Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A.

AuthorHillel H. Levin
Pages9-15
9
decisive to the outcome, and accept the principle that the purpose of
pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the District Court
for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Questions
1. What does the Conley case instruct as to the meaning of Rule(a)(2)? What
function does the complaint serve in a lawsuit?
2. According to Rule 8(a) and Conley, is it easy or difficult for a plaintiff to
meet the requirements of the Rule?
3. Who benefits from this standard? Who bears the cost of it?
4. According to Conley, how would courts get rid of cases where the plaintiff
produces no facts that support her claim?
5. According to Conley, what is the relationship between pleading and
discovery?
6. What interests do you think are served by Rule 8(a)? What do you think the
purpose of Rule 8(a) is?
The Court has periodically reaffirmed its core holding in Conley, as in the following
case.
Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A.
534 U.S. 506 (2002)
JUSTICE THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the question whether a complaint in an employment
discrimination lawsuit must contain specific facts establishing a prima facie
case of discrimination under the framework set forth by this Court in

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT