Background
Maan Aljizzani and Steven Isaac, journalists employed by Middle East Broadcasting Networks, Inc., were terminated after violating the company’s Code of Ethics and social media policies. Both plaintiffs alleged that the company discriminated against them based on their Iraqi national origin, claiming that non-Iraqi employees were treated more leniently for similar conduct. The district courts granted the employer’s motions to dismiss, finding the complaints failed to state plausible claims for relief.
The court’s reasoning
The Court of Appeals reviewed the complaints de novo and agreed with the district courts that the plaintiffs failed to meet the pleading standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure twelve comma six. The court found that the plaintiffs did not allege facts sufficient to support an inference that their terminations were based on national origin rather than their insubordination. Specifically, the complaints lacked particularized comparisons showing that non-Iraqi employees engaged in the same conduct and were not terminated. The court noted that an obvious alternative explanation for the terminations was the plaintiffs’ refusal to comply with direct orders to remove offending social media posts.
Without any suggestion that any other employee engaged in the same conduct and was not terminated, an inference of discrimination is unwarranted and implausible, particularly in light of the obvious alternative explanation that Aljizzani was fired for insubordination.
MAAN ALJIZZANI v. MIDDLE EAST BROADCASTING NETWORKS, INC
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces the requirement for plaintiffs in Title VII national origin discrimination cases to plead specific factual comparisons to survive a motion to dismiss, rather than relying on generalized allegations of disparate treatment.