2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 5-19-2010 

# R yan B rown v

. C ity of Long B ranch P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-3632

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " R yan B r own v

. C ity of L on g B r anch" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1312. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1312NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 09- 3632

___________ RY AN B RO WN, A ppel l ant

v. C ITY O F L O N G B R A N C H ; H O W A R D H . W O O L L E Y , In hi s personal and professi on al capac i ty ; W ILL IA M S R IC H A R D , In hi s per s onal and pr ofes s i onal capa ci ty ; T O M A S SH E A , I n hi s per s onal and p ro f e ss io n a l ca p a c ity ; JO H N D O E , In h is p e rso n a l an d p ro f e ss io n a l ca p a c ity

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i v. N o. 09- cv- 02264) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J oel A . Pi s ano

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay11, 2010 B efor e: R E N D E L L , H A R D I M A N and A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: M ay19, 2010)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM R y a n B r o w n a p p e a l s f

r o m th e D i s tr i c tC o u r t ’ s o r d e rd i s m i s s i n g h i s c o m p l a i n t . We w i l l affirm i n p art , vacate i n p art , and rem and for further proceedings.T he pr eci s e natur e and dut i es of B r ow n’ s empl oym entar e notcl earfr om the exi s t i ng 1 re c o rd . H e a s s e rt s in h is c o m p la in t th a t h e w a s a s s ig n e d to th e “ F ir e P re v e n tio n B u re a u ,” ( C om pl . at5, 10- 11) , and has s ugges t ed i n otherfi l i ngs thathe w or ked as a “c ode enfor cementoffi cer , ” w hi ch def endant s di s put e. B ro w n ’s a lleg a tio n s a re n o t se t f o rth in n u m b e re d p a ra g ra p h s a s re q u ire d b yR u le 2 10( b) . A s di s cus s ed bel ow , the D i s tr i ctC our tm ayr equi r e B r ow n t o r emedythat defi ci encyi f and w hen appr opr i at e on r emand. W e s um m ar i ze onl ythos e al l egat i ons of the compl ai ntr el evantt o ourdi s pos i t i on, and w e ac ceptthem as true forR ul e 12( b) ( 6) p u rpo ses o n ly . S ee P h il li p s v . C o u n tyo f A ll eg h en y , 5 1 5 F . 3 d 2 2 4 , 2 3 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). 2 I. B r ow n w as empl oy ed bythe C i tyof Long B r anch, N ew J er s ey , as a Speci al L aw E nfor cementO ffi cerI I ( “SL E O I I ”) . H e fi l ed s ui tpr o s e aga i ns tthe C i tyand s ever al 1 in d iv id u a l d e f

e n d a n ts, a lleg in g g e n e ra llyth a t th e yd isc rim in a ted a g a in st h im o n th e b a sis of a di s abi l i tythathe des cr i bes as anxi etyand depr es s i on. 2 I n part i cul ar , B r ow n al l eges thatdefe ndant s pl ace d hi m on unarm ed “modi fi ed d u ty ” o n A u g u st 1 3 , 2 0 0 8 , af ter lea rn in g th a t h e so u g h t p ro f e ss io n a l trea tm e n t f

o r h is condi t i ons . D efe ndantJ ohn D oe 1, a s hi fts upervi s or , not i fi ed B r ow n of thatpl ace m ent w hen B r ow n arr i ved forw or k t hatday . W hi l e doi ng s o, he r evea l ed B r ow n’ s m edi cal con dit i on byqu est i on i ng him abo ut hi s depressi on i n the presence of o ther em ploy ees. T h e n ex t w ee k , B row n m et w ith a C ap tai n M u o lo to c o m p lai n ab o u t th e d iscl o su re o f h is m e d ica l co n d iti o n b yJo h n D o e 1 a n d o th e rs. C a p tain M u o lo to ld h im th a t h is m e d ic a l r e c o rd s w e re n o t c o n f id e n tia l, te rm in a te d th e m e e tin g , a n d a s k e d B ro w n to le a v e . D efe ndantT hom as Shea, an I nt ernal A ffa i r s O ffi cer , then appr oache d B r ow n i n the parki ng l otand t ol d hi m he s houl d r es i gn.3

