United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana,
ORDER AND REASONS
JOHN W. deGRAVELLES, District Judge.
Before the Court is Defendant's Rule 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 8). In his complaint, plaintiff Carl Spears alleges that he suffered damages by virtue of Defendant's conduct in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 2000e-2 as well as "the Louisiana Anti-Discrimination [and] Anti-Retaliation Laws." (Doc. 1, *1).
Plaintiff alleges three separate incidents support this general allegation: first, after being hired by Defendant as a pipefitter on October 5, 2013, and before being discharged on October 29, 2013, he was "given absolutely no essential work assistance/support to the point where the lack of work support may have caused a fire hazard, while all of the similarly situated white employees were given the proper work assistance and were assigned to much easier work tasks."
(Doc. 1, §6).
Second, he alleges that on October 29, 2013, he was discharged by Piping Supervisor Henry Garzer "for allegedly poor work performance while at the same time, white employees who were similarly situated were not discharged for performing work in substantially the same manner as plaintiff." (Doc. 1, §7)
Finally, he alleges that on January 8, 2014, he returned to work for C B & I by way of employment agency job placement but "Henry Garza (sic)... refused to let plaintiff even begin work at the facility despite the fact the plaintiff was qualified to do the assigned work. It is respectfully alleged that white employees who were similarly situated were in fact allowed to begin work on January 8, 2014, without any obstruction or interference from Henry Garza." (Doc. 1, §8)
Defendant argues that none of these factual allegations in any way support Plaintiff's broad allegation of age discrimination and retaliation. Defendant further argue that the plaintiff's allegations regarding race discrimination are conclusory and insufficient to meet the requirements necessary to survive its motion.
II. Standard on Motion to Dismiss
In Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007), the Supreme Court explained:
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Specific facts are not necessary; the statement need only "give the defendant fair notice of what the... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'
Id. (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)).
Interpreting Rule 8(a) and Twombly, the Fifth Circuit explained:
The complaint (1) on its face (2) must contain enough factual matter (taken as true) (3) to raise a reasonable hope or expectation (4) that discovery will reveal relevant evidence of each element of a claim. "Asking for [such] plausible grounds to infer [the element of a claim] does not impose a probability requirement at the pleading stage; it simply calls for enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal [that the elements of the claim existed]." Lormand v. U.S. Unwired, Inc., 565 F.3d 228, 257 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting Twombly, 127 ...