The plaintiff, Shelley Cetin, sued her employer, Kansas City Kansas Community College (KCKCC), alleging a failure to accommodate her disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). KCKCC moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b). The motion was overruled.
Cetin’s Factual Allegations:
Shelley Cetin, the plaintiff, has several medical conditions, including asthma, rheumatoid arthritis, hypogammaglobulinemia G, and type 1 diabetes, making her immunocompromised. Because of these conditions, she faced substantial limitations in breathing, interactions with others, and major bodily functions. Cetin was employed by KCKCC as a part-time English as a Second Language instructor in 2010 and later full-time. From April 2020 to May 2021, during the COVID-19 pandemic, KCKCC allowed her to teach remotely via video conference. Even so, in June 2021, the college informed her that her work-from-home accommodation had expired and required her to submit new medical documentation or return to in-person work. Despite submitting medical letters supporting her need to work from home and discussing this with HR representatives, KCKCC denied her request to work from home for the 2021-2022 school year, citing “undue hardship.”
Court’s Analysis and Rulings:
Ripeness and Standing: The Court first addressed the defendant’s claim that Cetin’s lawsuit was not ripe for review, contending that a final decision on her request to work from home had not been made. Even still, the Court overruled this argument, finding that Cetin had suffered a concrete injury by being required to work on campus during the Fall 2021 semester, thus risking exposure to COVID-19. The Court held that the matter was ripe for judicial resolution since the plaintiff had experienced the alleged failure to accommodate.
Failure to State a Claim: KCKCC also argued for dismissal because Cetin’s complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The ADA defines discrimination as not providing reasonable accommodations for known physical or mental limitations unless it causes undue hardship to the employer. The Court found that Cetin had sufficiently alleged that she was disabled, qualified for her job, and had requested a reasonable accommodation (to work from home). These allegations were supported by her claims of performing successfully while working remotely and the college allowing other employees to work from home. Therefore, the Court determined that Cetin had presented a plausible claim for relief under the ADA.
In conclusion, the Court overruled the defendant’s motion to dismiss the first amended complaint, allowing Cetin’s case to proceed.
Schrag on Law 