Dentons Digest
On June 7, 2024, in Thomas v. Dallas Independent School District, No. 23-10882 (5th Cir. Jun. 7, 2024), the Fifth Circuit overturned the district court’s prior decision in the case, unanimously holding that the district court inappropriately applied the McDonnell Douglas framework when ruling on an employer’s motion to dismiss. The Fifth Circuit explained that the employee only needed to plead enough facts to support an inference that she was not hired because of her age. The Fifth Circuit’s decision is a reminder of the low bar for pleading age discrimination claims.
Case Background
The employee, Deborah Ann Thomas – an instructional coach – sued her former employer, the School District, for, among other things, age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”). Id. at 2. Thomas alleged that the School District eliminated her position and informed her it would terminate her employment if she did not resign. Id. Thomas alleged that despite applying for 80 various positions and interviewing for at least 25 positions, the School District failed to hire and/or promote her because of her age, and ultimately terminated her employment. Id. at 2-3.
Thomas alleged that, at the time of her termination, she was fifty-five years old, that she had 25 years of experience in education, and that she had worked for the School District for nine years. Id. at 2.
Thomas also alleged that, despite her experience, the School District filled seven of the positions she had interviewed for with candidates who were under the age of 40 and had significantly less experience. Id. at 3-4. She also alleged that for other positions for which she applied, the School District only selected candidates who were 36 years old and under. Id. at 3.
Thomas additionally alleged that at the same time, the School District terminated her employment, it also terminated two other employees: a 55-year-old employee and a younger employee. Id. at 3. However, she alleges that the School District hired both of those employees into other positions. Id.
On the School District’s motion to dismiss, the magistrate judge recommended that the district court dismiss Thomas’ age discrimination claim because she had failed to plausibly allege or put forth sufficient evidence showing that she was qualified for the positions to which she applied or that she was similarly situated to the younger candidates who were hired or promoted instead of her. Id. at 4. The district court accepted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and granted the employer’s motion to dismiss; Thomas timely appealed to the Fifth Circuit. Id.
Fifth Circuit Ruling
The Fifth Circuit overturned the district court, holding it had erred in dismissing the employee’s failure to hire and/or promote claims by inappropriately applying a heightened pleading standard and subjecting the employee’s allegations to a the more rigorous factual or evidentiary analysis used under the McDonnell Douglass framework applied on summary judgment. Id. at 8, 9-10. The Fifth Circuit reasoned that, at the motion to dismiss stage, the employee only needed to allege allegations that she was not hired because of her protected status. Id. at 9-10. The Court explained that the plaintiff had met her low burden: among other things, the plaintiff alleged she had experience in education and a long employment record with the School District, that she interviewed for 20 positions and was not chosen for any of these jobs, that certain positions for which she applied were filled with candidates under 40, and that that this occurred after she and another 55-year-old employee lost their position while a younger employee was placed into a different position that was never advertised. Id. at 10. The Court reasoned that the facts alleged in the Complaint were “far more than” threadbare and that they raised, at least an inference, that the School District failed to hire the plaintiff because of her age, and that whether the plaintiff could “make out a prima facie case and whether [the School District] had non-discriminatory reasons for hiring other, younger candidates are questions for summary judgment rather than a motion to dismiss.” Id. at 10-11.
Implications for Employers
The Fifth Circuit’s opinion serves as a reminder that while courts may grant some motions to dismiss, many complaints will survive the motion to dismiss stage because of the low bar for pleadings established in cases like Bell Atl. Corp v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
