Background
In February two thousand twenty-five, Plaintiff-Appellant Gertrand Isidore, an African American maintenance worker, sued Defendants-Appellees Westport Linen Services, L.L.C., Bryan Palmer, and unidentified insurers for employment discrimination. Isidore alleged a conspiracy to pay him below-market wages and assign him menial and dangerous work. He also claimed Defendants misrepresented the condition of a washing machine, which malfunctioned and caused him catastrophic injuries. The district court granted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss under Rule twelve comma six, and Isidore did not oppose that motion.
The court’s reasoning
The court applied the Twombly and Iqbal pleading standard, requiring a plaintiff to plead sufficient facts on all ultimate elements to render the claim plausible. The court found the complaint’s allegations were uniformly conclusory, such as stating pay was below that of other employees without elaboration. The court noted the complaint failed to specify how Defendants treated Isidore differently or suggest disparate treatment was because of his race. The court rejected Isidore’s arguments that the district court required a prima facie case, failed to draw reasonable inferences, or erred by not allowing an amendment, as Isidore did not raise these issues below or attempt to amend.
the factual allegations in Isidore’s complaint are uniformly conclusory
Isidore v. Westport Linen Services, L.L.C., No. 25-30745 (5th Cir. May 28, 2026)
What it means going forward
Employment discrimination plaintiffs in the Fifth Circuit must plead specific, non-conclusory facts regarding disparate treatment and causation to survive a motion to dismiss under Section 1981.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download