Brooks v. Serta Simmons Bedding, LLC

E.D. Missouri

Brooks v. Serta Simmons Bedding, LLC

DecidedJune 4, 2024

Docket4:24-cv-00097

StatusUnknown

This text of Brooks v. Serta Simmons Bedding, LLC (Brooks v. Serta Simmons Bedding, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brooks v. Serta Simmons Bedding, LLC, (E.D. Mo. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

JOSHUA BROOKS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 4:24-cv-00097-MTS ) SERTA SIMMONS BEDDING, LLC, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This religious discrimination and retaliation action is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Doc. [19]; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). After a complete review of the briefing on the Motion, and after considering the proper standard of review, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint states a plausible claim for relief on both counts. See Lustgraaf v. Behrens, 619 F.3d 867, 872– 73 (8th Cir. 2010) (motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim standard); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009) (“[A] complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss.”); Wilson v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 850 F.3d 368, 372 (8th Cir. 2017) (“‘[I]t is not appropriate to require a plaintiff to plead facts establishing a prima facie case’ under McDonnell Douglas.” (quoting Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 511 (2002))). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint, Doc. [19], is DENIED. Dated this 4th day of June 2024. Th | THEW T. SCHELP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

_2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

JOSHUA BROOKS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 4:24-cv-00097-MTS ) SERTA SIMMONS BEDDING, LLC, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This religious discrimination and retaliation action is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Doc. [19]; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). After a complete review of the briefing on the Motion, and after considering the proper standard of review, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint states a plausible claim for relief on both counts. See Lustgraaf v. Behrens, 619 F.3d 867, 872– 73 (8th Cir. 2010) (motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim standard); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009) (“[A] complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss.”); Wilson v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 850 F.3d 368, 372 (8th Cir. 2017) (“‘[I]t is not appropriate to require a plaintiff to plead facts establishing a prima facie case’ under McDonnell Douglas.” (quoting Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 511 (2002))). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint, Doc. [19], is DENIED. Dated this 4th day of June 2024. Th | THEW T. SCHELP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

_2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Brooks v. Serta Simmons Bedding, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brooks-v-serta-simmons-bedding-llc-moed-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack