Donaldson v. Trae-Fuels, LLC et al, No. 3:2018cv00097 - Document 21 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 5/21/19. (hnw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERK' S OFFICE U.S.DISX CG JRT AT ROANOKE,VA FILED MAt 2 1 2219 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TilE W ESTERN DISTRICT 0F VIRGW IA CHA RLOTTESV ILLE D IV ISION JULIA C DUDLEY CLERK BY: C M ICRAEL DONALDSON, Plaintiff, CivilAction N o.3:18CV 00097 M EM O R ANDU M OPPW O N TRAE-FUELS,LLC,eta1., By:H on.Glen E.Conrad SeniorUnited StatesDistrictJudge D efendants. M ichaelDonaldsoh filed this action under the Am ericans w ith Disabilities A ct of 1990 (%çADA''),42U.S.C.jj12101-12213,againstTrae-Fuels,LLC (Eçe rrae-Fuels'')andEnviroTech Services,lnc.(ssEnviroTech''). ThedefendantshavemovedtodismissthecomplaintunderRule 12(b)(6)oftheFçderalRulesofCivilProcedure. Forthe reasons setforth below ,the courtwill deny the defendants'm otion. Backeround Thefollowing facm alallegations,taken from theplaintifpscom plaint,areaccepted astrue forpurposesofthependingmotion. SeeEricksonv.Pardus,551U.S.89,924 (2007)ClWhen rulingonadefendant'smotiontodismiss,ajudgemustacceptastruea1lofthefactualallegations containedinthecomplaint.'). On October 17,2013,Donaldson began working asthefinancialcontrollerofTrae-Fuels,a limitedliabilitycompanyinBumpass,Virginiathatmanufacturersheatingpellets. Compl.!!13, Donaldson v. Trae-Fuels, LLC et al Doc. 21 15,D ld.N o.1. D onaldson reported directly to John Frink,the generalm anager ofTrae-Fuels, and K evin W hyrick,the chief financialoftk er of EnviroTech,Trae-Fuel's m anaging m em ber. Id.!! 17,30-31. Chris LaRocco,EnviroTech's coporate strategist,and Betb Aleman,its Dockets.Justia.com director of hum an resources, also supervised the perform ance of certain duties assigned to Donaldson. ld.!!35-36. In M ay of2014,Donaldson w asdiagnosed w ith çsinoperable A denocarcinom a pancreatic cancer(StageIV).'' ld.!37. Ofthetwoprimarytypesofpancreaticcancer,Adenocarcinomais ççthedeadlierandmorecommon.'' Id.!38. $$ln2014,75% ofindividualswithAdenocarcinoma pancreatic cancerdied w ithin oneyearofdiagnosis,w ith only 6% having a s-yearlifeexpectancy survivalrate.'' 1d.!39. Upon learning of the diagnosis,D onaldson's supervisors expressed concern about his ability to w ork. For instance,LaRocco told Donaldson thathis aunt had died from pancreatic cancer,and he inquired asto w hetherDonaldson w ould wantto work part-tim e asa resultofthe diagnosis. Id.!!51-52. 0n anotheroccasion,W hyrick askedDonaldsonifhisparticulartype ofcancerwasEEslow oraggressive-'' ld.!55. OnM ay 19,2014,Donaldsonmètwithanoncologist. 1d.!42. Duringtheappointment, Donaldson'stemperaturewaselevated. Id.!43. Consequently,Donaldsonwashospitalizedfor a few days. Ld.. a On the day thathe was discharged from the hospital,W hyrick informed Donaldson by telephonethatthedefendantshad <chireda temporary accountantto assist(himj whilehewassick,since(Donaldson)wastheonlyaccountantintheTrae-Fuelsoffice.'' 1d.!44. lm m ediately thereafter,D onaldson lefton a pre-planned trip to Utah to adopta newborn child. L1. J .Z! 45. Upon remrning to work on M ay 27,2014,Donaldson began to train the temporary accountantatW hyrick'sdirection. J#.! 46. However,because theplaintiffwas çsfunctioning w ell,''thedefendantsdecided to releasethetem porary accountantshortly thereafter. ld.!47. Aleman acknowledgedthatthehiringofthetemporary accountantwasupremature,'' sinceDonaldsontthadcontinuedtoperfol' m hisdutieswelldespitehishealthissues.'' Id.!49. 