Manal Farhan v. 2715 NMA LLC (2025)

Citation: Manal Farhan v. 2715 NMA LLC (2025)
Parent Document: Manal Farhan v. 2715 NMA LLC (2025)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2025-12-04
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10747698/manal-farhan-v-2715-nma-llc/ ↗

Full Text

1,883 chars

404–05; Carlson, 758 F.3d at 830; cf. Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at
510–11.
     The majority’s assertion that Farhan alleged mere “view-
point discrimination” based on her “conduct, not identity”
also does not hold water. Ante, at 13. As the Supreme Court
has explained in the First Amendment context—citing dis-
crimination cases—conduct or viewpoint discrimination can
support an inference of animus against a protected group
where the targeted conduct or viewpoint is “closely corre-
lated with” that group. Christian Legal Soc’y v. Martinez, 561
U.S. 661, 689 (2010) (“Our decisions have declined to distin-
guish between status and conduct in th[e] context [of discrim-
ination].” (citing Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 575 (2003)));
id. (citing Justice O’Connor’s concurrence in Lawrence for the
“closely correlated with” language). So even if it were true
that Farhan only alleged discrimination against a “viewpoint”
declaring support for the Palestinian cause, that viewpoint is
so “closely correlated with” her being Palestinian that it is
plausible to infer—at least at the pleading stage—animus
against Palestinians themselves. Held to our routine pleading
standard, and with the benefit of all inferences in her favor,
Farhan has alleged enough to survive a motion to dismiss.
                               IV
    Discounting the plausibility of Farhan’s allegations and
preferring its own theory of the case over Farhan’s are not the
majority’s only missteps. The majority also weighs competing
inferences at the motion to dismiss stage rather than granting
all reasonable inferences in Farhan’s favor. Swanson cautions
against such balancing: “[I]t is not necessary to stack up infer-
ences side by side and allow the case to go forward only if the
plaintiff’s inferences seem more compelling than the
No. 24-1532                                                    25

Other Sections in This Document (43)

Full Text