Background
Mikala Pearson, proceeding pro se, appealed a district court order dismissing her amended complaint without prejudice. Her complaint asserted claims of discrimination and retaliation under Title Seven of the Civil Rights Act of nineteen sixty-four following her termination by Federal Integrated Systems Corporation, known as FedSync. The district court dismissed the claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure twelve point B six because Pearson failed to allege that the discrimination was connected to a characteristic protected under Title Seven.
The court’s reasoning
The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo, accepting the complaint’s allegations as true. The court explained that while a prima facie case is an evidentiary standard, a complaint must still provide enough factual matter to suggest intentional discrimination based on a protected characteristic. Pearson failed to allege that FedSync took adverse action because of her race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Regarding her retaliation claim, the court found she failed to allege she opposed a practice made unlawful by Title Seven because she conceded the discrimination was not based on a protected characteristic. Additionally, she failed to allege retaliation under the participation clause because she filed her Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge only after her termination, meaning the employer could not have been aware of the charge at the time of the adverse action.
What it means going forward
Employers and courts will enforce the requirement that Title Seven complaints explicitly link adverse employment actions to protected characteristics, and plaintiffs must file formal charges before termination to support participation clause retaliation claims.