## Facts

- Charles Horn worked for Concentra Health Services, Inc. as an Assistant Center Administrator.
- Horn alleged he learned his supervisor was having a consensual sexual relationship with another employee.
- Horn alleged the supervisor later gave that employee preferential treatment because of the relationship.
- Horn reported the situation to company management and claimed Concentra then terminated him on a pretext.
- Horn filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC, and the EEOC sued Concentra alleging retaliation under Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision.
- The EEOC’s original complaint described the reported conduct as a supervisor’s affair and resulting favoritism; the district court dismissed without prejudice, concluding this did not constitute protected activity.
- The EEOC filed an amended complaint that removed the factual description and alleged only that Horn reported conduct he “objectively and reasonably believed in good faith violated Title VII,” and that he was fired for doing so.
- The district court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice for failing to plead facts showing protected activity and for attempting to avoid the implications of the earlier, more specific allegations.

## Issues

1. Whether an amended Title VII retaliation complaint satisfies Rule 8 pleading requirements when it alleges only that the employee opposed conduct he reasonably believed violated Title VII, without identifying the conduct opposed.
2. Whether the absence of factual allegations describing the opposition activity prevents a plausible inference that the employee engaged in protected activity.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal with prejudice of the EEOC’s amended complaint.
- The court held the amended complaint failed to give Concentra fair notice of the claim because it did not allege what Horn reported.
- The court concluded that merely reciting the “reasonable, good-faith belief” standard and other retaliation elements, without factual content, did not state a plausible retaliation claim under Rule 8 as informed by Twombly.
- The court emphasized it was deciding pleading sufficiency, not definitively resolving whether Horn’s report (as previously described) would qualify as protected activity.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 8 requires a complaint to include enough factual matter to provide fair notice and to state a claim that is plausible on its face; a threadbare recitation of elements is insufficient.
- A Title VII retaliation claim based on the opposition clause must plausibly allege protected activity, which generally requires facts supporting that the employee opposed conduct he reasonably and in good faith believed unlawful under Title VII.
- Conclusory allegations that the plaintiff opposed conduct believed to violate Title VII are inadequate unless the pleading includes some description of the conduct opposed, permitting assessment of whether Title VII could apply and whether the belief could be reasonable.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit upheld dismissal of the EEOC’s retaliation suit because the amended complaint omitted the underlying facts of what the employee reported, leaving only conclusory legal assertions that did not satisfy Rule 8 plausibility pleading for protected opposition under Title VII.


Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Concentra Health Servs., Inc., 496 F.3d 773 (7th Cir. 2007)