Ertl v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Company

Background

Vincent J. Ertl alleged that Archer-Daniels-Midland Company discriminated against him because of disability and age. Ertl worked for ADM and its predecessor company from 1995 until June 2020. After eye surgery in 2017, he sought permission to keep his phone with him at work so he could quickly contact his doctor if complications arose. His supervisor denied that request. Ertl later lost eyesight in his right eye, had difficulty reading small print needed for his job, and sought another accommodation. He alleged that ADM did not engage in a meaningful process to identify an accommodation, treated him differently after his surgery, held him to a higher standard, called him an “old timer,” and viewed him as too old for the job.

ADM terminated Ertl’s employment in June 2020. Ertl alleged that the termination was based on disability and age, but was presented as a response to job-performance problems. He brought four claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Counts I and III concerned disability discrimination under state and federal law; Counts II and IV concerned age discrimination under state and federal law. ADM moved to dismiss for failure to state a legally sufficient claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Court’s analysis

The court held that Ertl adequately alleged that he had a disability and was qualified for his position. But it found that he alleged no facts connecting his termination to his disability beyond a conclusory assertion. The court therefore ruled that the disability-termination allegations did not state a plausible claim.

For the Minnesota Human Rights Act accommodation claim, the court held that a failure to accommodate is a separate discriminatory act subject to a one-year filing period. Ertl filed the action on June 4, 2021, so the court ruled that his 2017 accommodation request was untimely. The court also found that Ertl’s later request was described too vaguely to state a plausible claim, and concluded that Count I should be dismissed.

For the federal disability claim, the court declined to dismiss based on failure to pursue an administrative charge because that issue was an affirmative defense that ADM would have to prove. The court ruled that Ertl plausibly alleged a claim based on the 2017 request to keep his phone at work: the allegations indicated that ADM knew about his condition, that he requested an accommodation, that his supervisor denied it, and that another coworker was allowed to keep a phone at work. The court found the later request insufficiently pleaded because Ertl did not state when he made it, how or to whom he conveyed it, or what accommodation he requested.

The court dismissed the age-discrimination claims. It found that the “old timer” remarks were not tied to a particular speaker or time and were not connected to Ertl’s termination. It also ruled that the alleged financial benefit from terminating a higher-paid, senior employee did not itself establish age discrimination. The complaint did not allege facts showing a reasonable connection between the age-related remarks or alleged higher standards and the termination.

Disposition

Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright ordered that ADM’s motion to dismiss be granted as to Counts I, II, and IV, and denied as to Count III. The opinion’s analysis rejects the disability-termination allegations and the later, unspecified accommodation request, while allowing the federal claim based on the 2017 accommodation request to proceed. The order does not state that any claim was dismissed with or without prejudice.