Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A.
- Decided
- February 26, 2002
- Docket
- 00-1853
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 8,748 timesOverruled on other grounds (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: overruled on other grounds, abrogated in part on other grounds, overruled, overruled in part on other grounds, overruled in part (not yet verified) · (PS) Mackintosh v. Lyft, Inc.
What later courts said
- holding that a complaint in an employment discrimination lawsuit need not contain specific facts establishing a prima facie case of discrimination under the McDonnell Douglas standard — Wyatt v. Terhune (2003)
- holding that “[t]he prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas ... is an evidentiary standard, not .a pleading requirement" — Body by Cook, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance (2017)
- holding that a plaintiffs complaint in a Title VII case need not contain specific facts sufficient to establish a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas — Danley v. Allen (2008)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
[*508] Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court.
This ease presents the question whether a complaint in an employment discrimination lawsuit must contain specific facts establishing a prima facie case of discrimination under the framework set forth by this Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U. S. 792 (1973). We hold that an employment discrimination complaint need not include such facts and instead must contain only “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(a)(2).
I
Statutes cited
Cite this
Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.