Zeleke v. Phyllis Wheatley Community Center

Background

Plaintiff Kushinda Furaha Zeleke began working at Defendant Phyllis Wheatley Community Center (PWCC), a Minneapolis organization, in August 2021 as an IT Operations and Technical Skills Coordinator. In or around March 2022, he was diagnosed with multiple mental health conditions that, he alleges, substantially limit one or more major life activities. In August 2022, he disclosed his disability-related limitations to PWCC and requested a reasonable accommodation; PWCC agreed to a hybrid remote-work schedule. According to Zeleke, PWCC did not consistently implement the accommodation and, in 2024, conditioned a compensation improvement on his relinquishing it. When he refused, PWCC allegedly increased scrutiny of his performance, intensified micromanagement, and assigned him duties outside his IT role.

In October 2024, Zeleke requested intermittent leave and a modified remote-work accommodation related to his mother's medical condition; his supervisor granted the request. An employee of Defendant Metropolitan Alliance of Connected Communities (MACC) contacted Zeleke about non-FMLA leave but allegedly failed to provide clear written documentation of eligibility, designation, or rights. Zeleke submitted paperwork to MACC in December 2024 but received no response. He continued working in a reduced capacity while facing what he describes as intensified micromanagement that worsened his disability symptoms.

On January 3, 2025, PWCC terminated Zeleke's employment, citing no-call/no-show, failure to communicate, and/or job abandonment. Zeleke alleges these reasons are false and pretextual, masking disability discrimination, interference with protected leave, and retaliation.

Procedural History

Zeleke filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a required step before suing under the ADA. On March 26, 2025, the EEOC issued a Notice of Right to Sue, which Zeleke received electronically that same day. The notice stated that any federal lawsuit had to be filed within ninety days of receipt, making the deadline June 24, 2025. On June 20, 2025, Zeleke attempted to file in state court, but that case was administratively closed due to procedural and filing-fee issues before service could occur. On July 3, 2025—nine days after the federal deadline—Zeleke filed this action in federal court. After the defendants moved to dismiss his Amended Complaint, Zeleke sought and was permitted to file a Second Amended Complaint (SAC), which added Defendant Corporate Technologies and asserted six counts: (1) ADA disability discrimination; (2) ADA failure to accommodate; (3) Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) disability discrimination; (4) MHRA failure to accommodate; (5) Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) interference; and (6) Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) unauthorized access. Defendants then moved to dismiss the SAC.

Legal Standard

The court applied the standard from Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal: to survive a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead enough facts to make relief plausible on its face, not merely speculative. The court accepted all factual allegations as true and drew reasonable inferences in Zeleke's favor, but did not accept conclusory statements or legal conclusions.

Analysis

Counts 1 and 2 — ADA Claims (Dismissed with Prejudice)

Before suing under the ADA, a plaintiff must exhaust administrative remedies by filing an EEOC charge. Once the EEOC issues its right-to-sue notice, the plaintiff has ninety days to file a civil action. The parties did not dispute that Zeleke received the notice on March 26, 2025, making the deadline June 24, 2025. Zeleke filed his federal complaint on July 3, 2025, nine days late.

The court noted that the Eighth Circuit strictly enforces this ninety-day period even against self-represented (pro se) litigants. The court also rejected any basis for equitable tolling—a doctrine that can pause a deadline when circumstances outside the plaintiff's control prevent timely filing. Equitable tolling requires some positive misconduct by the opposing party, such as misleading the plaintiff, or a third party's fraudulent conduct. Zeleke did not allege that his late filing was caused by anything beyond his control. The court acknowledged his good-faith state-court attempt but noted that ignorance of legal rights does not toll a statute of limitations under Eighth Circuit precedent. The ADA claims were dismissed with prejudice as time-barred.

Count 5 — FMLA Claim (Dismissed without Prejudice)

The FMLA provides eligible employees with unpaid leave for qualifying medical and family reasons, but it applies only to private-sector employers with fifty or more employees. Zeleke's own SAC stated that PWCC reports having approximately thirty-four employees. Because Zeleke did not allege that PWCC meets the fifty-employee threshold to qualify as an "employer" under the FMLA, the court dismissed this claim.

Count 6 — CFAA Claim (Dismissed without Prejudice)

Zeleke alleged that Defendants gained access to systems and devices associated with him without his consent after his termination, in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The CFAA prohibits knowingly and with intent to defraud accessing a "protected computer" without authorization. The court identified the most significant pleading deficiency: Zeleke alleged intentional and willful conduct but did not allege the statutory requirement of acting "knowingly and with intent to defraud," nor did he plead any facts from which such intent could be inferred. The court dismissed this claim.

Counts 3 and 4 — MHRA Claims (Dismissed without Prejudice)

With all federal claims dismissed, the only remaining claims were Zeleke's state-law claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) for disability discrimination and failure to accommodate. Federal courts have discretionary authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) to decline jurisdiction over state-law claims when all federal claims have been eliminated. The court noted the Eighth Circuit's guidance that in the usual case where federal claims are dismissed before trial, the balance of factors favors declining supplemental jurisdiction. Finding no reason to depart from that default, the court declined jurisdiction and dismissed the MHRA claims without prejudice, leaving open the possibility that Zeleke may pursue them in state court.

Disposition

The court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in its entirety. Counts 1 and 2 (ADA) were dismissed with prejudice. Counts 3 and 4 (MHRA) were dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Counts 5 and 6 (FMLA and CFAA) were dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim. Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.