Plaintiff Brad Pearce sued defendant Muskogee County, Oklahoma, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma, raising claims of violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act. The court is considering Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s claims under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act.
Factual Overview
Brad Pearce, who worked for Muskogee County from May 2017 until September 9, 2021, alleges that following surgery in April 2021 to remove potentially cancerous lesions in his colon, he requested medical accommodation for light duty upon his return to work. Pearce claims Muskogee County refused to engage in an interactive process to provide a reasonable accommodation, citing a policy against light duty and requiring employees to work without restrictions. Despite a doctor’s note stating he could return to work without restrictions, Pearce’s requests for medical accommodation for further treatment were denied, and his job duties were reduced. He alleges that his supervisor, Keith Hyslop, set him up to fail and eventually orchestrated his termination on September 9, 2021. Pearce claims he suffered lost wages, benefits, and emotional distress, and asserts that he exhausted his administrative remedies by filing a timely EEOC charge of discrimination.
Legal Analysis
Administrative Remedies Exhaustion: The Defendant argued that Pearce failed to exhaust his administrative remedies required to assert a claim under the ADA, specifically contending that Pearce did not file suit within ninety days of receiving the right-to-sue letter from the EEOC. However, the court found that there was a factual dispute regarding when Pearce actually received the right-to-sue letter, preventing resolution of the exhaustion issue through a motion to dismiss.
Sufficiency of Claim under the Rehabilitation Act: The Defendant also contended that Pearce failed to state a claim under the Rehabilitation Act by not alleging that the Defendant is a program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. The court, aligning with precedents, determined that such specificity was not required at the dismissal stage. The court held that it is not necessary for a plaintiff to specifically allege this element of the prima facie case to survive dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).
Conclusion The court denied Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, allowing Brad Pearce’s claims under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act to proceed.
Schrag on Law 