Plaintiff Awntwanay Swepson sued defendant Aimbridge Employee Corp. in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, raising claims of disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and hostile work environment under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Before the court is Defendant Aimbridge’s motion for summary judgment.
Statement of Undisputed Facts
Aimbridge employed Swepson as a Front Desk Agent/Housekeeping employee from July 1, 2021, to October 31, 2021. Swepson claimed to have physical disabilities including plantar fasciitis and foot injuries, as well as mental conditions including PTSD, depression, and anxiety. During her employment, Swepson requested and received accommodations including a chair and modified work schedules. She experienced three workplace incidents: one with a bartender trainer who said she could not sit while training, and two separate confrontations with coworkers. When the hotel changed management companies, Swepson failed to attend a required onboarding session with the new company and her employment ended.
The court noted significant issues with how the plaintiff presented her factual responses to the summary judgment motion, finding many of her additional facts were actually legal conclusions rather than facts and failed to properly dispute defendant’s stated facts.
Legal Analysis
Disability Status: The court found Swepson failed to establish she was disabled under the ADA because she provided no evidence that her claimed impairments substantially limited any major life activities. While she testified about impacts on various activities, she offered only conclusory statements without specific evidence of substantial limitations.
Failure to Accommodate: The court determined that even if Swepson was disabled, Aimbridge provided all requested accommodations, including a chair and modified schedules. There was no evidence of any denied accommodation requests.
Disparate Treatment: The court found Swepson failed to identify any adverse employment actions taken because of disability. The incidents she cited did not qualify as adverse actions, and she provided no evidence linking any employment decisions to her claimed disabilities.
Hostile Work Environment: The court concluded the three cited incidents were neither severe nor pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment, and there was no evidence they were related to any disability.
The court granted summary judgment to Aimbridge on all claims, finding Swepson failed to establish she was disabled under the ADA and, alternatively, failed to present sufficient evidence to support any of her substantive claims.
Schrag on Law 