495 F. App'x 140
2d Cir.2012Background
- Robinson, pro se, appeals a district court dismissal of his second amended complaint alleging Title VII discrimination and retaliation by Harvard Protection Services, LLC.
- The district court, in a de novo review, dismissed for failure to plausibly state claims under Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal.
- Plaintiff alleged discrimination based on race or other protected characteristics and retaliation for protected activity; the court reviewed elements of discrimination, hostile environment, and retaliation claims under Title VII.
- The court stated Robinson waived specific challenges to merits by not raising them in opening brief and by not presenting those arguments to the district court.
- Robinson later filed a post-brief document claiming he is not white and was terminated because of race, which the court declined to consider; the judgment was affirmed.
- The dispositive issue is whether the second amended complaint plausibly pleads Title VII discrimination or retaliation, which the court found it did not.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint plausibly states a Title VII discrimination claim | Robinson argues he suffered race-based discrimination. | Harvard Protection Services contends no plausible discrimination claim is pled. | Claim not plausibly stated. |
| Whether the complaint plausibly states a Title VII retaliation claim | Robinson asserts retaliation for protected activity. | Employer contends no viable retaliation elements are pled. | Retaliation claim not plausibly stated. |
| Whether the complaint pleads a Title VII hostile environment claim | Robinson may contend hostile environment due to discriminatory conduct. | No sufficiently severe or pervasive conduct pled. | Hostile environment claim not plausibly stated. |
| Whether Robinson waived meritorious arguments by not raising them in opening brief | Robinson preserved issues in district court; appellate arguments allowed. | Waiver due to failure to raise merits in opening brief. | Robinson’s arguments deemed abandoned; independence review confirms dismissal. |
| Whether new race-based arguments raised post-brief should be considered | New facts support race-based termination. | New arguments raised for first time on appeal are not considered. | Not considered; affirmed on existing record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (heightened scrutiny after Twombly)
- Forest Park Pictures v. Universal Television Network, Inc., 683 F.3d 424 (2d Cir. 2012) (de novo review standard and pleading standards)
- Brown v. City of Syracuse, 673 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 2012) (elements of a Title VII discrimination claim)
- Hicks v. Baines, 593 F.3d 159 (2d Cir. 2010) (retaliation elements under Title VII)
- Patane v. Clark, 508 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2007) (requires pleading against protected class with intent)
- LoSacco v. City of Middletown, 71 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1995) (abandonment of issues not raised on appeal for pro se)
- Kendall v. Emps. Ret. Plan of Avon Prods., 561 F.3d 112 (2d Cir. 2009) (court may decline to amend complaint on appeal)