IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

JADA McCANTS WILLIAMS, )

 )

Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 09-0411-WS-M 

 ) 

AIRCRAFT WORKERS WORLDWIDE, ) 

INC., ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. )

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s allegations of unethical conduct by 

defendant’s counsel (docs. 13, 22), and on defendant’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss (doc. 23). 

I. Procedural Posture.

 Remarkably, this Title VII employment discrimination action remains mired at the 

pleadings stage, despite having been pending in this District Court for an entire year. No 

discovery has been conducted and no disclosures have been made. Plaintiff, Jada McCants 

Williams, who is proceeding pro se, filed her Second Amended Complaint (doc. 22) on June 7, 

2010. Each of its predecessors faced Rule 12(b) challenges from defendant, Aircraft Workers 

Worldwide, Inc., identifying various purported pleading deficiencies. The pattern has repeated 

itself once again; indeed, Williams’ Second Amended Complaint was likewise met by a Motion 

to Dismiss in which defendant recited a host of alleged defects. That motion is now ripe. Before 

considering the Rule 12(b) motion, however, the Court examines Williams’ repeated accusations 

that defendant’s attorney has a conflict of interest and should not be allowed to represent Aircraft 

Workers in these proceedings. 

II. Disqualification Issue.

 On multiple occasions, including her Second Amended Complaint, Williams has taken 

exception to attorney Marcus E. McCrory’s representation of defendant in this action. 

According to Williams, she had previously retained McCrory’s services in a matter, and that 

prior attorney/client relationship bars him from representing Aircraft Workers herein. (Doc. 13, 

Case 1:09-cv-00411-WS-M Document 24 Filed 07/22/10 Page 1 of 6
-2- 

at 2; doc. 22, at 2.) This Court has a duty to investigate these allegations. See, e.g., In re 

ProEducation Int’l, Inc., 587 F.3d 296, 299-300 (5th Cir. 2009) (explaining that district court is 

“obliged” to take measures against attorney unethical conduct); FMC Technologies, Inc. v. 

Edwards, 420 F. Supp.2d 1153, 1157 (W.D. Wash. 2006) (“[T]his Court has a duty to examine 

charges of conflict of interest.”). Upon review of the facts, and particularly McCrory’s 

evidentiary submission dated June 7, 2010, the Court finds that disqualification is not warranted 

at this time because no conflict has been shown to exist. 

 The law is clear that the party seeking disqualification of counsel bears the burden of 

establishing that such severe action is warranted. See Wade v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 

225 F. Supp.2d 1323, 1327 (S.D. Ala. 2002). Moreover, it bears emphasis that “disqualification 

is a drastic measure” that should not be imposed lightly. FMC Technologies, 420 F. Supp.2d at 

1157; see also ProEducation, 587 F.3d at 300 (disqualification of attorney “must not be imposed 

cavalierly”). Williams’ position is apparently that the mere fact that McCrory previously 

represented her in another matter means that it is “against the law” for him to represent Aircraft 

Workers in this dispute. (Doc. 13, at 2.) Williams is mistaken. 

 Under the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct, an attorney who has formerly 

represented a client in a proceeding is not per se barred from ever accepting an engagement with 

anyone whose interests are adverse to that former client. Rather, the prohibition extends only to 

“represent[ing] another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that 

person’s interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client.” Rule 1.9(a) 

(emphasis added). Applicable case law emphasizes the “substantially related” requirement. “In 

order to prove a conflict of interest under the ethical rules, the party seeking disqualification 

must prove (1) the existence of an attorney-client relationship and (2) that matters within the 

pending suit are substantially related to the matters within the attorney’s previous 

representation.” In re Employment Discrimination Litigation Against Alabama, 453 F. Supp.2d 

1323, 1337 (M.D. Ala. 2001); see also Cox v. American Cast Iron Pipe Co., 847 F.2d 725, 728 

(11th Cir. 1988) (similar); Ex parte Regions Bank, 914 So.2d 843, 848 (Ala. 2005) (for conflicts 

of interest involving former clients, Alabama courts examine “the similarity between the factual 

situations, the legal issues posed, and the nature and extent of the attorney’s involvement to see if 

information from the prior representation is material to the new representation”) (citations 

omitted). 

