Oddball Iqbal and Twombly and employment discrimination

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

This brief Essay argues that Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly was an oddball case, a massive antitrust action with significant costs and asymmetry of costs, much different than the vast majority of cases in the federal courts. While the Supreme Court and some scholars, including Professor Richard Epstein, have largely justified the new plausibility standard in Twombly on the basis of these costs, they have not shown why the new standard should apply transsubstantively to cases without these same costs, including typical employment discrimination cases. This Essay further argues that Ashcroft v. Iqbal, like Twombly, was an oddball case, though with different types of costs than Twombly. Finally, contrary to Professor Epstein, this Essay argues that the standard under Iqbal and Twombly is likely to be procedurally revolutionary, particularly in employment discrimination cases. Indeed, the new standard could lead to a revolution due to the convergence of the new motion to dismiss standard with summary judgment and the effective death of Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)215-227
Number of pages13
JournalUniversity of Illinois Law Review
Volume2011
Issue number1
StatePublished - 2011

Fingerprint

discrimination
costs
university teacher
asymmetry
Supreme Court
death

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Law

Cite this

Oddball Iqbal and Twombly and employment discrimination. / Thomas, Suja A.

In: University of Illinois Law Review, Vol. 2011, No. 1, 2011, p. 215-227.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{206b1f5368da484882771ad909cb9e37,
title = "Oddball Iqbal and Twombly and employment discrimination",
abstract = "This brief Essay argues that Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly was an oddball case, a massive antitrust action with significant costs and asymmetry of costs, much different than the vast majority of cases in the federal courts. While the Supreme Court and some scholars, including Professor Richard Epstein, have largely justified the new plausibility standard in Twombly on the basis of these costs, they have not shown why the new standard should apply transsubstantively to cases without these same costs, including typical employment discrimination cases. This Essay further argues that Ashcroft v. Iqbal, like Twombly, was an oddball case, though with different types of costs than Twombly. Finally, contrary to Professor Epstein, this Essay argues that the standard under Iqbal and Twombly is likely to be procedurally revolutionary, particularly in employment discrimination cases. Indeed, the new standard could lead to a revolution due to the convergence of the new motion to dismiss standard with summary judgment and the effective death of Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A.",
author = "Thomas, {Suja A}",
year = "2011",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "2011",
pages = "215--227",
journal = "University of Illinois Law Review",
issn = "0276-9948",
publisher = "University of Illinois College of Law",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Oddball Iqbal and Twombly and employment discrimination

AU - Thomas, Suja A

PY - 2011

Y1 - 2011

N2 - This brief Essay argues that Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly was an oddball case, a massive antitrust action with significant costs and asymmetry of costs, much different than the vast majority of cases in the federal courts. While the Supreme Court and some scholars, including Professor Richard Epstein, have largely justified the new plausibility standard in Twombly on the basis of these costs, they have not shown why the new standard should apply transsubstantively to cases without these same costs, including typical employment discrimination cases. This Essay further argues that Ashcroft v. Iqbal, like Twombly, was an oddball case, though with different types of costs than Twombly. Finally, contrary to Professor Epstein, this Essay argues that the standard under Iqbal and Twombly is likely to be procedurally revolutionary, particularly in employment discrimination cases. Indeed, the new standard could lead to a revolution due to the convergence of the new motion to dismiss standard with summary judgment and the effective death of Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A.

AB - This brief Essay argues that Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly was an oddball case, a massive antitrust action with significant costs and asymmetry of costs, much different than the vast majority of cases in the federal courts. While the Supreme Court and some scholars, including Professor Richard Epstein, have largely justified the new plausibility standard in Twombly on the basis of these costs, they have not shown why the new standard should apply transsubstantively to cases without these same costs, including typical employment discrimination cases. This Essay further argues that Ashcroft v. Iqbal, like Twombly, was an oddball case, though with different types of costs than Twombly. Finally, contrary to Professor Epstein, this Essay argues that the standard under Iqbal and Twombly is likely to be procedurally revolutionary, particularly in employment discrimination cases. Indeed, the new standard could lead to a revolution due to the convergence of the new motion to dismiss standard with summary judgment and the effective death of Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79952120929&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79952120929&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:79952120929

VL - 2011

SP - 215

EP - 227

JO - University of Illinois Law Review

JF - University of Illinois Law Review

SN - 0276-9948

IS - 1

ER -