534 U.S. 506, 510 (2002)
Akos Swierkiewicz, a native of Hungary who was 53 years old at the time of his complaint, began working for Sorema N.A. in April 1989 as senior vice president and chief underwriting officer. Sorema is a reinsurance company headquartered in New York and principally owned and controlled by a French parent corporation.1
Nearly six years later, Sorema's Chief Executive Officer François M. Chavel demoted Swierkiewicz to a marketing and services position and transferred the bulk of his underwriting responsibilities to Nicholas Papadopoulo, a 32-year-old French national.2 About a year later, Chavel appointed Papadopoulo as chief underwriting officer, even though Swierkiewicz had 26 years of experience in the insurance industry while Papadopoulo had only one year of underwriting experience.3
Following his demotion, Swierkiewicz was isolated by Chavel, excluded from business decisions and meetings, and denied the opportunity to reach his true potential.4 In April 1997, Swierkiewicz sent a memo to Chavel outlining his grievances and requesting a severance package.5 Two weeks later, after refusing to resign without a severance package, Swierkiewicz was fired by Chavel.6
Swierkiewicz filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. He alleged that he had been terminated on account of his national origin in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He also alleged that he had been terminated on account of his age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.7 The district court dismissed the complaint, finding that Swierkiewicz had not adequately alleged circumstances that support an inference of discrimination.8 The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal.9
The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a split among the Courts of Appeals concerning the proper pleading standard for employment discrimination cases.10
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 McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green?11
No. Swierkiewicz alleged in his complaint that he had been terminated on account of his national origin in violation of Title VII and on account of his age in violation of the ADEA.14 The established facts demonstrate that his complaint detailed the events leading to his termination, provided relevant dates, and included the ages and nationalities of at least some of the persons involved with his termination.15 These allegations give the respondent fair notice of what the claims are and the grounds upon which they rest.16 The district court and the Second Circuit required the pleading of a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas, but that is an evidentiary standard that does not apply to the pleading stage.17
The ordinary rules for assessing the sufficiency of a complaint apply, and the complaint here meets the requirements of Rule 8(a)(2).18
The complaint need not plead specific facts establishing a prima facie case of discrimination and is sufficient to survive the motion to dismiss.19