2 Priorto hiscancerdiagnosis,D onaldson neverreceived any negative feedback orreviews regardinghisjobpedbnnance. Id.!59. However,withinafew weeksofbeinginformedofthe diagnosis,Aleman and LaRocco metwith Donaldson and critically questioned his decision to leavehiscompanycellphoneattheoftlcewhilehewasinUtah. Id.!!60.-63. Atthebeginning ofthe meeting,Aleman indicated thatshe wasçç<documenting'''theirconversation. 1d.! 62. Donaldson advised Alem an and LaRocco thatthephonew asnotworking properly and thathe had leftitwiththeofficeadministratortoberepairedwhilehewasgone. J#=!!64-65. Donaldson Stalso explained thathis supervisorsand colleagues lcnew he wasavailable on hispersonalphone and thathis hom e,com pany cell,and personalcellphone num bers w ere listed on the com pany contactlistavailabletoallemployees.'' 1d.!66. çtlnfact,Plaintiffssupervisorshadcalledhim onhispersonalcellphonemanytimejbeforethisincident.'' 1d.!67. In late June or early July 2014, Donaldson advised the defendants that he would be undergoing chemotherapy atJohnsHopkinsin Baltimore,Maryland. J.d.. a! 76. Donaldson provided acopy ofhischem otherapy scheduleto Frink,W hyrick,and Trae-Fuel'soffcem anager. Ld-a!78. ' l'hescheduleconsistedofchemotherapyonççtwoputofeverythreeFridays.'' 1d.!77. D onaldson advised Frink that he intended to m aintain a full, forty-hour w orkweek while undergoingtreatment. 1d.!79. Frinksubsequently inform edD onaldsonthatthedefendantshad EEagreedtothisplan.'' 1d.!80. Donaldson started chemotherapy on July 3,2014. 1ka! 76. Hehandledthetreatment 6çextremelywell''andçsexperiencednonegativesymptoms.'' Li !82. Asaresult,heiEwasable to m aintain a forty to forty-tsve-hour work week, even on w eeks that he underwent chem otherapy-'' 1d. N onetheless, on A ugust 20,2014, less than two m onths after he began chem otherapy, Frink and A lem an inform ed D onaldson that he was being term inated and should notreturn to work. 1d.!83. SW lemanprovidednoexplanationfortheflring,butbegantheconversationby saying$W earenotlettingyougobecauseyouaresick.''' 1d.!84. W henDonaldsoninquiredas to the reason forhis term ination,EW lem an said only t1 think you know whatitis'''and did not respondany further. Ld-a!86. Priortohistermination,noneofDonaldson'ssupervisorsvoiced anyconcernsregardinghisjobperformance. Id.!!88-90. ProceduralH istoa A Aer exhausting his adm inistrative rem edies,D onaldson filed the instant action against Trae-Fuels and EnviroTech for alleged violations of the AD A . In Count 1 of the com plaint, Donaldsonclaimsthat,byterminatinghim,thedefendantsççdenied ghisqrequestforreasonable accomm odations and refused to engage in an interactive process to identify reasonable accommpdations.'' Id.! 104. InCountI1,Donaldson claimsthatthedefendantstermipatedhis employmentEçbecauseofhisdisability''andbecausetheyçsregarded(him)asdisabled.'' Id.!113. ThedefendantshavemovedtodismissthecomplaintunderRule12(b)(6)oftheFederal RulesofCivilProcedure. Thedefendants'motionhasbeenfullyViefedandarguedandisnow ripe fordisposition. Standard ofR eview Rule l2(b)(6)permitsapartytomovefordismissalofacomplaintforfailureto statea claim upon which reliefcan be granted. W hen deciding a m otion to dism issunderthis rule,the courtm ustacceptastrpe al1w ell-pleaded allegationsand draw allreasonable factualinferencesin theplaintim sfavor. Erickson.551U.S.at94. EtWhileacomplaintattackedbyaRule1241946) m otion to dism issdoesnotneed detailed factualallegations,a plaintiffs obligation to provide the grounds ofhis entitlem ent to relief requires m ore than labels and conclusions,and a form ulaic recitation oftheelem entsofa cause ofaction w illnotdo.'' BellA tl.Corp.v.Tw ombly,550 U .S. 544,555 (2007) (internalcitation and quotation marks omitted). To