Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
No. 13-1123
Daphne M. Craddock,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
Lincoln National Life Insurance Company,
Defendant Appellee,
and
LINCOLN NATIONAL CORPORATION; LINCOLN LIFE AND ANNUITY
DISTRIBUTORS, INC.; LINCOLN FINANCIAL INVESTMENT SERVICES
CORPORATION,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:12-cv-00684-CCE-LPA)
Submitted:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff-Appellant
Daphne
Craddock
appeals
the
district
which
circumstances.
allegations
Employment
Lincoln
terminated
The
that
Act
National
her
district
Lincoln
(the
29
Insurance
employment
court
violated
ADEA),
Life
found
the
U.S.C.
under
that
Age
Company
disputed
Craddocks
Discrimination
621-634,
and
in
the
failed
to
state
claim
upon
which
relief
could
be
Life
began
working
Insurance
for
Company
Lincolns
(Pilot),
predecessor
in
1969. 1
entity,
A
1980
she
did
return
to
work
after
the
accident,
Pilot
included
ability
in
short-term
reading
and
memory
writing,
impairment,
limited
somewhat
keyboard
limited
speed,
and
her
co-employees
quantity
standards
quality
of
91
standards
percent.
of
J.A.
98
percent
43.
and
Craddocks
been
making
mistakes,
and
in
June
2011
she
received
J.A.
42.
Craddock
alleges
that
these
warnings
and
become
more
efficient,
when
in
fact
she
was
makes
several
additional
allegations
to
support
her claims. First, she alleges that Lincoln trained all nondisabled
and
younger
employees
in
her
department
to
use
Lincoln
involving
scanner
operation
were
available,
and
she
sought
to
be
rehired
by
Lincoln,
but
that
Lincolns human resources personnel told her she could not work
again for Lincoln, whether as a temporary or permanent employee.
court,
alleging
violations
of
the
ADEA
and
the
ADA.
amended
complaint.
On
January
11,
2013,
the
district
amend.
II.
We review de novo the district courts grant of Lincolns
motion
to
dismiss.
CGM,
LLC
v.
BellSouth
Telecommunications,
Inc., 664 F.3d 46, 51 (4th Cir. 2011). Like the district court,
we must assume all well-pled facts to be true, and draw all
reasonable inferences in Craddocks favor. Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd.
v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250, 253 (4th Cir. 2009).
However, legal conclusions, elements of a cause of action, and
bare assertions devoid of further factual enhancement fail to
constitute well-pled facts for Rule 12(b)(6) purposes. Id. at
255 (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). The
[f]actual
allegations
must
be
enough
to
raise
right
to
to
fail
or
refuse
to
hire
or
to
discharge
any
because
of
such
individuals
age.
29
U.S.C.
623(a)(1).
The district court concluded that though [t]he allegations
in
the
Second
affirmatively
employers
J.A. 56.
Amended
show
that
legitimate
Complaint
Ms.
are
Craddock
expectations
when
detailed,
was
she
[they]
not
meeting
her
was
terminated.
Inc.,
proposition
that
354
to
F.3d
277
demonstrate
7
(4th
a
Cir.
prima
2004),
facie
case
for
the
of
age
U.S.
792
Swierkiewicz
(1973),
v.
and
Sorema
is
not
N.A.,
534
pleading
U.S.
requirement.
506,
510
(2002).
Crucially, Hill applied the test at the summary judgment stage - a fact the district court did not recognize.
In Swierkiewicz, the Supreme Court rejected the notion that
the
requirements
for
establishing
McDonnell
Douglas
also
apply
to
the
plaintiffs
must
satisfy
in
order
to
prima
facie
pleading
survive
case
under
standard
a
motion
that
to
plaintiff
is
able
to
produce
direct
evidence
of
of
Craddocks
Craddock
alleges
allegations
that
support
Lincoln
this
trained
conclusion.
all
younger
did
not
train
her.
Second,
Craddock
alleges
that
Lincolns human resources personnel told her she could not work
again for Lincoln, whether as a temporary or permanent employee.
J.A. 45-46. Lincoln may well have neglected to train Craddock,
and
refused
permissible
to
consider
reasons.
But
rehiring
the
her,
inference
based
that
on
one
Lincoln
or
more
did
so
functions
accommodation;
and
of
her
(3)
her
job
with
employer
or
took
without
an
reasonable
adverse
action
negative
allegations
comments
of
made
harassment
about
or
people
bias
with
related
disabilities,
to
[Craddocks]
was not qualified for her position, . . . and the only suggested
accommodation
--
that
the
employer
tolerate
the
level
of
disagree.
Drawing
all
reasonable
inferences
in
plausible
claim
to
relief
under
the
ADA.
As
noted
received
that
she
form
of
did
not,
that
training
she
(i.e.,
could
regarding
have
performed
alleges
that
Lincoln
refused
to
consider
rehiring
her.
is
true
accommodations
suggestions
are
that
that
not
Lincoln
several
of
Craddocks
accommodations
at
tolerate
performance
lower
all,
proposed
but
rather
regarding
quality and quantity. But Craddock also alleges that she could
have performed other duties such as scanning, and that several
scanning positions were available. The ADA expressly recognizes
reassignment
to
vacant
position
as
reasonable
11
court
and
remand
for
further
proceedings
consistent
merits
of
Craddocks
claims.
We
dispense
with
oral
12