UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-50820
Summary Calendar
CAMILLA A. HANCOCK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
LOUIS CALDERA,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(SA-01-CV-1130)
________________________________________________________________
December 30, 2002
Before BARKSDALE, DEMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
This pro se appeal is from a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal.
Plaintiff alleged: her employer (United States Army) subjected her
to retaliation because she had earlier complained of
discrimination; and the retaliation took the form of a hostile and
abusive work environment. The district court granted the motion to
dismiss.
*
Pursuant to 5th Cir. 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under
the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Subsequent to that dismissal, however, Swierkiewicz v. Sorema
N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002), was decided. It held a plaintiff need
not plead specific facts required to establish the elements of a
prima facie Title VII claim under McDonell Douglas Corp. v. Green,
411 U.S. 792 (1973). 534 U.S. at 508. The Court noted that the
prima facie case under McDonell Douglas is an evidentiary, rather
than a pleading, standard. The complaint need only contain “a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief”, see FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a), thereby placing
defendant on notice of “what the plaintiff’s claim is and the
grounds upon which it rests”. 534 U.S. at 512 (internal citations
omitted). Moreover, Swierkiewicz held that even the elements of a
prima facie case can “vary depending on the context”. Id.
In the light of Swierkiewicz, the district court issued an
Order and Advisory, stating: the dismissal was improvidently
granted; and it would be receptive to a motion for reconsideration.
Plaintiff, however, had already filed her notice of appeal.
Accordingly, this matter is remanded to the district court for
it to examine plaintiff’s complaint under the standard stated in
Swierkiewicz.
VACATED AND REMANDED
2
Hancock v. Caldera
Combined Opinion