B ro w n a lleg e s th a t d e f

e n d a n ts d e c id e d to ter m in a te h is e m p lo ym e n t b e c a u se o f h is compl ai nt s and bega n r ei nves t i gat i ng hi s backgr ound t ow ar d thatend. H e al s o al l eges thathe fi l ed a c om pl ai ntw i th t he U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof H eal th and H um an Ser vi ces ( “D H H S”) r egar di ng the di s cl os ur e of hi s m edi cal i nform at i on and a c om pl ai nt w ith th e E q u a l E m p lo ym e n t O p p o rtu n ityC o m m iss io n (“ E E O C ” ) re g a rd in g th e a lleg e d ly r et al i at oryr ei nves t i gat i on. D efe ndant s ’ i nves t i gat i on ul t i m at el yr evea l ed thatB r ow n had fa il ed to d iscl o se o n h is em p loym en t app li ca ti o n a c o n v ict ion fo r co n tem p t of co u rt ( appar ent l yforfai l i ng t o appea rfora tr aff i c s um m ons ) . T he C i tyther eaf t eri s s ued a pr el i m i narynot i ce of

di s ci pl i naryact i on char gi ng hi m w i th conductunbecomi ng an off i cer on t hat basi s. O n O ct ober2, 2008, B r ow n r eport ed fora fi tnes s - for - dutyexami nat i on byN ancy B . G all ina, P h . D . D r. G all ina c o n clud ed that B row n w as a d an g er to h im self a n d o thers and w as unfi tt o per form the dut i es of an SLE O I I . T he C i tythen amended i t s not i ce of d isci p li n aryac ti o n to state i ts i n tention to term inate B row n o n the b asis o f D r. G all ina’s re p o rt a s w e ll. B r ow n r ece i ved a he ar i ng on N ovember5, 2008. H e ac know l edges thathe di d not di s put e D r . G al l i na’ s r eportatthatt i m e eve n though he di s agr eed w i th i t . I ns t ead, he r eques t ed a r eas onabl e ac comm odat i on. I n part i cul ar , he al l eges thathe r emi nded defe ndant s H ow ar d W ool l eyand W i l l i am R i char ds thathe w as tr ai ned as a pol i ce di s pat cher , t ol d t hem t hatthe l ett erpl aci ng hi m on m odi fi ed dutynot ed thathe coul d be4

r eas s i gned t o “des k duty , ” and r eques t ed r eas s i gnm ent . T heydeni ed hi s r eques ton the gr ounds thathe w oul d r emai n a dange rt o hi m s el f and other s beca us e, even i n other capa ci t i es , he s t i l l w oul d have i m m edi at e ac ces s t o w eapons . T he C i tyi s s ued a r epor ton N o v e m b e r 7 , 2 0 0 8 , co n c lu d in g th a t B ro w n w a s in c a p a c itate d a n d u n f it fo r d u ty , an d it ter m in a ted h im w ith o u t re a ss ig n m e n t. O n th e b a sis o f

th e se a lleg a tio n s, B ro w n a ss e rte d f iv e c laim s: (1 ) d isa b ili ty di s cr i m i nat i on i n vi ol at i on of the A m er i cans w i th D i s abi l i t i es A ct( “A D A ”) , 42 U . S. C . §§ 12101 t o 12213, the N ew J er s eyL aw A gai ns tD i s cr i m i nat i on ( “N J L A D ”) , N . J . St at . A nn. § § 1 0 :5-1 to -4 9 , an d the N ew Jerse yC o n scien ti o u s E m p loy ee P rotec ti o n A ct (“C E P A ”), N . J . St at . A nn §§ 34: 19- 1 t o - 14; ( 2) hos t i l e w or k envi r onm ent ; ( 3) r et al i at i on i n vi ol at i on of the N J L A D and the C E PA ; ( 4) i nt ent i onal i nfl i ct i on of emot i onal di s tr es s ; and ( 5) w ro n g f u l te rm in a tio n u n d e r P ie rc e v . O rt h o P h a rm . C o rp ., 4 1 7 A .2 d 5 0 5 (N .J . 1 9 8 0 ). D efe ndant s m oved t o di s m i s s B r ow n’ s compl ai ntunderR ul e 12( b) ( 6) , and the D i s tr i ct C ou rtgrant ed the m oti on byorder ent ered Se ptem ber 3, 20 09 . B row n ap peals . II. W e h av e jurisdicti o n p u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e re v iew the D istri ct C o u rt ’s d i s mi s s a l u n d e rRu l e 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) d e n o v o . S e e P h i l l i p s , 5 1 5 F . 3 d a t2 2 4 . I n d o i n g s o , we

