Defendant's Attorney: Joel S. Aziere, Corinne T. Duffy, James S. Korte

Description:

Milwaukee, Wisconsin civil rights lawye represented the Plaintiff who claimed he was discrminated against because of his color.
Miko Thomas contended that his employer, JBS Green Bay, discriminated against him on account of his color. His complaint
alleges seven discriminatory acts or related sets of acts, of which we discuss three: (1) the employer delayed for three
years his training on a particular machine; (2) the employer denied his request for vacation time while granting equiva-
lent requests by other workers; and (3) the employer transferred him to a different shift even though it knew that this
caused him problems in raising a young child.

* * *

The district court dismissed the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219755 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 11, 2023). After Thomas amended the complaint, the district court dismissed the suit outright. 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48841 (E.D.
Wis. Feb. 15, 2024). The judge saw two problems that ran through both complaints: first, the events of which Thomas
complains are not sufficiently serious to be cognizable under Title VII; second, the complaints did not lay out every element or ingredient that Thomas eventually would need to prove. In
other words, the judge demanded that the complaint include allegations corresponding to each component of the proof
that Thomas would need to defeat a motion for summary judgment.

* * *

Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002). A court of appeals held that
Title VII complaints must allege facts establishing a prima fa-
cie case of discrimination: “(1) membership in a protected
group; (2) qualification for the job in question; (3) an adverse
employment action; and (4) circumstances that support an in-
ference of discrimination”, 534 U.S. at 510—in other words,
must narrate all elements of a winning claim. The Justices re-
plied that these elements set out an evidentiary standard, not
a pleading rule. Ibid. They added: “This Court has never indi-
cated that the requirements for establishing a prima facie case
… also apply to the pleading standard that plaintiffs must sat-
isfy in order to survive a motion to dismiss.” Id. at 511. The
Court wrapped up: “we hold that an employment discrimi-
nation plaintiff need not plead a prima facie case of discrimi-
nation”. Id. at 515. Later cases about Rule 8 do not cast any No. 24-1404 5
doubt on Swierkiewicz. See, e.g., Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 569–70 (2007); Luevano v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
722 F.3d 1014, 1028 (7th Cir. 2013); Swanson v. Citibank, N.A.,
614 F.3d 400, 404–05 (7th Cir. 2010).

Outcome: Reversed and remanded

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: