Proposed Bills Seek To Loosen Pleading Requirements For Claims In Federal Court
Time 2 Minute Read

Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal that clarified and, indeed, amplified the pleading requirements in federal lawsuits.  Essentially, the decision held that a complaint is insufficient to state a claim if it merely states legal conclusions and does not include specific factual allegations supporting the claim.

Although not an employment case, Iqbal did involve claims of intentional discrimination.  Accordingly, employers facing discrimination claims in federal court have been filing motions to dismiss complaints that do not meet the standard articulated in Iqbal. Many federal courts have been granting such motions and dismissing claims that likely would have survived prior to Iqbal.

Opponents of the Iqbal decision have not gone away quietly.  In July, Senator Arlen Spector (D-Pa) introduced the Notice Pleading Restoration Act (S. 1504).  More recently, on November 19, 2009, Representative Gerald Nadler (D-NY) introduced the Open Access to Courts Act of 2009 (H.R. 4115).  Both bills seek to reverse the Iqbal decision and reinstate a pleading standard articulated in a Supreme Court decision from 1957 (Conley v. Gibson).  Under that standard, a complaint was not subject to dismissal “unless it appear[ed] beyond doubt that the plaintiff [could] prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.”  The Supreme Court expressly overruled that standard in Iqbal.

The Iqbal decision rightly recognizes that lawsuits in which the plaintiff cannot even articulate specific facts to support a claim should be dismissed.  The new legislation, however, would prop up weak claims and ultimately make it more expensive for employers to fight off meritless lawsuits.  According to Representative Nadler’s press release,  the Open Access bill is supported by “a diverse coalition that includes the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Christian Trial Lawyer’s AssociationSierra Club, and National Senior Citizens Law Center.”

Although Congress certainly has other, more pressing issues on its current docket (e.g., health care, the economy, and environmental issues), we anticipate that proponents of these bills will push for prompt passage.

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 3 Minute Read

The results are in: attorneys are filing more employment law cases in court.  Indeed, year-end reporting from legal databases like LexMachina confirm that the pace of filing new employment discrimination cases reached its highest level in 2025, surpassing 20,000 new filings nationwide.  Though overtime and minimum wage lawsuits under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) have continued to decline since 2015, discrimination cases under laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act are on the rise.

Time 3 Minute Read

On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services that plaintiffs alleging employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are not required to meet a heightened evidentiary standard based on their majority-group status.

Time 4 Minute Read

On February 19, 2025, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) Acting Chair Andrea Lucas vowed to prioritize anti-American national origin discrimination in compliance efforts, investigations, and litigation.

Time 5 Minute Read

On March 20, 2025, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) issued two key pieces of guidance: What To Do If You Experience Discrimination Related to DEI at Work and What You Should Know About DEI-Related Discrimination at Work.

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Authors

Archives

Jump to Page