Howell v. STRM LLC - Garden of Eden

Background

Natalia Howell, proceeding without a lawyer, sued her former employer, identified in the opinion as 21227 Foothill, LLC doing business as Garden of Eden and named in the caption as STRM LLC - Garden of Eden, along with owners Soufyan Abouahmed and Shareef Radwan El-Sissi and manager Andrew Do. She brought claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Howell alleged that she was injured at work in June 2018 and developed a herniated disc with sciatic nerve pain. She alleged that she was terminated while on medical leave. Her claims challenged her termination and other alleged actions, including denial of hours, time off, advancement, and promotions, as well as ostracism. She alleged discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, and disability, and alleged disability-based retaliation.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim. The court also considered documents attached to Howell’s amended complaint, including medical notes and the termination letter.

Title VII discrimination claims

The court granted the motion to dismiss Howell’s Title VII race, gender, and sexual-orientation discrimination claims. The court concluded that Howell alleged protected characteristics and adverse employment actions, such as termination and denial of hours, time off, advancement, and promotions. But she did not allege facts showing that she performed her job satisfactorily or facts supporting an inference that the defendants acted because of her race, gender, or sexual orientation. The court noted that her allegations did not identify similarly situated employees outside those protected groups who were treated more favorably, and did not include direct evidence such as discriminatory comments.

The court also stated that disability is not a protected class under Title VII. It granted dismissal of these claims with leave to amend as to Garden of Eden.

ADA disability-discrimination claim

The court treated Howell’s ADA disability-discrimination allegations as a possible disparate-treatment claim. It concluded that she adequately alleged a disability because she claimed that her injury prevented her from walking, standing, or bending and caused constant radiating pain, and because medical notes excused her from work during July and August 2018.

The court found, however, that Howell did not adequately allege that she was an otherwise qualified individual—meaning someone able to perform the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodation. Her complaint suggested that she could not return to work, while the attached termination letter stated that Kaiser had released her to work with activity modifications and that the defendants had agreed to provide accommodations. Because of this conflict, the court found that the claim did not adequately allege the qualification element. It granted dismissal of the ADA discrimination claim with leave to amend as to Garden of Eden.

ADA retaliation claim

The court denied the motion to dismiss Howell’s ADA retaliation claim. It concluded that requesting a leave of absence because of an injury could qualify as protected activity, that termination was a materially adverse employment action, and that the timing supported a causal connection. The defendants received a medical note excusing Howell from work on the same day they issued the termination notice, and the termination letter identified her failure to return to work as the reason for termination.

Claims against individual defendants

The court granted the motion to dismiss the Title VII and ADA claims against Abouahmed, El-Sissi, and Do. It held that individuals cannot be personally liable under either Title VII or the ADA. The court therefore did not need to decide the defendants’ separate argument that the individual defendants were not named in Howell’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge.

Other request and disposition

The court denied Howell’s ex parte request because her declaration did not identify legal authority for the requested relief. The declaration referred to allegations including stalking, credit alerts, improper acquisition of personal information, threats, and kidnapping.

The court vacated the scheduled hearing, granted the motion to dismiss the Title VII and ADA discrimination claims with leave to amend as to Garden of Eden and without leave to amend as to the individual defendants, and denied the motion to dismiss the retaliation claim. The order gave Howell until October 26, 2020, to file an amended complaint if she chose to do so.