What You Need to Know About Twombly

8/7/2019 What You Need to Know About Twombly

1/9

JULY 2009, RELEASE TWO

WWW.GLOBALCOMPETITIONPOLICY.ORGCompetition Policy International, Inc. 2009. Copying, reprinting, or distributing this article is forbidden by anyone other than the publisher or author.

WhatYouNeedtoKnowAboutTwombly:TheUseandMisuseofEconomicandStatisticalEvidenceinPleadings

DavidS.EvansUniversityofChicagoandUniversityCollegeLondon


2/9

RELEASE: JULY-09 (2)


2

What

You

Need

to

Know

About

Twombly:

TheUseandMisuseofEconomicandStatisticalEvidenceinPleadingsDavidS.Evans1

I.INTRODUCTIONnBellAtlanticv.Twombly2theSupremeCourtclarifiedwhatplaintiffsmustpleadfor theircomplaints topassmuster. Itretired theConley3 rule thatacourtshouldnot dismiss a complaint unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can

provenosetoffactsinsupportofhisclaimwhichwouldentitlehimtorelief.Thenewrule isbasedonwhether thecomplaint statesasetof facts that,assuming their truth,

makes it plausible that the plaintiff has a claimwhichwould entitle her to relief.Although Twombly involved an antitrust conspiracy claim,most commentators agree

thatitmodifiedgeneralpleadingstandardsforallcasesandthathasbeenconfirmedin

the Supreme Courts May 2009 ruling in Ashcroft v. Iqbal.4 Lower courts have citedTwomblymore than12,000 times inawide rangeofcases since itcamedown inMay

2007.5These cases involveawideareaof claims including the fullgamutofantitrustcases.Defendantsnowroutinelyseektodismisscomplaintsonthegroundsthattheydonotstateaplausibleclaim.Thisarticleexploreswhatsortsofeconomicand statisticalevidencehelpestablishthataclaimisplausibleandwhatdonot.

II.THETWOMBLYDECISIONTwombly concerned economic evidence of a conspiracy to restrain trade in

violationofSection1oftheShermanAct.Theplaintiffs,ledbyWilliamTwombly,weresubscribersoflocaltelephoneandhighspeedInternetservices.Thedefendantswerethemajorregionaltelephonecompanies,includingBellAtlantic,whichlaterbecamepartof

Verizon. The BabyBells, as they are sometimes called,were required to allow othertelephonecompaniestousetheirnetworksforvariouspurposes.Theplaintiffsclaimed

1TheauthorwastheleadauthoroftheBriefbyAmiciCuriaeEconomistsinBellAtlanticv.WilliamTwomblywhich25leadingacademiceconomistssigned,seeinfranote8. HeisLecturer,UniversityofChicagoandExecutiveDirector,Jevons

Institute

for

Competition

Law

and

Economics,

Visiting

Professor,

University

College

London.

He

would

like

to

thankHowardChang,LubomiraIvanova,andDanielGarciaSwartzforveryhelpfulcommentsandMarinaDanilevsky

forexcellentresearchassistance.2BellAtlanticCorp.v.Twombly,127S.Ct.1955(2007).3Conleyv.Gibson,355U.S.41(1957).4 OurdecisioninTwomblyexpoundedthepleadingstandardforallcivilactions,.,anditappliestoantitrust

anddiscriminationsuitsalike.See,Ashcroftv.Iqbal,No.071015(U.S.S.Ct.May18,2009),at20,availableat

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/071015.pdf(lastaccessedJuly23,2009).ForfurtherdiscussionofIqbal,

seeCarolineMitchell&DavidWallach,Ashcroftv.Iqbal: TakingTwomblyaStepFurther,7(2)GCPMAGAZINE(Jul09),availableathttp://www.globalcompetitionpolicy.org/index.php?&id=1780&action=907.

5AsearchrunonLexisNexisonJuly23,2009turnedupmorethan12,000decisionswhichcitedTwombly.


