Andria Borsody sued Federal Express Corporation (FedEx) in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, raising claims of gender discrimination, disability discrimination, failure to accommodate a disability, violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, workers’ compensation retaliation, and breach of contract. The matter came before the court on Borsody’s second Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint.
Factual Overview
Borsody initially filed an employment discrimination complaint against FedEx using the court’s standard form. FedEx moved to partially dismiss the complaint, and Judge Teeter granted the motion, dismissing claims for failure to accommodate a disability, violation of § 1981, workers’ compensation retaliation, and breach of contract. The court invited Borsody to file a motion for leave to amend with proper factual support. After an initial motion was denied for procedural deficiencies, Borsody filed a second motion for leave to amend, seeking to assert six claims. FedEx opposed three of the proposed claims as futile.
Legal Analysis
Gender Discrimination Claim: The court found Borsody’s gender discrimination claim insufficient because while she alleged she “identifies as female but dresses in a manner typically associated with male” and received “unfair job assignments,” she failed to provide specific facts about differential treatment compared to others outside her protected class.
Section 1981 Claim: The court determined the proposed § 1981 claim was deficient because Borsody failed to allege any facts demonstrating race-based discrimination, which is required for such claims.
Breach of Contract Claim: Despite Borsody’s at-will employment status, the court found her breach of contract claim could proceed based on Kansas law recognizing implied-in-fact contracts between employers and employees. The court determined that whether FedEx’s policies created such a contract was a question for the jury.
The court granted Borsody leave to amend her complaint to include claims for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate a disability, workers’ compensation retaliation, and breach of contract, but recommended denying leave to amend regarding the gender discrimination and § 1981 claims.
Schrag on Law 