survive dism issal, çça 4 com plaintm ustcontain suffcientfactualm atter,accepted astrue,to Estate a claim forreliefthatis Plausible on itsface.''' Ashcroftv.lgbal,556U.S.662,678(2009)(quotingTwombly,550U. S. at570). Discussion TheA DA prohibitsdiscrim ination ttagainsta qualifed individualon the basisofdisability in regard to .. .the hiring, advancem ent, or discharge of em ployees, . . . and other term s, conditions, and privileges of employment-'' 42 U.S.C. 12112(a). Eçsuch unlawful discrim ination can includethefailureto m ake lreasonableaccom m odationsto theknow n physical ormentallimitationsofan otherwisequalified individualwith a disabilitywho isan applicantor employee ....''' W ilsonv.DollarGen.Corp.,717F.3d337,344 (4th Cir.2013)(quoting42 U.S.C.j 12112(b)(5)(A)). In thiscase,theplaintiffclaimsthatthe defendantsterminated his em ploym entand failed to accom modate his disability in violation ofthe A DA . In m oving to dism issthe complaint,the defendantsarguethatDonaldson'sallegationsare insufficientto establish thathe w asdisabled w ithin them eaning oftheA DA and thatboth claim s aresubjectdismissalon thatground. The defendantsalso arguethatDonaldson hasfailed to plausibly allegethatthey refusedto provide an accommodation. Forthe following reasons,the courtfindsboth argum entsunpersuasive. 1. Disabilitv W ithin the M eanine oftheA DA Underthe ADA,Esltqhe tenn çdisability'means with respectto an individual---tA)a physicalormentalimpairmentthatsubstantially limitsoneormoremajorlifeactivitiesofsuch individual;(B) a record ofsuch an impairment;or (C) being regarded as having such an impairment.'' 42 U.S.C.j 12102(1). 'I' he term ççmajorlife activities''is defned to include, am ong others,ççconcentrating,thinking,com m unicating,and w orking,''asw ellas Eçthe operation 5 ofamajorbodilyfunction,''includingtheçdfunctionsoftheimmunesystem,normalcellgrowth, (and)digestive...functions.'' 1d.j1210242). In2008,CongressenactedtheADA AmendmentsActof2008(ûWDAAA''),Pub.L.No. 110-325,122 Stat.3553,which tEbroadened the defnition of tdisability.''' Sum m ersv.A ltarum lnst..Corp..740F.3d325,329(4th Cir.2014). TheprincipalpurposeoftheA' DAAA wasç'to m ake it6easierforpeople with disabilitiesto obtain protection underthe A DA .''' Jacobsv.N .C. Admin.OffceoftheCourts,780F.3d562,572(4thCir.2015)(quoting29C.F.R.j1630.1(c)(4)). 1tsimplementingregulationsclarifythatççltqheprimaryobjectofattentionincasesbroughtunder the A DA should be w hethercovered entities havç com plied w ith their obligations and w hether discrim ination has occurred,notwhetherthe individualm eets the defnition ofa disability.'' 29 C.F.R.j1630.1(c)(4). Accordingly,Gdçltlhequestionofwhetheranindividual'simpairmentisa disability under the AD A should not dem and extensive analysis.''' Jacobs, 780 F.3d at 572 (quotingPub.L.No.110-325,j2(b)(5)(2008)). ln this c>se,D onaldson claim s that he w as acm ally disabled ata1ltim es relevantto this action,sincehisKt pancreaticcancerwasaphysicallimitationthatsubstantiallylimitedhismajor bodily functionsregarding hisnormalcellgrowth and hisdigestivefunctions.'' Compl.! 40. Donaldson alternatively asserts thatthe defendants perceived or regarded him as disabled as a resultofhiscancerdiagnosis. 