Multi-claim discrimination case is dismissed under Rule 12

The joy of filing a new lawsuit with a variety of claims is often met with dismay when the defendant immediately files a Rule 12 motion to dismiss the case on the basis that the complaint does not assert an actionable claim. I have noticed an uptick in the number of cases that are dismissed at this stage, before the parties can even start discovery. The solution is to submit more detailed allegations in the complaint to survive these motions. This case is a good example.

 

The case is Pattanayak v. Mastercard, Inc., a summary order issued on March 6. In this employment discrimination case, Plaintiff sues for disparate treatment, disability discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment. But remember that the Supreme Court in 2009 said complaints will be dismissed unless they assert “plausible” claims. That was the Iqbal case. Prior to 2009, under the more lenient “notice pleading” standards that guided Rule 12 motions, more cases proceeded to discovery. Iqbal pleading is now the name of the game.

 

On the Title VII racial and national origin discrimination claim, the Court says, plaintiff has not provided “minimal support” for his claim, even under the lenient Littlejohn v. City of New York, 795 F.3d 297 (2d Cir. 2015), which provides a plaintiff-friendly an interpretation of Iqbal. Plaintiff cites (unidentified) workplace comments, his transfer, his compensation reduction, and his termination in support of his claim, but the Court says his discrimination allegations are conclusory and provide insufficient detail. 

 

As for the disability discrimination claims, plaintiff again does not provide enough information to support the claims under Littlejohn or Iqbal. While plaintiff says he was denied extended medial leave, the complaint does not suggest that he met the requirements for such leave, or that someone else’s medical leave was comparable to his. The Title VII retaliation claims meet a similar fate: while plaintiff says Mastercard punished him for certain workplace complaints, the lawsuit does not show that the company understood that he was speaking out against discrimination as opposed to something else. 

 

We also have a hostile work environment claim. That, too, is dismissed. Plaintiff cites “a handful of incidents that do not amount to ‘severe’ or ‘pervasive’ conduct sufficient to violate Title VII. The Court notes that this case is not as serious as another case that the Court recently dismissed, Boyar v. Yelle, 2022 WL 120356 (2d Cir. 2022), where the plaintiff no case even though his supervisor threatned to “wring [plaintiff’s] neck,” “ignored him at a meeting,” “yelled at him,” and gave him unrealistic deadlines.