October Term 2001 · Docket 00-1853

Must a plaintiff state a specific inference of discrimination to survive a motion to dismiss?

The dispute centers on whether a complaint must allege a specific inference of discrimination to survive a motion to dismiss.

Official caption
Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A.
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Minear argued the lower court erred in finding the complaint insufficient.

    He cited Conley v. Gibson to support the view that notice is essential.

    Ms. Brody stated the case asks if an inference of discrimination is required.

    She noted the side that brought the case alleged termination based on national origin and age.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case tests the pleading standard for age and national origin discrimination claims.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 15, 2002.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the side that brought the case wants the dismissal overturned because the complaint provided adequate notice.

the opposing side wants the dismissal to stand because the complaint lacked a specific inference of discrimination.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the side that brought the case argues that general notice of the claim is sufficient under existing precedent.

the opposing side argues that the complaint must explicitly allege an inference of discrimination to be valid.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Chief Justice Rehnquist asked if the case was submitted after the argument concluded.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the minimum detail required in employment discrimination complaints. It determines how easily plaintiffs can access federal courts. It shapes the burden of proof for initial filings. It affects the volume of discrimination cases heard by judges. It clarifies the standard for dismissing weak claims early.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON