Kregler v. City of New York

• Author: Hillel H. Levin
• Pages: 45-56

45

focus on “plausibility” represent a heightened pleading standard that is

different from the Notice Pleading standard articulated in Conley and

reaffirmed in Swierkiewicz? If so, why do you think the Supreme Court

switched sides?

3. In the wake of Iqbal, what would a plaintiff have to plead in a discrimination

case in order to state a claim?

4. Justice Souter wrote Twombly but dissented in Iqbal. Why?

5. In the wake of Twombly and Iqbal, is the complaint you drafted in the

Branham class sufficient? What would you argue if you were the defendant?

What follows is a district court opinion in which the judge struggles to apply

Twombly and Iqbal. Note that this case was decided before the Supreme Court

decided Iqbal. However, the Supreme Court had already decided Twombly, and the

Second Circuit had already issued its opinion in Iqbal, interpreting and applying

Twombly. Thus, the district court in this case is applying the Supreme Court’s

holding in Twombly and the Second Circuit’s holding in Iqbal.

Pay careful attention to how the district court understands the Twombly and Iqbal

cases, and what the court decides in order to balance the competing interests at

stake.

Kregler v. City of New York

608 F. Supp.2d 465 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)

Decision and Order

VICTOR MARRERO, District Judge.

Plaintiff William Kregler (“Kregler”) brought this action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 (“§ 1983”) alleging that defendants violated his rights under

the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

Defendants consist of the City of New York (the “City”) and five individuals

who at all relevant times were employees of the City's Fire Department

(“FDNY”) or Department of Investigation (“DOI”) (collectively with the