Tate v. SCR Medical Transportation
809 F.3d 343
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- Pro se plaintiff John Tate sued his former employer (a non‑emergency medical transportation company) alleging sexual harassment, sex discrimination, disability discrimination (ADA), and retaliation (Title VII).
- Tate filed to proceed in forma pauperis and used the district court’s short complaint form, providing only a brief seven‑line factual statement that did not identify his specific disability.
- The district court dismissed the suit under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (failure to state a claim) without allowing amendment, finding the allegations conclusory.
- The court of appeals reviewed whether Tate’s form allegations were sufficient for his sex‑based harassment and retaliation claims and whether his ADA claim adequately pled a disability.
- The appeals court held the sex‑based harassment and retaliation allegations met the Twombly/Iqbal notice‑pleading standard but found the ADA claim deficient for failure to identify a specific disability or allege qualification/causation.
- The appeals court reversed and remanded, directing that Tate be permitted to amend (and that the district judge should have informed him what was needed to cure the ADA pleading defect before dismissal).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pro se form allegations suffice to survive §1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)/Rule 12(b)(6) | Tate argued his completed court form and brief factual lines notified defendant of harassment, discrimination, and retaliation | Defendant argued the allegations were conclusory and insufficient under Twombly/Iqbal to state claims | Court held sex‑based harassment and retaliation claims were adequately pled; form allegations met notice pleading standard |
| Whether Tate adequately alleged an ADA disability claim | Tate alleged defendant knew of his disability and discriminated because of it | Defendant argued Tate failed to identify any specific disability or allege qualification/causation | Court held ADA claim was deficient—must allege specific disability, that plaintiff is qualified, and causation |
| Whether district court properly dismissed without leave to amend | Tate contended dismissal ended his suit without opportunity to fix defects | Defendant relied on §1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) dismissal authority | Court held judge erred: must permit amendment (or at least notify pro se plaintiff of deficiencies) unless amendment would be futile |
| Pleading standard applicable to employment discrimination claims | Tate relied on form and minimal factual statements | Defendant invoked Twombly/Iqbal heightened pleading requirements | Court explained Twombly/Iqbal apply but Swierkiewicz and Seventh Circuit precedent require only minimal, specific notice for sex‑discrimination claims; ADA claims require more specific factual allegations |
Key Cases Cited
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002) (complaints must give fair notice of the claim)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (application of Twombly to all civil claims)
- Luevano v. Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc., 722 F.3d 1014 (7th Cir. 2013) (notice pleading for discrimination claims on standard court form)
- Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074 (7th Cir. 2008) (minimal specificity required for pleading adverse action on basis of sex)
- Gogos v. AMS Mechanical Systems, Inc., 737 F.3d 1170 (7th Cir. 2013) (elements required to plead an ADA employment claim)
- Barry Aviation, Inc. v. Land O’Lakes Mun. Airport Comm’n, 377 F.3d 682 (7th Cir. 2004) (leave to amend should be granted unless amendment would be futile)