Bala v. Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Conservation & Recreation

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1127

SUNDERSINGH BALA,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND
RECREATION,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:12-cv-00748-HEH)

Submitted: June 28, 2013 Decided: July 5, 2013

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished
per curiam opinion.

Sundersingh Bala, Appellant Pro Se. Nicholas Foris Simopoulos,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Sundersingh Bala appeals the district court’s order

dismissing, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), his action

alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964, as amended (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17

(West 2003 & Supp. 2013). Bala, an East Indian and naturalized

United States citizen, alleged that his employer, the

Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Conservation and

Recreation (“DCR”), discriminated and retaliated against him in

violation of Title VII by laying him off and subsequently

failing to select him for an interview for an open position.

Bala’s complaint also asserted that DCR conspired to violate his

civil rights. In granting DCR’s motion to dismiss, the district

court held that Bala’s discrimination and retaliation claims

failed to allege facts sufficient to survive analysis under the

framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411

U.S. 792, 802 (1973). The court also concluded that Bala failed

to allege facts sufficient to establish a conspiracy claim. For

the reasons that follow, we affirm in part, vacate in part, and

remand.

This court reviews de novo a district court’s order

dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim, assuming

that all well-pleaded nonconclusory factual allegations in the

complaint are true. Aziz v. Alcolac, Inc., 658 F.3d 388, 391

2
(4th Cir. 2011). A Rule 12(b)(6) motion challenges the legal

sufficiency of the complaint. Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d

186, 192 (4th Cir. 2009).

“To survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule

12(b)(6), plaintiff’s ‘[f]actual allegations must be enough to

raise a right to relief above the speculative level,’ thereby

‘nudg[ing] their claims across the line from conceivable to

plausible.’” Aziz, 658 F.3d at 391 (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a court must accept

the material facts alleged in the complaint as true, Edwards v.

City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 244 (4th Cir. 1999), statements

of bare legal conclusions “are not entitled to the assumption of

truth” and are insufficient to state a claim. Ashcroft v.

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). “Although the Supreme Court

has made clear that the factual allegations in a complaint must

make entitlement to relief plausible and not merely possible,

what Rule 12(b)(6) does not countenance are dismissals based on

a judge’s disbelief of a complaint's factual allegations.”

McLean v. United States, 566 F.3d 391, 399 (4th Cir. 2009)

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Moreover, if

a claim lacks merit, it “may be dealt with through summary

judgment under Rule 56.” Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S.

506, 514 (2002). Finally, a pro se complaint “is to be

liberally construed, . . . and . . . must be held to less

3
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (internal quotation

marks and citations omitted).

In reviewing the dismissal of a complaint under Rule

12(b)(6), we “may consider documents attached to the complaint

. . . as well as those attached to the motion to dismiss, so

long as they are integral to the complaint and authentic.”

Sec’y of State for Defence v. Trimble Navigation Ltd., 484 F.3d

700, 705 (4th Cir. 2007). The district court may go beyond the

complaint and attached documents, which constitute “the

pleadings,” in a Rule 12(b)(6) proceeding if the court converts

the proceeding to one for summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(d). But, conversion of a motion to dismiss to one for

summary judgment requires that “[a]ll parties must be given a

reasonable opportunity to present all the material that is

pertinent to the motion.” Id.

The district court analyzed Bala’s discrimination and

retaliation claims under the burden-shifting framework adopted

by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas, requiring Bala at a

minimum to allege a prima facie case as to each of his claims.

In the employment discrimination context, however, a plaintiff

need not establish a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas in

order to survive a motion to dismiss. Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at

510-11 (concluding that “the prima facie case . . . is an

4
evidentiary standard, not a pleading requirement.”). “This

Court has never indicated that the requirements for establishing

a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas also apply to the

pleading standard that plaintiffs must satisfy in order to

survive a motion to dismiss.” Id. at 511. Complaints in such

cases therefore “must satisfy only the simple requirements of

Rule 8(a).” Id. at 513.

On appeal, Bala challenges the district court’s

disposition of his discrimination and retaliation claims. 1 Bala

does not specifically argue that the district court erred in

analyzing his claims under McDonnell Douglas. As a pro se

litigant, however, Bala is entitled to liberal construction of

his pleadings. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972).

We therefore construe Bala’s informal brief to advance the

alternative argument that the district court erred in dismissing

his claims based solely on his failure to survive the McDonnell

Douglas analysis.