3/9



3

thattheBabyBellsconspiredtokeepotherstelephonenetworksoutoftheirregionsand

notentereachothersregions.Themainevidenceofthisconspiracywastheexistenceofparallelconduct:thatcompetitionwaslimitedinalltheregionsoftheBabyBellsand

noneoftheBabyBellsofferedserviceintheterritoriesofanyoftheotherBabyBells.TheDistrictCourtdismissedthecomplaintonthegroundsthatparallelconduct

wasnotenough.Theplaintiffsneeded evidence thattended toexclude independent

selfinterestconductasanexplanation fordefendantsparallelbehavior.6TheSecond

CircuitCourtofAppealssaid,inreversing,thatthecourtwouldhavetoconcludethat

there is no set of facts that would permit a plaintiff to demonstrate the particular

parallelismassertedwastheproductofcollusionratherthancoincidence.7Theproblemwith that conclusion,which follows from Conley, is that itwould permit conspiracy

complaints against numerous firms in a wide range of settings. As a group of 25

academic

economists

noted

in

their

amicus

brief,Virtuallyallfirmsintheeconomywillbeatriskunder[theparallelbehavioris

enoughstandard]. Incumbentswillhavechangedprice inparallel inresponse

todemandandcostchanges.Firmsmayhaveallloweredpricewhensignificant

entryoccurred.Theywillhavereliedonthesameinformationandanalysisofthe

same business conditions, to entermarkets, choose business locations, design

products, invest in innovation, and make other decisions that affect market

outcomesincludingnot availing themselvesofamyriadofpossiblebusiness

opportunitiesandthereforetakingnoactionatall.8

The Supreme Court agreed with this reasoning as well as with the concern

expressedby thoseeconomists that theparallelbehavior isenough standardwould

imposesignificantcostsontheeconomythroughunnecessarydiscovery,thesettlement

of frivolous lawsuits, and the chilling of legitimate competitive behavior to avoid

litigation.ItthereforeagreedwiththeDistrictCourtthataconspiracyclaimneedsmorethan just parallel behavior; it needs something to exclude routine competition as an

explanation.

Twombly would be mainly of interest to antitrust lawyers who specialize inconspiracycasesiftheSupremeCourthadendeditsanalysisthere.Infact,severalotherCircuit Courts of Appeal required plaintiffs to have more than parallel behavior to

surviveamotiontodismissforaShermanSection1case.ButtheSupremeCourtusedtheopportunitytoreverseits1957decisioninConleywhichmanycourtshadreliedonto

6BellAtlanticCorpvTwombly,supranote2,at5.7Id.at6.8Baumol,WilliamJ.,Boskin,MichaelJ.,Crandall,RobertW.,Elzinga,KennethG.,Evans,DavidS.,Faulhaber,

GeraldR.,Fisher,FranklinM.,Froeb,LukeM.,Gilbert,RichardJ.,Joskow,PaulL.,Katz,MichaelL.,Milgrom,PaulR.,

Moore,ThomasG.,Ordover,JanuszA.,Porter,RobertH.,Scherer,FredericM.,Schmalensee,Richard,Schwartz,Marius,

Sibley,DavidS.,Smith,VernonL.,Snyder,EdwardA.,Spence,A.Michael,Spiller,PabloT.,Sykes,AlanO.,Teece,David

J.&Whinston,MichaelD.,BriefofAmiciCuriaeEconomistsinSupportofPetitioners,BellAtlanticV.Twombly(April6,

2006),at11, availableathttp://ssrn.com/abstract=1330591.


4/9



4

allowcomplaintstomoveforwardwithlittleifanyplausibleevidenceinthecomplaint

that the plaintiff was entitled to relief. It thus changed the pleading standards foreffectively all Rule 8 federal cases, and hence the thousands of citations that have

followedinthetwoyearssincethedecisioncamedown.9III.TWOMBLYMEETSREVERENDBAYES

Professor Robert Bone has provided a way of looking at Twombly that helps

identifywhatthecourtswilllookforinaplaintiffscomplaint.HearguesthatTwomblyrequires that theallegationsdescribeastateofaffairsthatdifferssignificantly froma

baseline of normality and supports a probability of wrongdoing greater than the

backgroundprobability forsituationsof thesamegeneral type.10Thisstandardhelpsexplain two Supreme Court decisions that some commentators have argued reflect

ambiguityinwheretheCourthascomeoutonpleading.

InSwierkiewiczv.SoremaN.A11theCourt,in2002,reversedalowercourtrulingthatdismissedacomplaintinanemploymentdiscriminationmatter.SwierkiewiczwasaHungarianemployeeofaFrenchcompanyintheUnitedStates.Thecompanyreplacedhim with a native French employee. The plaintiff provided details on the dates ofvariousactionsandthenationalitiesofcompanyemployeesthatmadevariousdecisions

related tohim. Putting thesedetails aside, a French company replacing an employeewithaFrenchnativespeakerintheUnitedStateswouldappearfarenoughawayfrom

thenormthatitwouldappearplausiblethatemployeecouldhaveavalidclaim.

