Plaintiff Melissa Burns Burr sued defendant T-Mobile USA, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, raising claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Defendant T-Mobile USA, Inc. moved to dismiss Count IV of plaintiff’s complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).
Factual Overview
Plaintiff Melissa Burns Burr worked for defendant T-Mobile USA, Inc. from December 2021 to January 2023. Burr has a back impairment that limits her ability to stand and walk. In spring 2022, Burr experienced significant back issues requiring her to sit occasionally at work. Her store manager initially allowed her to use a chair, but Burr lacked a designated chair and sometimes had to stand or ask trainees for their seats.
Burr informed T-Mobile that she needed an accommodation – access to a chair so she could occasionally sit while working. T-Mobile denied the accommodation, suggesting it would impose an undue burden and prevent Burr from fulfilling her essential job functions. T-Mobile then suggested Burr take leave. After Burr took short-term leave for an unrelated medical issue, T-Mobile required her to restart the accommodation request process. Burr filed a new claim, but T-Mobile neither granted her request nor engaged in interactive discussions about the accommodation.
In October 2022, Burr filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against T-Mobile for disability discrimination and retaliation. In January 2023, T-Mobile required Burr to file another accommodation claim and participate in an independent medical exam. Burr filed a third claim but refused the medical exam, viewing it as retaliatory. Burr eventually resigned, alleging constructive discharge. She then filed a second EEOC charge. After the EEOC dismissed both charges, Burr filed this lawsuit asserting claims under the ADA.
Legal Analysis
Failure to Engage in Interactive Process as Independent Cause of Action: T-Mobile moved to dismiss Count IV, which alleged a failure to engage in the interactive process, arguing that the Tenth Circuit does not recognize this as an independent cause of action under the ADA. The court agreed with T-Mobile’s position, citing Tenth Circuit precedent that explicitly states that failure to engage in the interactive process is not independently actionable under the ADA.
Plaintiff’s Argument: Burr argued that her claim aligned with Tenth Circuit caselaw, asserting that while a claim cannot be based “solely” on failure to engage in the interactive process, it is permissible if the plaintiff can also show that a reasonable accommodation was possible. The court rejected this argument, explaining that Burr misunderstood the cited precedent.
Court’s Interpretation of Precedent: The court clarified that the requirement to show both a failure to engage in the interactive process and the possibility of a reasonable accommodation applies in the context of a failure to accommodate claim, not as an independent cause of action for failure to engage in the interactive process. The court emphasized that failure to engage in the interactive process is one prong of a failure to accommodate claim but cannot stand alone as an independent cause of action.
The court granted T-Mobile’s motion to dismiss Count IV with prejudice, finding that Burr failed to state a claim for an unrecognized right under the ADA.
Schrag on Law 