“ ‘a c c e p t all f

a c tu a l alle g a tio n s a s tru e , co n stru e th e c o m p lain t in th e lig h t m o st f a v o ra b le to th e p lain tiff

, an d d e ter m in e w h e th e r, u n d e r a n yre a so n a b le r e a d in g o f th e c o m p lain t, the pl ai nt i ff maybe ent i t l ed t o r el i ef. ’ ” I d. at233 ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . T he fa ctualB ro w n a ss e rte d a d isa b ili tyd isc rim in a tio n c laim u n d e r C E P A a s w e ll, b u t th a t sta tu te 3 pr ot ect s empl oy ees fr om r et al i at i on for“w hi s t l ebl ow i ng” ac t i vi t i es and does not i ndepende nt l ypr ohi bi tdi s abi l i tydi s cr i m i nat i on. See N . J . St at . A nn. § 34: 19- 3. 5 al l egat i ons i n t he compl ai ntm us tbe s uffi ci entt o “‘ r ai s e a r i ghtt o r el i ef a bove the s pecul at i ve l evel . ’ ” I d. at234 ( quot i ng B el l A t l ant i c C orp. v. T w om bl y , 550 U . S. 544, 5 5 5 (2 0 0 7 )). P ro se c o m p lain ts, h o w e v e r, m u st b e “ ‘lib e ra llyc o n stru e d ’” a n d “ ‘h e ld to l ess s tri ng ent s t and ards than form al pleadi ng s draft ed b yl aw y ers [. ]’ ” E ri ckson v. P ardus, 5 5 1 U . S . 8 9 , 9 4 (20 0 7 ) (cit ati o n s o m itted). W e agr ee thatB r ow n fai l ed t o s t at e cl ai m s fora hos t i l e w or k envi r onm entor inten ti o n al i n fli cti o n o f e m o ti o n al distr ess f o r th e re aso n s ex p lai n ed b ythe D istri ct C o u rt ( and, though t he D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notaddr es s the i s s ue, w e conc l ude thatany a m e n d m e n tw o u l d b e f

u t i l e f o rth o s e s a m e r e a s o n s , s e e P h i l l i p s , 5 1 5 F . 3 d a t2 4 5 ) . We w ill th u s a f

f irm to th a t ex ten t. B ro w n ’s r e m a in in g c laim s, h o w e v e r, ar e su f f icie n t to su rviv e d ism issal un d er R u le 12 (b)(6 ). Fi r s t , B r ow n s t at ed a c l ai m fordi s abi l i tydi s cr i m i nat i on underthe A D A and the N J L A D . B r ow n al l eges thatdefe ndant s di s cr i m i nat ed aga i ns thi m both byt erm i nat i ng

3 hi s empl oym entand byr efus i ng t o pr ovi de a r eas onabl e ac comm odat i on thr ough r eas s i gnm ent . T o s t at e a c l ai m fordi s cr i m i nat i on underthe A D A , a pl ai nt i ff mustal l ege that: “‘( 1) he i s a di sabl ed p ers on w i thin the m eaning o f t he A D A ; (2) he is otherw i se q u a lifie d to p e rf

