Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana ruled on defendants’ motions to dismiss and strike in Dewanna D. McKinley’s employment discrimination action. The court denied the motion to strike, denied dismissal of McKinley’s Section 1981 disparate-treatment claim, and dismissed her Section 1981 and Title VII retaliation claims with prejudice. The court dismissed the Section 1981 hostile-work-environment claim and several Title VII claims without prejudice, allowing potential amendment and reconsideration concerning an alleged supplemental EEOC submission.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether McKinley adequately pleaded a disparate-treatment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
- Whether a disparate-impact claim is legally cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
- Whether McKinley adequately pleaded protected activity supporting retaliation claims under § 1981 and Title VII.
- Whether McKinley's § 1981 and Title VII hostile-work-environment claims were adequately pleaded.
- Whether McKinley exhausted her administrative remedies for her Title VII disparate-treatment, disparate-impact, and hostile-work-environment claims.
Holdings
- Disparate-impact claims are not legally cognizable under § 1981.
- McKinley adequately pleaded a § 1981 disparate-treatment claim by alleging an adverse employment action taken because of race.
- McKinley failed to plead that she engaged in statutorily protected activity because her internal complaints did not allege race discrimination or another unlawful employment practice.
- McKinley failed to adequately plead that the alleged hostile work environment was based on race, but the claims were dismissed without prejudice to a possible amended pleading.
- The court could not determine on the pleadings whether McKinley exhausted her Title VII disparate-treatment, disparate-impact, and hostile-work-environment claims because the record did not establish whether the EEOC received or investigated her October 2024 supplemental letter or whether the right-to-sue notice encompassed those claims.
- The motion to strike was denied without prejudice, and defendants were permitted to reurge it after McKinley submitted information concerning the October 2024 supplemental EEOC letter.
Key quotations
“To survive a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must plead enough facts “to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.””
“A disparate impact claim is not legally cognizable under Section 1981.”
Factual background
Dewanna McKinley, an African American woman, worked for SCI-affiliated cemetery and funeral businesses from 2010 until her termination in November 2023 and became a Sales Manager at Mount Olivet Cemetery. She alleged that SCI's lead-protection and seminar policies disadvantaged her all-African American sales team, that her compensation and sales opportunities were reduced relative to white managers and teams, and that she received discipline and was terminated after complaining about discriminatory practices and supervisory conduct. She filed an EEOC charge in June 2024 alleging race discrimination concerning her compensation, access to mail-out leads, suspension, and discharge, and later relied on an alleged October 2024 supplemental letter.
Procedural history
McKinley filed an EEOC charge and later received a notice of right to sue. She filed this action in federal court on April 7, 2025, and subsequently filed an amended complaint asserting Title VII and § 1981 hostile-work-environment, disparate-treatment, disparate-impact, and retaliation claims. The court denied the motion to strike without prejudice, granted the motion to dismiss the § 1981 disparate-impact and retaliation claims and the Title VII retaliation claim with prejudice, denied dismissal of the § 1981 disparate-treatment claim, and dismissed the remaining Title VII and hostile-work-environment claims without prejudice subject to possible amendment or reconsideration.