Andre Bell sued T-Mobile USA, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). T-Mobile moved to dismiss Count IV of the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Factual Overview
Bell worked for T-Mobile from May 2021 to January 2023 as a Mobile Expert and was pursuing a promotion to supervisor. He suffered from seizures that caused him to lose consciousness and limited his major life activities. In January 2021, Bell had a seizure and submitted a doctor’s note, but T-Mobile allegedly failed to accommodate his disability or engage in an interactive process regarding accommodations.
In August 2022, Bell experienced two separate seizures and informed T-Mobile he couldn’t work after each incident. T-Mobile responded with disciplinary write-ups, including discipline for missing work due to sleep apnea. When Bell objected, T-Mobile required him to prove his disability through a third-party system called Broadspire. Although Bell claims Broadspire never sent the required paperwork to his doctor’s office, T-Mobile informed him that even if he had used the Broadspire system, his discipline would not be retracted. Bell was subsequently subjected to additional discipline and ultimately terminated.
Bell filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC in July 2023, received his Notice of Right to Sue in January 2024, and filed this action in April 2024.
Legal Analysis
Independent Cause of Action for Interactive Process: The court addressed whether the ADA recognizes a separate cause of action for failing to engage in an interactive process when an employer is notified of a disability. The court noted that while employers must participate in an interactive process with employees requesting accommodation for qualifying disabilities, the Tenth Circuit has established that failure to engage in this process is not independently actionable under the ADA. While such failure can support a failure to accommodate claim, it cannot stand as an independent cause of action.
The court granted T-Mobile’s motion to dismiss Count IV of the complaint with prejudice.
Schrag on Law 