o rm th e e ss e n tial f

u n c tio n s o f

th e jo b , w ith o r w ith o u t re a so n a b le accom m od at i on bythe em ploy er; and (3) he h as suffered an o therw i se adve rs eO n ap peal, defe nd ants argue t hat B row n w as not quali fi ed to perform his j ob becau se 4 he admi t t ed thathe di d notchal l enge D r . G al l i na’ s concl us i on t o thateff ectatthe N ovember2 hear i ng. W e dec l i ne t o dr aw thati nfer ence i n defe ndant s ’ favoratthe pl eadi ng s t age, part i cul ar l yi n l i ghtof B r ow n’ s fur theral l egat i on thathe di d notchal l enge D r . G al l i na’ s concl us i on onl ybeca us e he de ci ded t o r eques ta r eas onabl e ac comm odat i on in s te a d . (C o m lp . a t 4 -5 .) 6 empl oym entdeci s i on as a r es ul tof di s cr i m i nat i on. ’ ” W i l l i ams v. Phi l a. H ous . A uth. P o l i c e De p ’ t , 3 8 0 F . 3 d 7 5 1 , 7 6 1 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 4 ) ( c i t a t i o n o mi t t e d ) . NJ LAD c l a i ms gener al l yar e governed bythe s ame st andar ds . See Law r ence v. N at ’ l W es t m i ns t erB ank N . J. , 9 8 F . 3 d 6 1 , 7 0 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). I n thi s cas e, the D i s tr i ctC our tas s um ed thatB r ow n s uffe r ed fr om a di s abi l i ty , but concl uded thathe w as notqual i fi ed t o per form the es s ent i al funct i ons of an SLE O I I or anyal t ernat i ve pos i t i on. A ccor di ng t o the D i s tr i ctC our t , B r ow n “conc edes ” thathe w as unabl e t o do s o beca us e “he acknow l edged i n hi s C om pl ai nt , thatG al l i na det erm i ned that he w as a dange rt o hi m s el f and other s ” and that“s he r ecomm ended thathe be r emoved fr om hi s capa ci tyas an SL E O w hi ch r equi r ed thathe have i m m edi at e ac ces s t o w eapons . ” (D ist. C t. O p . at 5 -6 .) B ro w n , h o w e v e r, d id n o t “c o n c e d e ” th a t h e w a s n o t q u a lifie d to per form the func t i ons of hi s j ob. T o the contr ary , he al l eged onl ythatD r . G al l i na r eac hed thatconcl us i on, and s peci fi cal l yal l eged thathe di s agr eed w i th i t . ( C om pl . at5. ) T he 4 D i s tr i ctC our tfur therconcl uded that“B r ow n w as notabl e t o per form the r ol e of a dis patcher, w hich w ou l d h ave b een a reasona ble accom m od at i on , becau se that r ole al so r equi r ed hi m t o be i n cl os e pr oxi m i tyt o w eapons . ” ( D i s t . C t . O p. at6. ) O nce a gai n,7

how ever , B r ow n al l eged mer el ythatdefe ndant s r efus ed t o acc om m odat e hi m on that bas i s , and he pr ot es t ed thathe had be en perm i t t ed t o s erve unarm ed “de s k duty ” i n the pas t . ( C om pl . at5. ) T hus , the D i s tr i ctC our ts houl d nothave c oncl uded atthe pl eadi ng s t age thatB r ow n i n fac tw as notqual i fi ed t o per form hi s j ob orforr eas s i gnm ent . C f. W ill iam s, 3 8 0 F .3 d a t 7 6 8 -6 9 (v a c a tin g su m m a ryju d g m e n t in lig h t o f f a c tu a l d isp u te r egar di ng w hetherpol i ce of fi cerw i th m ent al i ns t abi l i tycoul d be ac comm odat ed by rea ssign m en t as a d ispa tche r no tw ith stan d ing p rox im ityto f ir ea rm s). T h e D istri ct C o u rt al s o faul t ed B r ow n forfai l i ng t o al l ege a ddi t i onal fac t s s ugges t i ng thathe w as qual i fi ed, b u to u rp l e n a r yr e v i e w o f th e c o mp l a i n tr e v e a l s th a tBr o wn a d e q u a t e l ys t a t e d c l a i ms u n d e rth e ADA a n d NJ L AD. S e c o n d , B ro w n a lso sta ted a c laim f o r re talia tio n u n d e r C E P A . T o sta te a c laim underC E PA , a pl ai nt i ff mustal l ege that : “‘ ( 1) he ors he r eas onabl ybel i eved thathi s or herempl oy er ’ s conductw as vi ol at i ng ei thera l aw , rul e, orr egul at i on pr om ul gat ed pur s uantt o l aw , ora cl earm andat e of publ i c pol i cy ; ( 2) he ors he per form ed a ‘ w hi s t l ebl ow i ng’ act i vi tydes cr i bed i n [C E PA ] ; ( 3) an adve r s e empl oym entact i on w as t aken a g a in st h im o r h e r; a n d (4 ) a c a u sa l co n n e c tio n e x ists b e tw e e n th e w h istleb lo w in g a c tiv ity and the adve r s e empl oym entact i on. ’ ” C averv. C i tyof Tre nt on, 420 F. 3d 243, 254 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) (cit ati o n o m itted). T h e D istric t C o u rt d ism iss e d th is c laim b e c a u se it b e liev e d B ro w n f a iled to sta te the fi r s t , s econd a nd four th of thes e el ement s . W e di s agr ee. B r ow n al l eged thathe8