Fifteen days after issuing Twombly the Supreme Court, in William Erickson v.BarryJ.Pardusetal.12,reversedalowercourtdismissalofacomplaintbyaprisonerthathisconstitutionalrightshadbeenviolatedasaresultofthedenialofmedication.Totheconfusionof some readersofTwombly thecourtemphasized the importanceof liberalpleadingstandardsandnoted,citingTwombly,thataplaintiffisonlyrequiredtopresent

a short and plain statement that he is entitled to relief. But in this case the plaintiff

claimedthehehadstartedayearlongprogramforthetreatmentofHepatitisCandthat

theprisondecidedtowithdrawitstreatmentfromhimeventhoughhewasinneedofit.(Duringtreatmentsforsomeoftheprisonersasyringehadbeenfoundinthetrashand

9Rule8(a)(2)oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedure,whichprovidesthegeneralrulesofpleading,requiresa

complaint

to

provide

a

short

and

plain

statement

of

the

claim

showing

that

the

pleader

is

entitled

to

relief.

See

FED.

R.

CIV.P.8(A)(2). CasessubjecttomorestringentpleadingrequirementsthanRule8arelikelyunaffectedbyTwombly. Rule

9(b),whichcoverspleadingrequirementsforcasesinvolvingfraudormistakes,statesaparticularityrequirementfor

thepleadingsnotgenerallyapplicableunderRule8. Inaddition,therearecasesbroughtunderstatuteswithspecificand

morestringentstatutorypleadingrequirements,suchasthePrivateSecuritiesLitigationReformAct(PSLRA)of1995. In

addition,casesthatarebroughtprosealsogenerallyallowmorelatitudefortheplaintiffandmaynothavebeenaffectedbyTwombly.

10RobertBone,Twombly,PleadingRules,andtheRegulationofCourtAccess67(BostonUniversitySchoolofLawWorkingPaperNo.0834,2008),availableathttp://www.bu.edu/law/faculty/scholarship/workingpapers/2008.html.

11Swierkiewiczv.SoremaN.A.,534U.S.506(2002).12Ericksonv.Pardus,127S.Ct.2197(2007).


5/9



5

the prison officials concluded that it was used for dispensing illegal drugs. TheysuspectedErickson.)Itisunusualfordoctorstowithdrawtreatmentfrompatientswithseriousdiseases.ThusitwasplausiblethatEricksonhadavalidclaimforrelief.

Common experience tellsus that the claims in Swierkiewicz andEricksonwereplausible.TheydescribedsituationsthatdifferedfromtheroutineenoughtomaketheSupremeCourtbelieve that therecouldbesomething there.A layobservermightsaythesamethingaboutTwombly.TheSupremeCourt,however,haslongexperiencewithantitrust conspiracy cases and hasmastered some economics through its analysis of

antitrust matters. The Court was well aware that firms routinely act in parallel forpurely competitive reasons such as responding to changes in demand; and it has

decidedfirmsdonotviolateSection1oftheShermanActevenwhentheyconsciously

act inparallel tomaintainpricesandprofits.Theacademiceconomistswhosubmittedan

amicus

brief

in

support

of

reversing

the

Second

Circuit

emphasized

these

points

as

well.Section1requiresaconspiracywhich, inturn,entailscommunicationamongthefirms.Theplaintiffsthereforeneedfactsthat,takenastrue,would indicatethatsuchaconspiracywasplausible.Parallelbehaviordidnot,becauseitisnormalconductamongbusinessesinthesamemarket.

Statistical theory provides a helpful way to think about the role of facts in

meeting the Twombly plausibility standard. Reverend Thomas Bayes, an early 18thcenturymathematician, is the intellectual fatherofabranchofstatistics thatexamines

howinformationchangesonesestimatesofwhethersomethingislikely.IfithadneversnowedinLosAngelesinJunemostpeoplewouldexpectthatitwouldnotsnowinLos

Angelesthis

coming

June. If last June ithad snowed for the first timepeoplewould

update theirpriorbeliefsandconclude that itwasat leastpossible that itcouldsnow

thiscomingJune.

