termination was because she filed an administrative charge and timing (8 days after fact-finding) supports causation | Firm argued retaliation claim was not plausibly pleaded without more facts | Clark pleaded an actionable retaliation claim; dismissal vacated |
| Whether plaintiff had to plead employer-size (20+ employees) in complaint | Clark did not plead a number less than 20 and attached evidence suggesting 20+ employees | Firm argued ADEA applies only to employers with 20+ employees, so Clark failed to plead an element | Employer-size is an affirmative defense (non-jurisdictional); plaintiff need not plead it; district court erred rejecting claim for that reason |
| Whether defamation claims survive | Clark contends statements at the conference and personnel-file disclosures were defamatory | Firm contended defamation claims were time-barred and that communications to investigators are privileged | Defamation claims dismissed: conference statements were filed after the one-year limitations period; communications to quasi-judicial/administrative investigators are privileged |
Key Cases Cited
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506 (pleading standard for discrimination suits is minimal)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Rule 8 plausibility standard principles)
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (statutory employee-number threshold is non-jurisdictional)
- Bennett v. Schmidt, 153 F.3d 516 (Seventh Circuit on pleading age claims)
- Barry Aviation Inc. v. Land O'Lakes Mun. Airport Comm'n, 377 F.3d 682 (complaint need not anticipate defenses)
- Alamo v. Bliss, 864 F.3d 541 (retaliation pleading standards in employment cases)