c o m p la in e d to C a p ta in M u o lo a b o u t th e “ u n la w f u l d is c lo s u re o f

m ym e d ic a l r e c o rd s ,” fi l ed a c om pl ai ntw i th t he D H H S r egar di ng the “vi ol at i on of m yr i ghtt o m edi cal p ri v ac y , ” a n d fil ed a c o m p lai n t w ith the E E O C reg ard ing d ef en d an ts’ all eg ed lyretali atory i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f

h i s b a c k g r o u n d . ( Co mp l . a t7 . ) T h o s e a l l e g a t i o n s s a t i s f yth e f i r s ttwo e lem e n ts. S e e N .J. S tat. A n n . 3 4 :1 9 -3 (a ) (p ro tec ted a c tiv ityin c lu d e s “ d isc lo s[ u re s] . . . t o a s upervi s orort o a publ i c body ”) ; B l ackburn v. U ni t ed Par cel Ser v. , I nc. , 179 F. 3d 81, 93 n. 4 ( 3d C i r . 1999) ( “[A ] C E PA pl ai nt i ff ne ed notci t e ‘ anys peci fi c s t atut e, rul e or r egul at i on w hi ch w as al l egedl yvi ol at ed’ w hen di s cl os i ng empl oy erw r ongdoi ng oreven w h en fil ing a C E P A ac ti o n . ”) (cit ati o n o m itted). R e g a rd in g c a u sa tio n , the D istric t C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t B ro w n p lea d e d “ n o f a c ts su g g e stin g th a t th e D e f

e n d a n ts w e re e v e n a w a re o f th e se c o m p lain ts” a n d “ n o f a c ts s ugges t i ng thathi s compl ai nt s w er e r el at ed t o hi s ul t i m at e t erm i nat i on. ” ( D i s t . C t . O p. at 7- 8. ) B r ow n, how ever , al l eges thatdefe ndantShea t ol d hi m he s houl d r es i gn i m m edi at el yaft erhe compl ai ned t o C apt ai n M uol o aboutthe di s cl os ur e of hi s m edi cal in f o rm a tio n a n d th a t “[ t]h e C itym a d e a d e c isio n to h a v e m e ter m in a ted o n c e I b e g a n to c o m p lain o f

th e v io latio n o f

m yrig h t to p riv a c ya s to m ym e d ica l in f o rm a tio n .” (C o m p l. at7. ) H e al s o al l eged that , pr i ort o thati nci dent , he w as an “e xcept i onal empl oy ee w i th a fl aw l es s tr ack r ecor d” and ha d been “ comm ended on s ever al occa s i ons , ” butthat“once I began t o compl ai n of the C i ty ’ s vi ol at i on of m yr i ghtt o pr i vacy , I w as t ar get ed forBr o wn a l s o a s s e r t e d a r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m u n d e rNJ LAD o n th e b a s i s o f th e s e s a me 5 a lleg a tio n s. A s d e f

