## Facts

- Dawnn McCleary-Evans, an African American woman, had over twenty years of project-management experience in environmental regulatory compliance for Maryland agencies.
- She applied for two positions in the Maryland Department of Transportation, State Highway Administration’s Environmental Compliance Division: assistant division chief and environmental compliance program manager.
- She alleged she was “more than qualified” for both positions.
- She alleged the relevant decisionmakers were biased and had predetermined to select white candidates.
- The positions were filled by non-Black candidates.
- She sued under Title VII, alleging failure to hire because of race (African American) and sex (female).

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint alleged sufficient factual matter to state plausible Title VII failure-to-hire claims for race and sex discrimination under the Twombly/Iqbal standard.
2. Whether dismissal could be affirmed where the district court referenced the McDonnell Douglas framework, even though a prima facie case is not required at the pleading stage.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal.
- The court held that, although a plaintiff need not plead a McDonnell Douglas prima facie case, the complaint still must satisfy Twombly/Iqbal plausibility.
- The court concluded the allegations were largely conclusory and did not plausibly support an inference that race or sex motivated the non-selection.
- A partial dissent would have found the allegations sufficient at the pleading stage and warned against requiring detail often obtainable only through discovery.

## Legal Principles

- Title VII plaintiffs are not required to plead facts establishing a McDonnell Douglas prima facie case to survive a motion to dismiss.
- Rule 8, as interpreted by Twombly and Iqbal, requires factual content permitting a reasonable inference of liability; conclusory assertions of discriminatory motive are insufficient.
- The fact that an employer selected non-minority candidates, without additional factual allegations (e.g., comparative qualifications, discriminatory statements, or a pattern of conduct), generally supports only speculation, not plausibility.
- Swierkiewicz permits simplified pleading in discrimination cases, but it does not excuse the absence of factual matter beyond an “unlawfully harmed me” accusation after Twombly/Iqbal.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit held that a Title VII failure-to-hire complaint must allege nonconclusory facts supporting a plausible inference of discriminatory intent; allegations of qualification plus the selection of non-Black candidates, without more, did not meet Rule 8’s plausibility requirement.


McCleary-Evans v. Maryland Dep’t of Transp., State Highway Admin., 780 F.3d 582 (4th Cir. 2015)