Case 1:09-cv-00411-WS-M Document 24 Filed 07/22/10 Page 2 of 6
-3- 

 Williams’ objection to McCrory’s representation of Aircraft Workers in this case is 

unavailing because she has made no showing, and there is no reason to believe, that matters 

within this Title VII action are “substantially related” to the matters in which McCrory 

previously represented her. McCrory’s unrebutted evidence is that he represented Williams in 

2007 in a misdemeanor criminal case involving a worthless check, and “may have” provided 

informal assistance to her in connection with a 2008 bond forfeiture and a 2008 small claims 

action involving a dispute with her cable company. None of these matters appear to have any 

nexus whatsoever, much less a substantial relationship, to Williams’ dispute with Aircraft 

Workers. In the absence of any indication that information from the prior representation is 

material to the new representation, Williams has failed to demonstrate the existence of a conflict 

of interest requiring McCrory’s disqualification from these proceedings. To the extent, then, that 

she seeks defendant’s counsel’s removal from the case, plaintiff’s request is denied for lack of 

evidence of any ethical violation.1

III. Second Renewed Motion to Dismiss.

 In its Second Renewed Motion to Dismiss (doc. 23), Aircraft Workers challenges the 

adequacy of the Second Amended Complaint on a variety of grounds, including the following: 

(i) it flunks the Twombly test by not pleading facts with enough specificity to state a plausible 

claim for relief; (ii) it lacks specific allegations concerning similarly situated employees outside 

Williams’ protected class; (iii) it lacks specific allegations that Williams met legitimate job 

 1

 This ruling is accompanied by two caveats. First, Williams has accused McCrory 

of giving her “personal information to the defendant Hardin,” an apparent reference to Aircraft 

Workers’ CEO, Daniel Hardin. (Doc. 22, at 2.) If Williams can show that she revealed 

confidential information (i.e., not simply “personal information”) to McCrory during the course 

of his former representation of her, and that there is a genuine threat that those confidences may 

be divulged to Aircraft Workers here, then she may renew her request for disqualification on that 

basis upon a proper evidentiary showing. See, e.g., Wade, 225 F. Supp.2d at 1328 (discussing 

circumstances in which disqualification may be warranted on basis of risk of disclosure of 

confidential information). At this juncture, however, Williams’ vague accusation does not 

directly implicate the confidentiality restriction, much less support an inference that there is a 

genuine threat that information she shared in confidence with her former attorney may be 

compromised here. Second, as McCrory properly recognizes, he must tread with caution in any 

questioning of Williams about her criminal record in this case (which would appear to be 

relevant solely for impeachment purposes), and must not utilize any non-public information 

against her. See Rule 1.9(b), Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. 

Case 1:09-cv-00411-WS-M Document 24 Filed 07/22/10 Page 3 of 6
-4- 

expectations or was qualified for her job; (iv) it lacks specific allegations that Williams’ job was 

given to someone outside her protected class; and (v) it lacks specific allegations of a pattern of 

harassment. 

 With regard to defendant’s Twombly objection, it is of course correct that, in order to 

survive a motion to dismiss, “[a] complaint must state a plausible claim for relief,” meaning that 

the plaintiff must “plead[] factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference 

that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Co., 578 F.3d 

1252, 1261 (11th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted). “The well-pled allegations must nudge the claim 

across the line from conceivable to plausible.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks 

omitted). Defendant contends that these standards are not satisfied here because the Second 

Amended Complaint “fails to identify with sufficient specificity what part of Title VII” Williams 

relies on, “fails to contain a short and plain statement of each claim,” and “pleads legal 

conclusions and fails to explain with sufficient critical facts” the basis of her claims. (Doc. 23-1, 

at 1.) 

 The Court does not agree with defendant’s characterization of the Second Amended 

Complaint. For starters, that pleading specifically alleges that defendant’s conduct with regard 

to her discharge “is racial discrimination in violation of TITLE VII” (doc. 22, at 2), so Aircraft 

Workers’ suggestion that Williams did not identify the part of Title VII she is invoking is 

unfounded. As for defendant’s contentions that the Second Amended Complaint is conclusory 

and lacks adequate facts, review of that pleading shows otherwise. The Second Amended 

Complaint describes a conversation between Williams and Aircraft Workers CEO Daniel Hardin 

on October 17, 2008, in which he indicated that it had to be a black employee who had reported 

the company to the FAA, accused Williams of making that report, called her an “ignorant black 

woman and a bitch,” and fired her on the spot. (Id.) The Second Amended Complaint likewise 

alleges that after her dismissal, Hardin sent her threatening e-mails in which he said that nobody 

would believe her because she was just a black “reggin” (which Williams perceived as a racial 

slur, the “n-word” spelled backwards). (Id.) 

