Nirmaljit K. Rathee v. Delaware State University

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Delaware granted Delaware State University’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Nirmaljit K. Rathee’s Second Amended Complaint with prejudice. The court held that Rathee failed to adequately plead claims for Title VII race or national-origin discrimination, ADEA age discrimination, and FMLA retaliation or interference.

Holdings

1. The Title VII claim must be dismissed because the complaint did not plausibly allege that Rathee was qualified for the Director of Education Graduate Programs position or that the circumstances gave rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination.
2. The ADEA claim must be dismissed because the complaint did not plausibly allege that Rathee was qualified for the position or that she was replaced by a sufficiently younger employee so as to support an inference of discriminatory motive.
3. The FMLA retaliation claim must be dismissed because the complaint did not plead facts supporting a causal connection between Rathee's FMLA leave and her termination or other adverse employment action.
4. Rathee did not plead an independent FMLA interference claim; the complaint's single reference to interference was merely a conclusory recital of an element, and the alleged facts showed that she was granted FMLA leave.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Second Amended Complaint plausibly pleaded that Rathee was qualified for the position at issue and that circumstances supported an inference of unlawful race or national-origin discrimination under Title VII.
2. Whether the Second Amended Complaint plausibly pleaded that Rathee was qualified and was replaced by a sufficiently younger employee to support an inference of age discrimination under the ADEA.
3. Whether the Second Amended Complaint plausibly pleaded a causal connection between Rathee's FMLA leave and an adverse employment action sufficient to state an FMLA retaliation claim.
4. Whether Rathee sufficiently pleaded an independent FMLA interference claim.

Disposition

dismissed