e n d a n ts a rg u e , h o w e v e r, th e in stitu tio n o f a C E P A a c tio n sta tu to rily w ai ves al l ot hercl ai m s of r et al i at i on unders t at e l aw . See N . J . St at . A nn. § 34: 19- 8; B al das s ar e v. N ew J er s ey , 250 F. 3d 188, 202 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . B r ow n has notas s ert ed a r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m u n d e rth e ADA. D e fe nd a nt s a r gu e tha tBr own ha s w a i ve d h i s Pi e r c e c l a i m t oo byfi l i ng a CE PA 6 act i on. T he C E PA w ai verpr ovi s i on, how ever , does notappl yt o “‘ caus es of ac t i on that ar e s ubs t ant i al l yi ndepende ntof the C E PA cl ai m . ’ ” B al das s ar e, 250 F. 3d at202 ( ci t at i on o m itt e d ). T h u s, th a t p ro v isio n d o e s n o t b a r B ro w n ’s P ier c e c laim to th e e x ten t th a t itis bas ed on di s cr i m i nat i on as oppos ed t o r et al i at i on. 9 t erm i nati on . ” (I d. at7-8. ) Th ese al l egati on s ar e suffici ent for pl eading p urposes. 5 Fi nal l y , B r ow n s t at ed a c l ai m forw r ongful t erm i nat i on underPi er ce. U nder Pi er ce, “an a t - w i l l empl oy ee ‘ has a ca us e of a ct i on forw r ongful di s char ge w hen the di s char ge i s contr aryt o a cl earm andat e of publ i c pol i cy . ’ ” C onos hent i v. Pub. Ser v. E le c . & G a s C o ., 3 6 4 F .3 d 1 3 5 , 1 4 8 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( q u o tin g P ie rc e , 4 1 7 A .2 d a t 5 1 2 ). T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed thi s cl ai m on the s ol e gr ound thatB r ow n “has noti dent i fi ed a ‘c lea r m a n d a te o f

p u b lic p o licy ’ th a t w a s v io late d a s a re su lt o f h is te rm in a tio n .” (D ist. C t . O p. at9. ) B r ow n, how ever , has al l eged vi ol at i ons of the A D A and N J L A D . C f. C o n o sh e n ti, 3 6 4 F .3 d a t 1 4 9 n .1 3 (n o tin g N e w Je rse yd e c isio n a llo w in g P ier c e c laim pr edi cat ed on vi ol at i on of the fe der al Fam i l yand M edi cal L eave A ct ) . A w r ongful di s char ge underthe A D A and N J L A D m aycons t i tut e a w r ongful di s char ge underPi er ce as w el l , “al though i ti s notcl eart o us thata Pi er ce c l ai m i n thateventw oul d be of a ny addi t i onal benef

i tt o” B r ow n. I d. at149. W e l eave i tt o the D i s tr i ctC our tt o cons i dert hat i s s ue i f and w hen appr opr i at e on the bas i s of a more ful l ydevel oped r ecor d. 610

I n s u m, Br o wn h a s s t a t e d c l a i ms f o r( 1 ) d i s a b i l i tyd i s c r i mi n a t i o n u n d e rth e ADA a n d N J L A D , ( 2 ) r e t a l i a t i o n u n d e rC E P A , a n d ( 3 ) w r o n g f u l d i s c h a r g e u n d e rP i e r c e . We thus vaca t e the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al of thos e cl ai m s and r emand forfur ther pr ocee di ngs . W e emphas i ze that“[s ] t andar ds of pl eadi ng ar e nots t andar ds of pr oof, ” and w e expr es s no opi ni on on w hetherB r ow n w i l l be abl e t o pr ove hi s cl ai m s . Phi l l i ps , 515 F. 3d at246. In a d d itio n , w e n o te th a t d e f e n d a n ts re q u e s te d , a s a n a lte rn a tiv e to d is m is s a l, a m ore defini t e st at em ent unde r R ule 12(e) . T he D i stri ctC ou rtden i ed thatrequestbecau se it co n c lu d e d th a t B ro w n ’s c o m p lain t is n o t so v a g u e o r a m b ig u o u s th a t d e f e n d a n ts c o u ld notaddr es s i tbym eans of a Rul e 12( b) ( 6) m ot i on. ( D i s t . C t . O p. at4. ) W e now have held that four of B row n’s cl ai m s survive di sm i ssal un der R ule 12(b)( 6). B ecause B row n ’s all eg ati o n s are n o t setfo rth in n u m b ere d p ara g rap h s as re q u ir ed b yR u le 10 (b), o u r ru lin g is w ith o u t p re ju d ice to d e f

e n d a n ts’ a b ili tyto re n e w th e ir R u le 1 2 (e ) m o tio n to s eek c om pl i ance w i th R ul e 10( b) i f theybel i eve thatB r ow n’ s noncompl i ance pr ej udi ces th e i ra b i l i tyt o a n s w e r . S e e P h i l l i p s v . G i r d i c h , 4 0 8 F . 3 d 1 2 4 , 1 2 8 ( 2 d C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) . We expr es s no opi ni on on thati s s ue.