Listen to this articleA complaint alleging employment discrimination should not be dismissed despite the defendants’ contention that the complaint is an impermissible “shotgun pleading,” a U.S. District Court judge has held.
The plaintiffs, Cecilia Sogbuyi-Whitney and Aliza Whiteside, worked as quality assurance consultants. They filed an action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, alleging that they were terminated or otherwise discriminated against on account of their race, color, national origin or gender in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The defendants, Caremark PhC LLC, CVS Health Solutions LLC and Coram Alternate Site Services Inc., moved to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiffs’ complaint was a shotgun pleading that impermissibly lumped together the defendants without differentiation.
Judge Mary S. McElroy denied the motion.
“A ‘shotgun pleading’ is a ‘pleading that fails to identify claims with sufficient clarity to enable a defendant to frame a responsive pleading,’” McElroy wrote.
“Although shotgun pleading is disfavored, courts within the First Circuit have routinely denied motions to dismiss complaints on shotgun pleading grounds unless they find that the complaint was ‘calculated to confuse the enemy and the court,’” she added.
“Here, the Complaint is clearly not one designed to ‘overwhelm defendants with an unclear mass of allegations.’ … Ms. Whiteside and Ms. Sogbuyi-Whitney have brought a single count of discrimination against three CVS entities on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated. Because the Complaint was not designed to overwhelm or confuse the defendants, dismissal of the Complaint as shotgun pleading is inappropriate,” McElroy determined.
The eight-page decision is Sogbuyi-Whitney, et al. v. Caremark PhC LLC, et al., Lawyers Weekly No. 52-006-24.
Click here to read the full text of the opinion.
Source link