1d.!!41,131. A lthough certain allegations regarding the lim iting effects of the plaintifrs pancreatic cancerarearguably conclusory,the courtisoftheopinion thatthisim paitm ent,asdescribed in the complaint,plausibly qualiGes asa disability underthe AD A . Thisconclusion isconsistentw ith theregulationsim plem entingtheA DAA A,w hich recognizethatcancerw illqualify asa disabling im painnentççin virtually allcases,''since tçcancer substantially lim its norm alcellgrow th.'' 29 C.F.R.j1630.2()(3);seealsoAlstonv.ParkPleasant.Inc.,679F.App'x169,172(3dCir.2017) 6 (agreeing thatEçcancercan- and generally will- be a qualifying disability underthe ADA''); Oehmkev.M edtronic.Inc.,844F.3d748,756(8thCir.2016)(holdingthattheplaintifpsdscancer, evenwhileinremission,isclearlyacovered disabilityundertheADA'');Katzv.AdeccoUSA. lnc.,845F.Supp.539,548(S.D.N.Y.2012)(observingthatççlcqancerwillvirtually alwaysbea qualifying disabilit/') (internal quotation marks omitted). Although an Stindividualized assessm ent''isnonethelessnecessary in determ ining w hetheran im pairm entsubstantially lim itsa majorlifeactivityorbodilyfunction,29C.F.R.j1630.2()(1)(iv),Donaldsonspecifically alleges thathe w as diagnosed w ith the deadliestfonn ofpancreatic cancer,thatitSssubstantially lim ited . . . hisriormalcellgrowth and hisdigestive functions,''and thathewasrequirel to undergo chemotherapytreatment. Compl.!!38,40,76. Accordingly,atthisstageoftheproceedings, the courtconcludesthattheplaintiffhasplausibly alleged thathe wasactually disabled w ithin the mçaningof42U.S.C.j12102(1)(A). SeeJeffriesv.W al-MartStoresEast.LP,8:15-cv-00473, 2016U'S.Dist.LEXIS 95051,at*8(D.Md.July 11,2016)(holding thattheplaintiffsbreast cancerqualified as a disability underthe AD A where the plaintiffalleged that it weakened her immunesystem);seealsoc.f.Alston,679F.App'xat172(emphasizing,inaffrmingthegrantof summaryjudgmenttotheplaintifpsemployer,thattheplaintiffStneverclaimedatanystageofthe litigationthather(cancerjlimitedanysubstantiallifeactivity,includingimmunesystem function ornormalcellgrowth'). D onaldson also claim sthatthe defendantsregarded him ashaving a disability. Underthe ADA,as amended,t:gaqn individualmeetsthe requirementsofçbeing regarded ashaving (a disabling)impairment'iftheindividualestablishesthatheorshehasbeensubjectedtoanaction prohibitedun/erthischapterbecauseofan actualorperceived physicalormentalimpairment whetherornotthe impairmentlimitsorisperceivedto limitamajorlifeactivity.'' 42 U.S.C. j 12012(3)(A). Thus,thequestion ofwhdheraplaintiffisregarded asdisabledççttzrnsonthe employer'sperceptionoftheemployee.'' Francisv.CityofMeriden,129F.3d281,284(2dCir. 1997). Undertheamendeddesnition,<çaplaintifrbringingaçregardedas'claim undertheADA needstopleadandproveonlythat(he)wasregardedashavingaphysicalormentalimpairment.'' M ercadov.PuertoRico.814F.3d581,588(1stCir.2016). Essuchaplaintiffnolongerneedsto pleadandprovethatstlchimpairmentsubstantiallylimitedoneormoremajorlifeactivitieso'' Id. (citationsomitted);seealsoNuniesv.HIEHoldinas.lnc.,908F.3d428(9thCir.2018)(EçBasedon theplain languageoftheADAAA,itwaserrorforthedistrictcourtto require (theplaintiftlto presentevidencethat(thedefendantqbelievedthat(theplaintiftlwassubstantially limited in a majorlifeactivity-''). View ing the facm al allegations in the light m ost favorable to Donaldson, the court concludes thatthe cpm plaint plausibly alleges that the defendants term inated his em ploym ent because ofhiscancerdiagnosis. The com plaintindicatesthat,priorto hisdiagnosis,theplaintiff never received any negative feedback, review s, or com plaints about his w ork from Frink, W hyrick,oranyi one else atTrae-Fuels orEnviroTech. H ow ever,upon leam ing thathehad been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer,A lem an and LaR occo criticized him for leaving his com pany cellphone atthe oftsce,and A lem an noted thatshe was docum enting theirconversation w ith the plaintiff. Additionally,D onaldson'ssupervisorsexpressed concern aboutthe plaintiffsability to workandhired atemporary accountantto assisthim Stwhilehewassick.'' Compl.!44. Less than two m onths after Donaldson began chem otherapy, the defendants term inated his em ploym ent,even though he m aintained a full-tim e w ork schedule w hile undergoing treatm ent. Atthetimeofhistermination,Donaldsonwasonceagain referredtoasbeingçtsick.'' 