Plaintiff Amanda McDade sued defendant Weston County Hospital District (WCHD) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming raising claims of disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The district court dismissed her complaint for failure to state a claim, and McDade appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Factual Overview

McDade began working for WCHD in June 2019 and shortly thereafter became the Human Resources Generalist. In this role, she had access to employee records, payroll, timekeeping, and operation documentation. She allegedly discovered “money mismanagement, illegality, and ethics” problems, which she reported through the proper chain of command. She also reported “allegations of discriminatory policies” and “labor law violations.” According to McDade, WCHD asked her to modify records to cover up these issues, but she refused.

On October 14, 2021, McDade was contacted by a nurse from her primary care physician’s office requesting that she come in for an appointment to discuss medication concerns. McDade declined because she “had no need for an appointment.” Later that day, her physician, Dr. Thurgood (who was also employed by WCHD), visited McDade’s office uninvited. During this conversation, which McDade recorded, Dr. Thurgood revealed that WCHD administrators were concerned about McDade and suggested she exhibited behavior that “would suggest an almost manic” state. Dr. Thurgood further disclosed that WCHD was “talking about potentially involuntary commitment” for McDade under Wyoming’s involuntary commitment statute. Dr. Thurgood indicated she could not make such an assessment due to a conflict of interest. After expressing “fear, terror and shock,” McDade departed and resigned via email that same day.

In April 2022, McDade filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), claiming she belonged to protected groups including “an individual protected under ADA” and that her “disability substantially limits a major life activity.” After receiving a right-to-sue letter, she filed her lawsuit in December 2023, alleging that WCHD “constructively terminated” her employment because of her disability or need for reasonable accommodation.

Legal Analysis

Failure to Plead an Actual Disability

The Tenth Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The court noted that under any disability discrimination claim, a plaintiff must plead and prove that she is disabled within the meaning of the ADA. The ADA defines “disability” as: (A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits major life activities; (B) a record of such impairment; or (C) being regarded as having such an impairment.

The district court concluded that McDade failed to plead the existence of an actual disability because her complaint did not identify what her disability was or how it affected her life. On appeal, McDade did not contest this finding, instead focusing on whether she had properly exhausted the “regarded as” theory of disability.

Administrative Exhaustion of “Regarded As” Theory

The court addressed whether McDade had exhausted her administrative remedies regarding her “regarded as” disabled theory. To satisfy exhaustion, an ADA plaintiff must file an EEOC charge that would reasonably lead to an investigation of the claims later brought in court.

McDade’s EEOC charge stated she belonged to protected groups including “an individual protected under ADA” and that her “disability substantially limits a major life activity.” It also claimed WCHD “failed to make a reasonable accommodation.”

The court rejected McDade’s argument that alleging disability broadly was sufficient to exhaust all three ADA definitions. The court noted that McDade’s EEOC charge specifically alleged an actual disability that “substantially limits a major life activity” and claimed she was owed a reasonable accommodation. Since no reasonable accommodation is owed to those claiming protection under the “regarded as” definition of disability, the court concluded that the EEOC charge focused exclusively on an actual disability theory, not a “regarded as” theory. The court held that McDade failed to exhaust her administrative remedies for any “regarded as” disability claim.

Motion to Strike

The court also addressed WCHD’s motion to strike documents attached to McDade’s pro se reply brief. Since these materials were not before the district court and could not properly be considered in resolving a motion to dismiss, the court granted the motion to strike.

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of McDade’s complaint and granted WCHD’s motion to strike.