The Supreme Courts plausibility test starts with the prior belief that before

examiningthecomplainttheplaintiffdoesnothaveacauseofaction.Thepurposeofthecomplaintistoprovidefactsthat,takenastrue,wouldchangethatexpectationtosome

degree.ThatisconsistentwiththeliberalpleadingstandardsreaffirmedinEricksontwoweeksafterTwombly.Thecourthastotakethefactsinthecomplaintastrue.Itthenhasto determine whether those facts move the needle from neutral (the plaintiff is no

differentfromother individualsorbusinessesthatarenotentitledtorelief)topositive

(theplaintiffhaspresentedsomefactsthatmakeitplausiblethatsheistitledtorelief).InTwomblytheparallelbehaviorevidencelefttheneedleonneutralwhilethefactspledinEricksonandSwierkiewiczmovedtheneedle intheplaintiffsdirection intheCourtsmind.IV.HOWFARMUSTPLAINTIFFSMOVETHENEEDLE?

Ofcourseonemansplausibleisanothermansgivemeabreak.Thatleaves


6/9



6

thequestionofhowfarplaintiffsmustmovetheneedletofendoffamotiontodismiss.InTwomblytheplaintiffshadabitmorethanthebaldclaimofparallelbehavior,suchasa letter from aCongressman to theU.S.Department of Justice complaining about a

conspiracyandanewspaperarticlethatquotedaBabyBellexecutiveinawaythatthe

plaintiffsclaimedpointedtoaconspiracy.InSwierkiewiczonecouldarguethataFrenchcompany viewing a native French employee as better than an American (or an

HungarianAmerican) is not so surprising. But in any event Twombly did not haveenoughforsevenoftheSupremeCourtJustices.

Aninterestingquestioniswhetherhowfartheneedlemustmovedependson

thecase.TheSupremeCourtexpressedaconcerninTwomblythatatoolenientpleadingstandard would unleash massive and expensive discovery and could result in a

settlement just to avoid the costof anuisance case.TheBabyBellswouldhavebeensubject

to

discovery

of

information

on

their

dealings

with

each

other

and

with

potential

entrantsoveradecade.TheplaintiffssoughttocertifyaclassthatwouldincludealargeportionoftheAmericanpopulation.IfthecasesurvivedcertificationahardlyunusualeventforSection1casestheBabyBellswouldhavebeensubjecttomassivefinancial

exposureandwouldhavelikelysettledeveniftheywerelikelytoprevailattrialoron

appeal.(Theflipsideofthis isthatiftheplaintiffsdidhaveavalidclaimforreliefthedefendantsactionsprobablycausesubstantialongoingharm.)

Whetherthecourtssaysoornot,onecanimaginethecourtsrequiringtheneedle

tomovefarther inallowingacasetoproceedthatwill imposesubstantialcostsonthe

defendant and the court system, thus resulting in settlement that isnotbasedon the

merits,and

demanding

the

needle

to

move

less

far

in

allowing

acase

to

proceed

that

will not impose significant costs, or has other extenuating circumstances. BothSwierkiewicz and Erickson were singleplaintiff cases. William Erickson filed withoutcounseland theSupremeCourt insistedongreater latitudeforpleadings foramotion

filedprose.V.MEETINGTHEPLAUSIBILITYTEST

TwomblyandIqbalservenoticetoplaintiffsthatwhileashortplainstatementoftheircaseisallthatisneeded,thatstatementbettersaysomethingthatpersuadesacourt

thattheplaintiffshaveaplausiblecase.Italsoprovidesaroadmaptodefendantswho

wantashotatgettingacasetossedbeforerunningupsignificant legalbills.Economicand statistical evidence will often play a role in these considerations especially inantitrustandemploymentdiscriminationcases.

VI.ANTITRUSTThe courts rely extensivelyon economic reasoning as reflected in the spate of

SupremeCourtdecisions in the last fiveyears,especially thosecases involvingsingle

firmconduct.Moderneconomicshasidentifiedcircumstancesinwhichitispossiblethat


7/9



7

business practices reduce consumer welfare, which is the touchstone of modern

antitrust.But ithasalsodemonstrated thatmuchbehaviorthatwasviewedassuspectcanbeexplainedonthegroundsofeconomicefficiency.Courtsmaybemorereluctant,following Twombly, to allow antitrust complaints that do not plead something that

wouldallowthecourttodistinguishanticompetitivefromprocompetitivebehavior.

