Summer-Annie Johnson v. Resorts World Hudson Valley

Background

Summer-Annie Johnson filed the action without a lawyer and was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees. She alleged that her former employer, Resorts World Hudson Valley, discriminated against her because of a medical issue and retaliated against her. The court understood her complaint to raise claims under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the New York State Human Rights Law.

Johnson alleged that a human-resources employee told her she needed a doctor’s note to wear a mask at work. After she provided a note, she said that security supervisors repeatedly complained that they could not hear her over the radio and pressured her to remove the mask. She alleged that she was pressured for another doctor’s note, that supervisors used other methods to remove her from the job, and that she was criticized for poor performance, calling out sick, and not following directions. She also alleged that she was written up for accidentally taking a company radio home, completed an employment survey, and was then terminated. She identified her injury as acne and sought $55,000 in damages.

Court’s analysis

The court applied the screening standard for complaints filed without prepaying fees. Under that standard, the court must dismiss a complaint that is frivolous, seeks relief from an immune defendant, or fails to state a legally sufficient claim. The complaint also must provide enough factual detail to make the claim plausible, rather than merely reciting legal conclusions.

For the discrimination claims, the court explained that an ADA plaintiff must allege that the employer is covered by the law, that the plaintiff had or was regarded as having a disability, that the plaintiff was qualified for the job, that an adverse employment action occurred, and that the action was because of the disability. The Rehabilitation Act uses a largely similar standard but also requires the employer to be a federal executive agency, the United States Postal Service, or a recipient of federal funding.

The court held that Johnson did not allege facts showing a disability under either statute. She alleged that she had a doctor’s note allowing her to wear a mask and that she had acne, but she did not identify an impairment that substantially limited a major life activity or facts showing that the employer regarded her as having such an impairment. The court also held that, even assuming she had a disability or was regarded as disabled, the complaint did not suggest that her termination or another adverse employment action occurred because of that disability. The court granted leave to replead these claims.

For retaliation, the court explained that Johnson had to allege protected activity, the employer’s knowledge of that activity, an adverse action, and a causal connection between the activity and the action. The court assumed for purposes of its analysis that her doctor’s note could constitute a request for a reasonable accommodation. It nevertheless held that the complaint did not show that the request to wear a mask was the but-for cause of her termination. Johnson did not allege facts showing retaliatory hostility, and the timing of the termination was unclear. The court noted that she appeared to allege that the termination occurred soon after an employment survey, whose details she did not describe. The court dismissed the ADA and Rehabilitation Act retaliation claims for failure to state a claim, while granting leave to amend.

State-law claims and disposition

Because the court dismissed the federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction, it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—over any New York State Human Rights Law claims Johnson may have been asserting.

The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim and granted Johnson 30 days’ leave to file an amended complaint addressing the identified deficiencies. The court directed the Clerk to keep the matter open until a civil judgment is entered. If Johnson does not file an amended complaint within the allowed period, the court stated that the Clerk will be directed to enter judgment.