TROYER v. PFIZER INC
1:14-cv-00138
| M.D. Ga. | Oct 13, 2015Background
- Plaintiff Mercy Troyer sued Pfizer asserting Title VII claims for race discrimination, gender discrimination, and retaliation; Defendant moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The Court granted Defendant’s motion and entered judgment dismissing the complaint for failure to plead a plausible claim.
- Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration and, in the alternative, a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint after judgment.
- Plaintiff argued the Court misapplied the 12(b)(6) standard, that her EEOC charge provided adequate notice, and that her complaint identified a proper comparator and a protected activity supporting retaliation.
- Defendant opposed both motions, arguing (among other points) that Rule 15(a) does not apply after judgment and the pleadings remained deficient.
- The Court denied reconsideration (finding no intervening law, new evidence, or clear legal error) and denied leave to amend (Rule 15 inapplicable after judgment and, even if considered, amendment was unduly delayed and would fail).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court erred in applying the Rule 12(b)(6) pleading standard | Troyer contends the complaint should survive because Conley/notice pleading means she gave adequate notice | Pfizer contends Twombly/Iqbal govern plausibility and the complaint lacks factual allegations to state a plausible claim | Court held Twombly/Iqbal control; complaint fails plausibility and no clear error in applying 12(b)(6) |
| Whether the EEOC charge attached elsewhere supplies sufficient factual support | Troyer argues her EEOC complaint gave Defendant adequate notice and should cure pleading deficiencies | Pfizer notes the EEOC charge was not attached to the complaint and cannot be relied on to fill pleading gaps | Court held the EEOC charge was not before it as an attachment, so it cannot be treated to cure pleading defects |
| Whether Troyer adequately alleged a proper comparator for discrimination claims | Troyer asserted in briefing she identified a white male comparator (John Norton) | Pfizer argued no comparator allegations exist within the four corners of the complaint | Court held no comparator was alleged in the complaint or attachments; post-complaint assertions in response to the motion to dismiss cannot cure the pleading |
| Whether leave to amend should be granted after judgment under Rule 15(a) | Troyer sought leave to amend as alternative relief and argued leave should be freely given | Pfizer argued Rule 15(a) governs amendments before judgment and is inapplicable; amendment would also be unduly delayed | Court held Rule 15(a) does not apply after judgment and denied leave; even if considered, amendment was untimely and would be denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957) (historical notice-pleading language criticized by later Supreme Court decisions)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (established the plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (further explicated plausibility pleading requirements)
- Jacobs v. Tempur-Pedic Int'l Inc., 626 F.3d 1327 (11th Cir. 2010) (Rule 15(a) governs amendments before judgment; not applicable after entry of judgment)
- McCoy v. Macon Water Auth., 966 F. Supp. 1209 (M.D. Ga. 1997) (district-court standards for motions for reconsideration)
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (factors governing discretion to grant leave to amend)
- SFM Holdings, Ltd. v. Banc of Am. Sec., LLC, 600 F.3d 1334 (11th Cir. 2010) (attachments may be considered with a Rule 12(b)(6) motion only if properly before the court)
- Edwards v. Prime, Inc., 602 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2010) (dismissal appropriate when allegations do not raise right to relief above speculative level)