U.S. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Gulf Logistics Operating, Inc.
Docket: CIVIL ACTION NO. 17–9362
Court: District Court, E.D. Louisiana; March 7, 2018; Federal District Court
Defendant Gulf Logistics Operating, Inc. filed a 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss, which was opposed by the EEOC. The Court denied the motion. The factual background reveals that Jason Gunderson was hired as a deckhand in October 2012 and faced no disciplinary actions during his employment. Following personal issues in January 2013, he experienced emotional distress and sought assistance from the Employee Assistance Program (EAP). After requesting help, Gunderson was informed by his manager, Randy Whittaker, that he could not return to work without a medical release due to safety concerns linked to his emotional state. He returned to work with a doctor’s note confirming he had 'situational' depression and could work without restrictions. However, he was discharged two weeks later, on June 5, 2013. Gunderson filed a charge with the EEOC, which found reasonable cause for disability discrimination and issued a Letter of Determination. After unsuccessful attempts at conciliation, the EEOC filed a complaint alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADAAA), claiming Gunderson was discharged due to perceived safety threats from his emotional distress and was unlawfully required to obtain a medical release before returning to work. The EEOC seeks various remedies, including an injunction against the defendant, back pay, reinstatement or front pay, compensation for losses, and punitive damages for alleged malicious conduct.
To withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a plaintiff's complaint must present a concise statement of the claim that demonstrates entitlement to relief, supported by sufficient factual matter accepted as true, to establish a plausible claim. The EEOC's complaint alleges two violations of the ADAAA: the first claim involves "regarded as" disability discrimination, asserting that Gunderson was discharged on June 5, 2013, after the Defendant learned of his situational depression, indicating the Defendant regarded him as having a disability. The second claim contends that the Defendant discriminated against Gunderson by requiring a doctor's note for his return to work, which is prohibited under 42 U.S.C. 12112(d)(4)(A) unless job-related and consistent with business necessity. The Defendant's motion seeks dismissal of claims not pleaded in the complaint, specifically those related to 42 U.S.C. 12102(1)(A) and (B) and failure to accommodate, which are not part of the EEOC's allegations. Consequently, the Defendant's dismissal request must be denied, as the complaint sufficiently alleges the two claims at issue. Discovery is expected to uncover additional factual support for the claims, while arguments regarding potential future amendments to the complaint are not currently entertained since the Plaintiff has not sought leave to amend.