The plaintiff in Port Dock, for example, claimed that the defendants verticalintegration and subsequent refusal to dealwas anticompetitive.13 The SecondCircuitthought itwas possible that vertical integration could lead to a claim that deserved

relief.Itnotedtheremaybe specialcircumstances inwhichamonopolistsverticalexpansion

could be anticompetitive, such as where the monopolist uses the vertical

integration to facilitatepricediscrimination, toavoidgovernmentregulationof

priceat

one

level,

or

to

preserve

its

production

monopoly

by

putting

up

entry

barrierstonewcompetitorsseekingtoenterattheproductionlevel.

Buttheplaintiffhadnotpledanyfactstomaketheclaimplausible.InupholdingthelowercourtsdismissalofthisShermanSection2case,theSecondCircuitnotedthat

theplaintifffailedtoallegeanysuchcircumstancethatwouldmake[thedefendants]

vertical integrationand refusal todealwith itanticompetitive.To succeedwith theircomplaints,antitrustplaintiffsmuststartwithaviableanticompetitivetheoryandplead

factsthatsupportit.Twombly andPortDock point to a general lesson.An antitrustplaintiff has to

show that thedefendant engaged inpractices that firmsdonotordinarily engage in.Importantly, for Section 2 cases,modern economicshas shown thatmanypreviouslysuspectactsarecommonlyundertakenbycompetitivefirms.Itisnowwellknownthatfirmswithoutsignificantmarketpowerengageinpricediscrimination,tieandbundle,

offerpricediscounts,andenter intoexclusivearrangements.Theydosobecause these

practicesbenefittheircustomers,lowercosts,orsolveothereconomicproblemssuchas

therecoveryoffixedcosts.Sincefirmswithoutmarketpowerengageinthesepractices,thefactthatafirmhasmarketpowerandengagesinthesepracticesshouldnotbyitself

move the needle. As it was with the Baby Bell parallel behavior, conduct that isconsistentwithcompetitiveconductshouldnotbethebasisforrelief.

A question is how far the courtswill go in allowing evidence of competitive

conduct. The Supreme Court has recognized in Independent Ink14 that tying iscommonplace.Onecouldargue thataplaintiffpursuinga tyingclaimshouldhave toshownotonlythatthedefendanthasmarketpowerandengagedintyingbutalsothat

there issignificantdemandtoofferthetyingproductseparatelyfromthetiedproduct

and that its behavior does notmake economic sense.Theremay be other situations,13PortDock&StoneCorp.v.OldcastleNortheast,Inc.,507F.3d117(2dCir.2007).14IllinoisToolWorks,Inc.v.IndependentInk,Inc.,125S.Ct.2937(2005).


8/9



8

however,inwhichthecourtshavenotrecognizedthatcertainbehavioriscommonplace.It remains to be seen how far the courts will go in allowing defendants to submit

evidenceatthemotiontodismissstageforexampleanaffidavitfromaneconomist

thatthebehaviorisroutine.

Antitrustplaintiffscanovercomethesehurdlesbypresentingplusfactorsthat

movetheneedlesufficientlyfar.Economicscanhelphereaswell.Footnote4ofTwomblyevenprovided somepointers.Quoting thedefendantsbrief, theCourtnoted that theparties agreed thata conspiracywasplausiblewhen therewas evidenceof complex

andhistoricallyunprecedentedchangesinpricingstructuremadeattheverysametime

bymultiplecompetitors,andmadefornootherdiscerniblereason.15TheplaintiffsinInreGraphicsProcessingUnitsAntitrustLitigation16recoveredfromthegrantingofamotiontodismissby filing an amended complaint thatpointed to this sortof evidence.Thedistrict

court

let

them

through

the

gate

the

second

time.VII.EMPLOYMENTDISCRIMINATION

Statistical evidence is commonly used in employment discrimination cases,

especiallythose thataredestined forclasscertification.Aswithantitrustcases thekeyquestion is whether plaintiffs have pled enough facts to make the claim for relief

plausible.Twoexamples,onemadeupandtheotherreal,illustratehowTwomblyaffectstheuseofstatisticalevidenceforplaintiffsanddefendants.

