Does a plaintiff have to specify not only the facts but also the law that applies? In Bye v. MGM Resorts, Inc., the Fifth Circuit looks at a common pleading issue: What do you do when a plaintiff pleads facts that may or may not state claims under more than one statute but only cites one? In Bye, Bailie Bye filed a complaint alleging her employer discriminated against her based on her sex for not allowing lactation breaks. She only cited to Title VII and did not mention the FLSA (which provides for lactation breaks). Can she later pursue the FLSA claim? Not according to the Fifth Circuit.
Generally, plaintiffs need only tell a story that shows that they have a claim against the defendant and puts the defendant on fair notice. In the employment law context, however, vaguely worded complaints without specific citations can require a team of lawyers to speculate on all the different combinations of claims and prepare a defense for each.
In Bye, the plaintiff “told a story” of being denied an adequate break for pumping breastmilk. Bye’s original complaint claimed that this denial was pregnancy discrimination, sex discrimination, harassment, and constructive discharge, all under Title VII. At the summary judgment stage of the litigation, for the first time Bye argued that the FLSA required her employer to provide “a reasonable break time for an employee to express milk” other than a restroom “shielded from view and free from intrusion [from...
MANILA, Philippines — Falsifying proof of cohabitation may be a ground for the nullification of an unlicensed marriage, according to the Supreme Court. Ruling on a case concerning a couple in Anti...