The Supreme Court in Swierkiewicz held that a

plaintiff had sufficiently pleaded a complaint of national-

origin discrimination when his complaint alleged a violation of

Title VII and “detailed the events leading to his termination,

1
Bala concedes on appeal that his claim alleging that DCR
conspired to violate his civil rights was insufficient to
survive the motion to dismiss.

5
provided relevant dates, and included the . . . nationalities of

at least some of the relevant persons involved with his

termination.” 534 U.S. at 514.

Bala’s complaint first alleged a discrimination claim

against DCR arising from his layoff (Claim One). Bala provided

details and the relevant dates of his employment and of the

events leading to the termination of his position. However, he

did not provide the nationalities of any of the relevant persons

involved with DCR’s decision to lay him off or otherwise allege

facts supporting his assertion that the decision was influenced

by his national origin or race. Taking these allegations as

true, as is required in consideration of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion,

we nonetheless conclude that this claim is insufficient to

survive DCR’s motion to dismiss. Accordingly, we affirm the

portion of the district court’s order dismissing Bala’s

discrimination claim arising from his layoff.

Bala’s complaint next alleged that DCR discriminated

against him on the basis of national origin and race in

declining to select him for an interview (Claim Two). Rather

than consider the face of Bala’s complaint, the district court

allowed DCR to dispute Bala’s discrimination claim by asserting

that Bala had limited experience, received unfavorable

performance reviews, and engaged in prior misconduct. The

district court then dismissed this claim on the bases offered by

6
DCR. 2 By allowing DCR to raise facts outside the pleadings, and

relying on those facts to dismiss Bala’s discrimination claim,

the district court permitted DCR to demonstrate that it acted on

a legitimate, nondiscriminatory basis. Because the district

court considered DCR’s proffered legitimate nondiscriminatory

reasons at a procedurally improper time, within the context of a

Rule 12(b)(6) motion, we conclude that the court erred.

Bala’s discrimination claim arising from DCR’s failure

to select him for an interview alleged that DCR’s failure to

interview him for the position was discriminatory based on his

national origin and race, and Bala set forth his qualifications

for the position. He alleged that less qualified applicants

were selected for the interview and that the screening panel for

the position consisted of only one Caucasian male. Taking these

allegations as true, we conclude that the district court erred

in finding Bala’s complaint insufficiently pleaded to state a

claim of race or national origin discrimination sufficient to

survive a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, particularly in light of

Bala’s pro se status.

2
The district court’s order dismissed Bala’s entire action
without prejudice, so the dismissal is immediately reviewable.
See Chaov Rivendell Woods, Inc., 415 F.3d 342, 345 (4th Cir.
2005).

7
 Likewise, in dismissing Bala’s retaliation claim

arising from DCR’s decision to lay him off (Claim Three), the

district court relied on the assertions contained in DCR’s

motion. By allowing DCR to establish a nondiscriminatory reason

for its conduct, and further concluding that Bala failed to

allege that the stated justification was pretextual, the

district court went outside of the pleadings. By doing so at a

procedurally improper time, the district court erred.

Bala alleged that DCR laid him off as of December 31,

2009, because of his previously filed internal grievances and

EEOC complaints. Bala provided the dates and details of his

protected activities, and attached a number of the grievances to

his complaint. Taking these allegations as true, as we must at

this stage, we conclude that the district court erred in finding

them insufficient to state a claim of retaliation sufficient to

survive a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, particularly in light of

Bala’s pro se status.

Finally, Bala alleged a retaliation claim against DCR

for failing to select him for an interview for a grants

accounting position (Claim Four). He alleged that DCR declined

to interview him in retaliation for his previously filed

internal grievances and EEOC complaints. Bala also provided the

dates and details of his protected activities, and he attached a

number of the grievances to his complaint. Bala set forth his

8
qualifications for the position, including his education and

experience working for DCR, and asserted that ten less qualified

applicants were selected to interview for the position. Taking

these allegations as true, as we must, we conclude that the

district court erred in finding them insufficient to state a

claim of retaliation at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district

court’s dismissal of Bala’s discrimination claim arising from

his layoff. However, we hold that Bala’s claims under Title VII

for discrimination relating to DCR’s failure to select him for

an interview and for retaliation relating to DCR’s decision to

lay him off and failure to select him for an interview are

sufficient to withstand Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal. Accordingly,

we vacate the judgment dismissing those claims and remand for

further proceedings.

In holding that these claims survive a motion to

dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), we express no opinion on the

ultimate merits of these claims. On remand and after discovery,

the district court must determine whether issues of triable fact

exist on the elements of Bala’s claims. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

9
presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART,
VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED

10