Koonce v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc.

Background

Michael Koonce sued his former employer, Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., asserting claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL). The claims relevant to the motion alleged disability discrimination, race discrimination, and failure to accommodate disabilities.

Koonce alleged that he suffered a concussion in a workplace injury in January 2020. After returning to work, he requested permission to arrive five to ten minutes late once or twice a week because concussion symptoms and medication affected his ability to drive. He alleged that his supervisor initially approved the arrangement, but that he was later disciplined for lateness and the accommodation was eventually withdrawn.

Koonce also alleged that he had diabetes and related urinary urgency. Whole Foods permitted him to take bathroom breaks when needed. He alleged that he sometimes entered the bathroom without removing his apron because of the urgency, then put on a new apron afterward. He further alleged that he told supervisors about this practice and was later disciplined for failing to remove the apron before using the bathroom.

Koonce, who is Black, also alleged that he was targeted for store-policy violations because of his race, that non-Black employees were not disciplined for similar conduct, and that a disproportionate number of Black employees in his department had been terminated. He alleged that he complained about race discrimination and was told to “go with the flow.” He was terminated on May 4, 2021.

The Motion and Timing of the ADA Claims

Whole Foods filed a partial motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Whole Foods did not move to dismiss Koonce’s retaliation claims under the ADA, Title VII, and the NYSHRL.

Koonce filed his Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge on November 10, 2021. Because an ADA employment-discrimination charge generally must be filed within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory act, the court ruled that events before January 14, 2021, would not be considered in evaluating the ADA claims. The court specifically dismissed, to that extent, ADA claims based on the September 2020 discipline for lateness.

ADA Disability Discrimination

The court dismissed Count I, Koonce’s ADA disability-discrimination claim. The ADA protects a qualified individual who has a disability, which includes an impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a record of such an impairment, or being regarded as having such an impairment.

As to the concussion, Koonce alleged that symptoms and medication delayed his ability to drive by five to ten minutes. The court stated that driving and commuting to work are generally not major life activities and concluded that, even if driving to work qualified, the alleged delay was not a substantial limitation. The court also found that Koonce’s references to thinking, concentrating, and maintaining balance were conclusory because he did not provide specific facts showing a substantial limitation.

As to diabetes and incontinence, the court found that allegations that the conditions affected or impeded his job functions did not plausibly show a substantial limitation of a major life activity. Koonce also did not allege that these conditions prevented him from working in a broad range or class of jobs. The court therefore concluded that he had not plausibly alleged an ADA disability. It also rejected his assertion that his doctor’s note established a record of disability because, as alleged, the note did not show a substantial impairment of a major life activity.

NYSHRL Disability Discrimination

The court denied dismissal of Count VI, Koonce’s NYSHRL disability-discrimination claim. The court explained that the NYSHRL’s definition of disability is broader than the ADA’s and that any medically diagnosable impairment can qualify under the state law.

The court found that Koonce plausibly alleged that his concussion, diabetes, and incontinence were medically diagnosable impairments. It also found sufficient allegations connecting those impairments to the conduct for which he was disciplined and terminated. These allegations included discipline for lateness after an allegedly approved accommodation, criticism of his continued use of that accommodation, and discipline for failing to remove his apron before using the restroom. The court also noted the close timing between some of these events and his termination.

Failure to Accommodate

The court dismissed Count II, Koonce’s ADA failure-to-accommodate claim, because he had not plausibly alleged that he had a disability under the ADA.

The court also dismissed Count VII, his NYSHRL failure-to-accommodate claim. Regarding the lateness accommodation, the court found that Koonce did not plausibly allege a connection between the alleged withdrawal of the accommodation and his termination six days later. The court noted that he had also alleged discipline for other store-policy violations before the conversation in which the accommodation was allegedly withdrawn.

Regarding the bathroom-related accommodation, the court found that Koonce alleged he informed supervisors about his practice but did not allege that he directly requested permission to wear the apron into the bathroom and replace it before returning to work. The court stated that a worker must affirmatively request an accommodation before claiming that the employer denied it.

NYSHRL Race Discrimination

The court denied dismissal of Count V, Koonce’s NYSHRL race-discrimination claim. At the pleading stage, he needed to allege an adverse employment action and facts supporting a plausible inference that race was a motivating factor.

The court found that termination was an adverse employment action. It also found sufficient allegations of discriminatory motivation, including Koonce’s assertion that non-Black employees were not disciplined for similar violations, the alleged termination of two of four Black employees in his department during a two-month period, and the alleged failure of supervisors to address his complaints about race discrimination.

Disposition

The court held that Whole Foods’s motion was granted in part and denied in part. Counts I, II, and VII were dismissed: ADA disability discrimination, ADA failure to accommodate, and NYSHRL failure to accommodate. Counts III, IV, V, VI, and VIII were allowed to proceed, subject to the ruling that events before January 14, 2021, would not be considered in evaluating the ADA claims. The court directed Whole Foods to answer the amended complaint by December 15, 2023, and instructed the clerk to terminate the motion.