 So, considered in the aggregate, the allegations of the Second Amended Complaint are 

that Aircraft Workers’ CEO summarily fired Williams on October 17, 2008 after a conversation 

in which he repeatedly mentioned her race and denigrated her by calling her an “ignorant black 

woman,” then sent her e-mails in which he used a racial slur towards her. Far from setting forth 

Case 1:09-cv-00411-WS-M Document 24 Filed 07/22/10 Page 4 of 6
-5- 

mere “legal conclusions” in lieu of “a short and plain statement” of each claim, the Second 

Amended Complaint pleads specific facts supporting a plausible claim of race-based disparate 

treatment under Title VII. The well-pleaded, specific facts in the Second Amended Complaint 

unquestionably support a reasonable inference that Aircraft Workers fired her because of her 

race, in violation of Title VII. Nothing further is required of Williams to satisfy the Twombly / 

Iqbal pleading requirements. 

 Defendant’s other objections to the Second Amended Complaint may be disposed of 

quickly. Most of Aircraft Workers’ remaining arguments (i.e., that plaintiff failed to show that 

similarly situated white employees were treated more favorably, that her work met legitimate 

expectations, or that her position was filled by a white person) appear to proceed under the 

theory that Williams has not established a prima facie case of race discrimination under the 

McDonnell Douglas standard. See, e.g., Crawford v. Carroll, 529 F.3d 961, 976 (11th Cir. 2008) 

(to establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment under Title VII, a plaintiff must show that 

“(1) she belongs to a protected class; (2) she was qualified to do the job; (3) she was subjected to 

adverse employment action; and (4) her employer treated similarly situated employees outside 

her class more favorably”). The problem is that a McDonnell Douglas analysis is properly 

performed only at the summary judgment stage, not the Rule 12(b) stage. The Supreme Court 

and Eleventh Circuit have rejected Aircraft Workers’ premise that Williams’ failure to plead 

each element of a prima facie case in her Complaint mandates its dismissal. See Swierkiewicz v. 

Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 515, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002) (“we hold that an 

employment discrimination plaintiff need not plead a prima facie case of discrimination ... to 

survive respondent’s motion to dismiss”); Davis v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consol., 516 F.3d 

955, 974 (11th Cir. 2008) (“a Title VII complaint need not allege facts sufficient to make out a 

classic McDonnell Douglas prima facie case”); Jackson v. BellSouth Telecommunications, 372 

F.3d 1250, 1270-71 (11th Cir. 2004) (explaining that “McDonnell Douglas was an evidentiary

rather than a pleading standard” and that “pleading a McDonnell Douglas prima facie case [is] 

not necessary to survive a motion to dismiss”). 

 Defendant’s final argument is that the Second Amended Complaint fails to state a claim 

because it lacks allegations of “any sort of pattern o[f] harassment,” and that “[o]ne or two 

incidents ... do not establish a violation of Title VII.” (Doc. 23-1, at 2-3.) But the Second 

Amended Complaint does not appear to advance a claim for a racially hostile work environment; 

Case 1:09-cv-00411-WS-M Document 24 Filed 07/22/10 Page 5 of 6
-6- 

rather, the crux of Williams’ claim appears to be that defendant violated Title VII by firing her 

because she is black. As the Court reads it, the Second Amended Complaint references Hardin’s 

comments about Williams’ race during and after the conversation in which he discharged her, 

not to show a racially hostile working environment, but to demonstrate that Hardin’s decision to 

terminate her employment was motivated by racial animus. If, as the Second Amended 

Complaint adequately alleges, defendant discharged Williams because of her race, then no 

evidence or allegations of a pattern of harassment are necessary to establish a Title VII violation. 

Plaintiff’s disparate treatment theory is plainly supported by the factual allegations of the Second 

Amended Complaint. 

 In short, the Court finds that defendant’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss (doc. 23) is without 

merit, and is due to be denied.2

IV. Conclusion.

For all of the foregoing reasons, it is ordered as follows: 

1. Plaintiff’s request (docs. 13, 22) for disqualification of defendant’s counsel is 

denied for lack of a conflict of interest; 

2. Defendant’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss (doc. 23) is denied; and 

3. Defendant is ordered to file an answer to the Second Amended Complaint on or 

before August 5, 2010. 

DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of July, 2010. 

 

 s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE 

 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 2

 The Court notes in passing that plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint is missing 

the required Certificate of Service. Plaintiff is reminded for the second time that all documents 

and papers she files in this District Court must be accompanied by a Certificate of Service in 

order to comport with applicable procedural rules. If plaintiff continues to ignore this 

requirement by filing documents without the mandatory Certificate of Service, sanctions may be 

imposed for violation of procedural rules and non-compliance with this Court’s orders. Contrary 

to defendant’s argument, however, the undersigned does not view this infraction as sufficiently 

serious at this time to warrant the extreme sanction of dismissal of Williams’ Second Amended 

Complaint. 

Case 1:09-cv-00411-WS-M Document 24 Filed 07/22/10 Page 6 of 6