Opinion ID: 2820192
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Plaintiffs’ Survey

Text: We agree with the district court that the survey Plaintiffs’ submitted with their Second Amended Complaint does nothing to tip the balance in favor of their claims.71 The survey’s flaws are obvious. It was conducted by having someone stand outside a few Huntington branches in the metro-Detroit area, and ask exiting customers about themselves and their Huntington accounts. Only six responses were gathered, and of those only four were attached to the Second Amended Complaint. The questions and answers from the surveys are vague, and do not tell us more than we knew: that Huntington has white customers with open accounts. But even without this survey, the other allegations contained in the Second Amended Complaint suffice to state a plausible claim. Although showing disparate treatment of otherwise similarly situated comparators can raise an inference of intentional discrimination, such showing is not required in every case.72 Here, where other allegations provide sufficient support to push Plaintiffs’ allegations over the line into the realm of plausibility, identifying such similarly situated individuals was not necessary.