Consider a company thathas 50 regionaldistricts.A smallgroupofplaintiffs

belonging toaprotectedminoritygroupargues that there isapatternandpracticeof

discrimination against the minority group because, in the last 5 years, no minority

promotions from thedistrictmanagerposition to thedivisionmanagerpositionhave

takenplacein5districts.IsthisenoughinlightofTwombly?Alaypersonmightthinksoand thecourtshavepointed to theinexorablezero17asevidenceofnefariousgoings

on.Toastatistician,however,thosefactsbythemselvesdonotmovetheneedleatall.Thefactthatthereare5districtswithnominoritypromotionscouldbeduetoa

numberof factorsamong them, it isat leastpossible thatnopromotionswhatsoever

weremade in somedistrictsand, furthermore,even if someweremade, it ispossible

thatnominoritycandidatesforpromotionwereavailableatthetime.Plaintiffsshouldpresentenoughfactualevidencetodemonstrate,evenqualitatively,thatthattherewere

enoughpromotions

and

enough

minority

candidates

to

make

it

likely

that

there

would

bestatisticallysignificantdisparities.Whenplaintiffsdonotpresentenoughevidence,thereisanopeningfordefendantstotheextentthestatisticalevidenceiscentraltothe

complaint.

15BellAtlanticCorpvTwombly,supranote2,footnote4at9.16InreGraphicsProcessingUnitsAntitrustLitig.,483F.Supp.2d1356(Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.2007).17Teamstersv.UnitedStates,431U.S.324(1977).


9/9


WWW.GLOBALCOMPETITIONPOLICY.ORG

9

Plaintiffsoftenpresentevidenceofgrossstatisticaldisparities intheworkforce

compositionorwagedisparitiesaspartoftheircomplaint.Forexample,intheWalMartemployment litigation in theNinthCircuittheplaintiffspresentedevidenceofthe fact

that twothirds ofWalMart employeeswere female but only onethird ofWalMart

managerswere female. They interpreted this fact as evidence of discrimination. Thedistrictcourtcertifiedaverylargeclassofplaintiffs.TheNinthCircuitupheldtheclass

onappeal.Amemberoftheappealspanel,JudgeKleinfeld,wroteadissentingopinionwhich echoed considerations that are importantpost Twombly.18Hepointed out thatplaintiffs statistics did not compare allwomenwhowanted to becomemanagers at

WalMart with all men who wanted to become managers at WalMart. The one

third/twothirds comparison just focused on allmale and female employees,whether

theydesiredmanagement jobsornot.These sortsofgross statisticalcomparisonsdidnothaveanyimplicationforwhethertherewasorwasnotgenderdiscrimination.Inour

language,theydidnotmovetheneedleintermsofplausibility.As a general matter, one could argue under Twombly that plaintiffs have to

presentevidenceontheworkforcethatshowsthatdiscriminationinparticularpractices

isplausible.Basedongenerallabormarketdataandexperience,thefactthatmanagerswerelesslikelytobewomenthanwereemployeesoverallshouldnotsurpriseus.Asof2000,womencomprised46.8percentofthecivilianlaborforcebutonly26.3percentof

general and operational managers.19 Whether the particular breakdown at WalMart

shouldsurpriseuswoulddependonthepreciseoccupationalmixandotherfactorssuch

asthequalificationsforbeingastoreclerkversusbeingamanager.Evidencethatothersimilarretailershaveahigherproportionofwomeninmanagerialpositionswould,on

the other hand, surprise us and make the claim of classwide discrimination more

plausible.VIII.CONCLUSION

Plaintiffshavetopresentfactsintheircomplaintthatmakeitplausiblethatthey

are entitled to relief.Thatmeans stating facts that aredifferent enough from routinebehavior and that support the claim for relief. Lawyers should consider the use ofeconomicandstatisticalevidencecarefullyinfashioningtheircomplaintsandinseeking

the dismissal of complaints. Disciplines such as economics and statistics provideframeworksforestablishingwhetherfactsarefarenoughawayfromneutraltomake

itplausiblethattheplaintiffhasavalidclaim.

18Dukesetal.v.WalMart,Inc.Nos.0416688,041672020079thCir.WL329022(Feb.6,2007).19U.S.BureauoftheCensus,2000.CalculatedusingtheEEODataTool.

What You Need to Know About Twombly

Documents

Transcript of What You Need to Know About Twombly