Graham v. St. John's United Methodist Church
913 F. Supp. 2d 650, 27 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 474, 2012 WL 5298156 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff states a plausible claim for disability discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by alleging a permanent cognitive impairment that substantially limits major life activities, or that the employer regarded them as having such an impairment, and that the employer failed to reasonably accommodate or retaliated for protected activity.
Facts:
- In 1996, Richard Graham suffered a severe beating resulting in permanent cognitive difficulties, making it hard for him to articulate thoughts, comprehend slowly, and making him very acquiescent, especially with authority figures.
- In August 2008, St. John's United Methodist Church ("St. John's") hired Graham as a part-time custodian, initially promising 25 hours per week.
- Reverend Sheryl Palmer ("Palmer") required Graham, who had assumed all custodial duties, to work 35-40 hours weekly, seven days a week, but paid him for only 25 hours, while calling him "stupid" and "retard" and allowing others to do the same.
- Graham repeatedly requested accommodation for his mental challenges, including communication through his advocates, Julia and Darol Holsman, which St. John's initially allowed but later refused.
- About June 6, 2011, the Holsmans, members of St. John’s and advocates for Graham, asked the Illinois Great Rivers Conference of the United Methodist Church (IGRC) to investigate Palmer's mistreatment of Graham and helped Graham file a complaint with the Illinois Department of Labor (IDOL).
- In July 2011, the Holsmans informed Palmer and St. John's that Graham was ill and scheduled for surgery.
- On August 17, 2011, Palmer sent Graham a letter stating that if he did not notify St. John’s of his health status by August 23, 2011, St. John’s would "assume [he] resigned his position."
- On August 23, 2011, Graham was discharged.
Procedural Posture:
- In April 2012, Richard Graham filed an 8-count complaint against St. John's United Methodist Church, The Illinois Great Rivers Conference of the United Methodist Church, and Reverend Sheryl Palmer in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.
- Graham's complaint alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Illinois Wage and Collection Act (IWPCA), and common law actions for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent supervision.
- St. John's filed a motion to dismiss Counts 1 through 4 of Graham’s complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a complaint sufficiently state claims for disability discrimination (including failure to accommodate) and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and its amendments, as well as a hostile work environment claim, to survive a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)?
Opinions:
Majority - REAGAN, District Judge
Yes, Graham's complaint sufficiently states claims for disability discrimination and retaliation under the ADA to survive a motion to dismiss, but it does not sufficiently state a hostile work environment claim. The Court found Graham alleged sufficient facts to meet the ADA definition of an individual with a disability, specifically permanent brain damage causing difficulty articulating thoughts, slowness to comprehend, and difficulty challenging authority figures, which are major life activities. The ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA) mandates a broad construction of "disability" and "substantially limits." Graham also sufficiently pleaded that St. John's "regarded him as" disabled, evidenced by Palmer calling him a "retard," exploiting his mental impairment, and accepting the Holsmans as his advocates. Graham also adequately pleaded a failure to accommodate, as St. John's unilaterally withdrew an agreed-upon accommodation (communication through Holsmans) and failed to engage in the interactive process to find an alternative. Regarding the hostile work environment claim, Graham failed to respond to St. John’s motion to dismiss, which, under Local Rule 7.1(c), allowed the Court to consider this an admission of the motion's merits, leading to its dismissal. For the retaliation claim, Graham alleged he was discharged after engaging in statutorily protected activities—attempting to resolve concerns about unpaid hours and complaining to the EEOC and IDOL about discrimination. These allegations support a viable claim of retaliation under the ADA, which protects employees who assert their rights, even if initial claims are meritless. Graham also voluntarily withdrew his claim for compensatory damages for ADA retaliation, and the motion to strike punitive damages was denied as moot since none were claimed for that count.
Analysis:
This case highlights the pleading standards required for ADA claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) following Twombly. It emphasizes the broad scope of "disability" under the ADAAA and the importance of pleading facts that demonstrate a substantial limitation of a major life activity or that the employer regarded the individual as disabled. The decision also underscores the employer's responsibility to engage in an interactive process for reasonable accommodations and the protection afforded to employees who report discrimination, regardless of the ultimate merits of their initial claim.
