Brandon Johnson sued BlueCross BlueShield Kansas Solutions, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, asserting claims for failure to accommodate, disability discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act, and the Kansas Acts Against Discrimination (KAAD), as well as wrongful termination under Kansas law. Defendant moved to dismiss all claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Factual Overview
Johnson began working in defendant’s Customer Service department in November 2015. He suffered from a gastrointestinal condition requiring extended breaks during the workday. In January 2021, after his supervisor questioned his breaks, Johnson’s physician completed disability forms requesting two 15-20 minute breaks daily. HR initially approved the accommodation for six months but later denied a renewal request in July 2022.
In October 2022, HR notified Johnson he could no longer take 20-minute bathroom breaks. By February 2023, the company began docking his PTO for breaks exceeding his weekly allotment. Johnson filed an EEOC charge that month. After multiple conflicts with management over his accommodation requests and meetings to discuss his “bad attitude,” defendant terminated Johnson’s employment in October 2023. Johnson received his right-to-sue letter in March 2024 and filed this lawsuit in June 2024.
Legal Analysis
Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies: The court found that Johnson’s EEOC charge only encompassed his failure to accommodate and disability discrimination claims. The hostile work environment and retaliation claims were not reasonably related to the EEOC charge allegations and therefore were not properly exhausted.
Disability Status Under ADA/KAAD: The court determined that Johnson’s allegations about his gastrointestinal condition failed to adequately plead that he was disabled under the ADA or KAAD. His conclusory statement about needing extended breaks did not sufficiently allege how his condition substantially limited a major life activity.
Rehabilitation Act Claim: The court dismissed Johnson’s Rehabilitation Act retaliation claim because he failed to allege that defendant was a federal agency or recipient of federal funds subject to the Act.
Wrongful Termination: The court found that Johnson’s wrongful termination claim under Kansas common law was precluded because the KAAD provided an adequate and exclusive remedy for his discrimination claims.
The court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss all claims and denied Johnson’s request to amend his complaint as procedurally improper.
Schrag on Law 