Hager v. Arkansas Dept. of Health, et al., No. 12-3842 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit against her former supervisor and employer, the Department, for statutory and constitutional violations. The court concluded that it had jurisdiction over the supervisor's appeal where the supervisor challenged the sufficiency of plaintiff's pleadings to state 42 U.S.C. 1983, Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2601 et seq., interference and retaliation claims. The court also concluded that plaintiff failed to state a section 1983 claim for gender discrimination where her conclusory assertion that she was discharged under circumstances similarly situated men were not imported legal language couched as factual allegations and failed to raise a right to relief above the speculative level. Accordingly, the district court erred in denying the supervisor's motion to dismiss the claim. Further, the district court erred in denying the supervisor's motion to dismiss the FMLA entitlement claim and the FMLA discrimination claim. The court remanded for the district court to consider whether to allow plaintiff to amend her pleadings. Finally, the court, declining to exercise pendant jurisdiction, did not have jurisdiction to hear the Department's appeal.
Court Description: Civil case -Employment discrimination. The court had jurisdiction over the defendant's qualified immunity appeal where the appeal challenged the sufficiency of plaintiff's pleadings to state claims for violations of Section 1983, as well as FMLA interference and retaliation; plaintiff's complaint failed to state a Section 1983 claim for gender discrimination as it did no more than make conclusory allegations of gender discrimination; nor did the complaint state claims for FMLA interference and retaliation, and the district court erred in denying defendant's motion for summary judgment on the FMLA issue; court would not exercise its pendent appellate jurisdiction to review the district court's partial denial of the Arkansas Department of Health's motion to dismiss.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.