Howell v. STRM LLC - Garden of Eden

Background

Natalia Howell, representing herself, sued her former employer, identified in the opinion as 21227 Foothill, LLC and named as STRM LLC - Garden of Eden, along with owners Soufyan Abouahmed and Shareef Radwan El-Sissi and former manager Andrew Do. She alleged that denial of work hours, refusal to promote her, and termination were unlawful discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, and disability under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. She also alleged disability discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Howell alleged that she was injured at work, diagnosed with a herniated disc and sciatic nerve pain, and requested accommodations including a stool, a step stool, masks, floor padding, and standing pads. She also requested leave for physical therapy. According to her allegations, the accommodations were denied and her employment was terminated after she requested leave. She further alleged that managers and owners made comments about gender and sexual orientation, restricted her interactions with women, reduced her hours, and threatened to deny workers’ compensation and benefits if she did not withdraw a complaint to the Department of Fair Housing and Employment.

Court’s analysis

The court considered whether the Second Amended Complaint plausibly alleged the required elements of the claims. For the Title VII gender and sexual-orientation claims, the court found that Howell’s allegations about comments and different treatment, including restrictions on speaking with female customers and accepting their phone numbers, supported an inference that her hours were reduced because of her gender and sexual orientation.

The court found that Howell had not adequately connected the adverse employment actions to her race. She alleged that another employee, Ashley, received better treatment, but did not identify Ashley’s race or job position. The court also found that the statement about what Howell was “mixed with,” standing alone, did not establish race discrimination. The court separately explained that disability is not a protected class under Title VII.

For the Americans with Disabilities Act claim, the court held that Howell adequately alleged that she was a qualified individual. Although her request for medical leave suggested that she could not work at the time of termination, the court explained that medical leave may be a reasonable accommodation if it would allow an employee to perform the job’s essential functions after returning. Howell alleged that leave for physical therapy and later accommodations could have allowed her to resume working.

The court also relied on its earlier ruling that Howell had adequately pleaded her ADA retaliation claim and that the individual defendants could not be held individually liable under Title VII or the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Disposition

Judge JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. The motion was granted as to Howell’s Title VII race claim and Title VII disability claim, and as to her claims against the individual defendants. The motion was denied as to her Title VII gender and sexual-orientation claims, ADA disability-discrimination claim, and ADA retaliation claim.

Howell was granted leave to amend only her Title VII race claim, and was required to file an amended complaint within 21 days. The Title VII disability claim and claims against the individual defendants were dismissed with prejudice. The order disposed of Docket No. 38.