In Vuong v. United States Department of Veterans Affairs, No. 25-20199, 2026 WL 737338 (5th Cir. Mar. 16, 2026), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed a lower district court’s ruling dismissing plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim, finding no basis for the “pleading deficiency” cited by the lower court.
From the decision:
We next address the district court’s treatment of Vuong’s hostile work environment claim. The parties substantively briefed this claim on summary judgment, with the VA arguing that Vuong failed to present evidence that her membership in a protected group caused her harassment and Vuong pointing to portions of her own lengthy affidavit and coworkers’ affidavits in opposition. But the district court refused to “analyze any potential hostile work environment claim,” instead dismissing the claim sua sponte for a pleading deficiency. This was error for two reasons.
First, there was no Rule 12(b)(6) motion before the district court, nor did the court warn the parties of its intent to dismiss on the pleadings. District courts may dismiss on their own initiative for failure to state a claim, but only if the procedure used is “fair” to the parties. Century Sur. Co. v. Blevins, 799 F.3d 366, 372 (5th Cir. 2015). “In the Fifth Circuit, fairness requires that a litigant have the opportunity to be heard before a claim is dismissed, except where the claim is patently frivolous.” Id. Although we pass no judgment on the merits of Vuong’s hostile work environment claim, we do not find it to be “patently frivolous” such that dismissal without notice was appropriate.
Second, in addition to this procedural issue, the district court’s substantive basis for the dismissal was erroneous. It held that although Vuong “allege[d] facts relevant to hostile workplace” in her Complaint, she failed to designate a separately numbered paragraph to a particular hostile work environment count, such that dismissal was warranted for failure to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a) and 10(b). But our case law is clear that “a party need not include the proper label for a claim in their complaint so long as they plead each element of the claim that they are trying to bring.” Barron v. United States, 111 F.4th 667, 673 (5th Cir. 2024). Here, the district court did not identify any elements that Vuong failed to plead. Essentially, it dismissed the claim for lack of a heading, despite the fact that Vuong’s Complaint uses the term “hostile work environment” repeatedly and both parties understood her to be bringing such a claim and briefed the claim on summary judgment.
The court thus concluded that dismissal was not warranted, and remanded the matter for further consideration.