Mulkern v. Lowes Inc.

Background

Kevin Mulkern represented himself in an action against Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC. He alleged four types of claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the New York State Human Rights Law: disability discrimination, retaliation, failure to provide a reasonable accommodation, and hostile work environment. He also asserted a workers’ compensation claim under New York law.

Motion to dismiss

Lowe’s moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Because Mulkern represented himself, the court was required to read his submissions liberally, but it explained that this did not excuse compliance with procedural and substantive legal rules.

ADA claims

The court held that ADA claims generally require a plaintiff to first file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The charge generally must be filed within 180 days of the alleged unlawful employment practice, or within 300 days when the plaintiff initially begins proceedings with an authorized state or local agency.

Mulkern’s complaints stated that he had not filed an EEOC charge and that he believed it was impossible to file one on time. The court therefore found from the face of the complaints that he had not exhausted the required administrative process.

Mulkern argued that equitable tolling should extend the deadline. Equitable tolling is a limited rule that can extend a filing deadline when a person pursued rights diligently but an extraordinary circumstance prevented timely filing. The court assumed, for purposes of its analysis, that Mulkern had acted with reasonable diligence. It nevertheless concluded that he had not shown an extraordinary circumstance.

The court rejected Mulkern’s reliance on the COVID-19 pandemic because he did not provide a sufficiently specific explanation of how the pandemic prevented him from filing an EEOC charge. It also concluded that his allegations about his disability and difficulty understanding his hernia did not provide a sufficiently detailed account of how the disability prevented him from pursuing his rights. The court therefore declined to apply equitable tolling and concluded that the ADA claims were time-barred and subject to dismissal.

State-law claims

After dismissing the federal ADA claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the pending New York claims. Supplemental jurisdiction is a court’s authority to hear related state-law claims alongside federal claims. The court stated that Mulkern could reassert the state-law claims in a future amended complaint, and that whether the court would accept jurisdiction would be reconsidered at that time.

Disposition

Judge Kenneth M. Karas granted Lowe’s motion and dismissed the complaint without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court stated that this was the first adjudication of Mulkern’s claims on the merits, but the dismissal itself was based on the exhaustion requirement. Mulkern was given 30 days from the order’s date to file a second amended complaint alleging additional facts and addressing the identified deficiencies. The court warned that failure to file on time may result in dismissal of the action with prejudice. The Clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion.