Twombly and Iqbal : Effects on Hostile Work Environment Claims

Abstract: The Supreme Court decided two landmark cases, Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroftv. Iqbal, that interpreted Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b)'s pleading requirement. The Court shifted from a notice pleading standard to one that requires more factual substantiation of claims before allowing discovery. This has important ramifications in the area of employment discrimination, as courts dismiss these claims disproportionately. If the Supreme Court's new pleading standard is read to allow more judicial subjectivity, it could bar employment discrimination plaintiffs from access to courts. Lower courts often misconstrue the legal standard for a hostile work environment, thereby resulting in the disposition of meritorious claims. This Note explores two different interpretations of the new pleading standards, one where judicial discretion is unbridled and the other where strong limitations on discretion still exist. For the welfare of hostile work environment discrimination victims, lower courts should apply the latter interpretation.IntroductionIn 2002, the United States Supreme Court ended the controversy surrounding pleading requirements for employment discrimination plaintiffs.1 Less than one decade later, however, the Court handed down two decisions-Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroftv. Iqbal- that changed those standards and caused more confusion for aggrieved plaintiffs.2The Supreme Court enacted the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in 1938 to create a receptive environment in the Federal Courts and to ensure equality of access among all potential litigants.3 Since its enactment, Rule 8 has spurred debate among circuit courts, the Supreme Court, and legal commentators alike as to what a plaintiff's complaint must assert.4 A plaintiff's initial hurdle is a motion to dismiss, filed by the defendant pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules.5 The debate continues as a result of the new standard that arguably creates stricter pleading requirements and results in dismissal of a higher percentage of claims.6This standard disproportionately affects potential civil rights plaintiffs, more so than any other class of claimants.7 As a result, there is much scholarly debate surrounding the application of these new pleading standards to civil rights, and particularly to employment discrimination claims.8 Critics argue that "given the often indirect and subtle nature of employment discrimination, heightened pleading requirements make it very difficult for plaintiffs to plead the factual specificity necessary to withstand a motion to dismiss."9 Heightened pleading standards have a greater effect on these claims because the often dispositive issues of "motivation, state of mind, and insidious practices are hidden by agents and employees . . . ."10 Furthermore, the Twombly and Iqbal paradigm arguably introduced judicial subjectivity at the pleading stages, leaving lower courts unsure how to apply the standards.11 The result is that judges, some of whom look unfavorably upon employment litigation, may decide cases based on personal views before the plaintiffhas an opportunity to investigate.12Scholars and courts have two divergent interpretations of the new pleading standards: one allows judges to dismiss claims and therefore restricts access to federal courts, and the other is more flexible, particularly in the context of employment cases.13 This Note outlines these two approaches and argues that adopting the latter approach is a start to remedying the unjust results that plaintiffs may face in discrimination suits.14 Because of the prevailing judicial attitude toward employment discrimination claims, treating Twombly and Iqbal as granting a license to dismiss would be particularly damaging to these plaintiffs.15This Note looks at the possible pleading requirements of hostile work environment discrimination under the two interpretations.16 Reading judicial discretion into pleadings would negatively affect potential hostile work environment plaintiffs in numerous ways. …