West v. Scott Laboratories, Inc.

Background

Stephen Michael West sued his former employer, Scott Laboratories, Inc., under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the ADA Amendments Act of 2008. West had worked for Scott Laboratories as a Senior Service Technician since September 2018. The company required employees who interacted with customers face-to-face to complete at-home COVID-19 tests. After West asked questions about the tests’ safety and ingredients and did not consent to testing, company employees terminated his employment on September 14, 2021.

West alleged disability discrimination and retaliation. He said Scott Laboratories’ policy regarded him as having a disability and created a record of such a disability. He also alleged that the company retaliated against him by imposing the testing policy and terminating him. Scott Laboratories moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. West opposed the motion and requested permission to amend.

The court disregarded an amended complaint West filed after the deadline and without the required permission or the company’s consent. The court also granted Scott Laboratories’ request for judicial notice of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission policy concerning workplace COVID-19 testing, but denied its request concerning the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s explanation of at-home test use.

Discrimination claim

To state an ADA disability-discrimination claim, a plaintiff must allege that they have a disability, are qualified for the job, and suffered an adverse employment action because of the disability. The ADA recognizes a disability based on an actual impairment, a record of an impairment, or being regarded as having an impairment.

The court held that West’s “regarded as” theory failed because the COVID-19 condition he described was “transitory and minor” under the ADA. The court stated that COVID-19 is generally temporary and minor, so being perceived as having COVID-19 is not an ADA disability on the allegations in this case. The court also rejected West’s “record of” theory because he did not allege that Scott Laboratories classified him as having an impairment that substantially limited a major life activity. A record of a condition that is not an ADA disability did not satisfy this requirement.

Because West did not allege an ADA disability, the court concluded that he could not state a discrimination claim. It therefore granted Scott Laboratories’ motion to dismiss the disability-discrimination claim with prejudice.

Retaliation claim

The ADA prohibits retaliation against a person for opposing conduct made unlawful by the ADA or participating in an ADA investigation or proceeding. A retaliation claim requires protected activity, an adverse employment action, and a causal connection between the two.

The court held that West did not plausibly allege the required causal connection. Scott Laboratories adopted the COVID-19 policy before West objected to it, and West did not allege that the company adopted the policy because of him. The court also found that the stated reason for his termination was his refusal to comply with the testing policy, not his objection to the policy. The court further stated that asking questions about the tests and refusing to take one were not protected ADA activity on the allegations presented, because West did not plausibly allege that the policy violated the ADA or that his conduct sought an ADA remedy.

The court granted Scott Laboratories’ motion to dismiss the retaliation claim with prejudice. It denied West leave to amend because it found that amendment would be futile.

Disposition

The court granted Scott Laboratories’ motion to dismiss. It dismissed both West’s disability-discrimination claim and retaliation claim with prejudice, denied West leave to amend, granted the company’s first request for judicial notice, and denied its second request for judicial notice.