1d.! 84 (internalquotationmarksomitted). AlthoughAlemantoldDonaldsonthatthestatt zsofhishealth w as not the reason for his term ination, the facts alleged in the complaint, when view ed in D onaldson'sfavor,supporta contrary inference atthepleading stage. 8 Forall(lfthese reasons,the courtconcludesthatD onaldson hasadequately alleged thathe was both acfually disabled and regarded as disabled by the defendants. Consequently,the court mustrejectthedefendànts'argumintthatçr onaldsonwasnotimpairedordisabledinanyway.'' D efs.'Br.Supp.M ot.D ism iss7,Dkt.No.13. 1I. Failure to A ccom m odate The defendantsalso seek dism issalofCount1on the basisthatthey ççgranted,notrefused, M r.Donaldson'srequested accom m odationsform edicaltreatm ent'' 1d.at5. Forthe follow ing reasons,the courtfindsthisargum entunpersuasive. As indicated above,unlawfuldiscrim ination underthe ADA ('can include the failure to m ake regsonable accom m odations to the known physical or m ental lim itations of an otherwise qualiGed individualw ith a disability who isan applicantoremployee-'' W ilson,717 F.3d at345 (internalquotation marksomitted). ForpuposesoftheADA,tsreasonable accommodations'' may includeGjob restrucmring''or<smodifed work schedules.'' 42 U.S.C.j 1211149)@ ). A Gçqualified individual'' is Etan individualw ho,with or w ithout reasonable accom m odation,can perform theessentialfunctionsoftheemploymentposition-'' 42U.S.C.j1211148). lnmovingtodismissCount1,thedefendantsarguethattheonlyaccommodationrequested by Donaldsonw asthathebeallow ed to undergo chem otherapy two outofevery threeFridays,and thatthecom plaintexpressly statesthat%%l Enviro-fech and Trae-Fuelsagreed to thisplan.'' Compl. !80. Theproblem withthisargumentisthatthecomplaintgoesontoallegethatDonaldsonwas term inated lessthan two m onthsafterhe began undergoing chemotherapy. See 1 /.!83. Courts . have recognized that em ployers cannot Eçescape liability for failure to provide reasonable accom m odation by term inating em ploym ent.'' Roberts v.Progressive lndependence.lnc.,183 F.3d 1215,1220 (10th Cir.1999). Because Donaldson plausibly allegesthatthe defendants %çterminatedghisqemploymentratherthanretain him asan employeeandprovide(therequested 9 accommodauonl,''thecourtconcludesthatthecomplalntstatesaclm'm forRboth a fallureto 5 accommodate and wrongfultennlnnuom'' E.E.O.C.v.Orioh Energy Sys..No.1;14-cv-00619, 2015U.S.Dist.LEXIS 86428,at*10(E.D.W is.July2,2015);see'alsoBurchv.Coca-colaCo.. 119F.3d305,314(5* Cir.1995 (explnlningthata's- ongfulterminntionclnlm undertheADA isnotproperly nnnlyzedunderareasonableaccomm odationtheoryunlessan employeiisshownto have termlnated a quallGed indlddualwith a dlsabillty in orderto avold accomm odating that . employee'simpnlrmentsattheworkplaceo);Andersonv.R-ocheCarollnx Inc..4:10-cv-02792, 2012U.S.Dist.LEM S 13118,at*30 (D.S.C.Feb.3,2012)(denyhg s judgmenton a claim of failure to accomm odate where the evidence supported a Ending that the defendant termlnntedtheplaine semploymentins'teadofaccommodatlngherdlsability). Conelusion Forthereasonsstated,thecourtwllldenythedefendnnts'mouontodlsmiss. TheClerkLs diregtedtoRndcopiesofthism emorandum oplnion andtheaccompanylngordertoa11counselof record. DATED:Thls%1F dayofM ay,2019. SeniorUnitd SutesDlstriotJudge 10
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
