Burdette v. ALDI Inc.

1

ASHLEY N. BURDETTE, Plaintiff, v. ALDI INC., Defendant.

Civil Action No. 1:22CV154

United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia

September 11, 2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

THOMAS S. KLEEH, CHIEF JUDGE

Pending before the Court is Defendant ALDI, Inc.'s, Motion to Dismiss with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). ECF No. 12. Plaintiff filed her response in opposition [ECF No. 15] and Defendant ALDI, Inc. replied in support [ECF No. 16]. The motion is fully briefed and ripe for review. For the reasons discussed herein, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED and the case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On November 18, 2022, Plaintiff Ashley N. Burdette (“Burdette”) by counsel, filed her Complaint in Monongalia County, West Virginia, against Defendants ALDI Inc., and Peter McGinley. ECF No. 1. On December 12, 2022, the defendants removed the action to the Northern District of West Virginia. Id.

On January 10, 2023, Burdette filed an amended complaint, which removed Peter McGinley as a named defendant from this civil action. ECF No. 11. The Amended Complaint, which Defendant ALDI, Inc. (“ALDI”) now challenges under Rule 12(b)(6), alleges six counts: (1) disability discrimination, (2) failure to provide accommodation, (3) workers' compensation discrimination/retaliatory discharge, (4) violation of the Family Medical Leave Act, (5) wrongful termination, and (6) tort of outrage. Id. Burdette seeks compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest, and a trial by jury. Id.

II. AMENDED COMPLAINT

Burdette's Amended Complaint results from her alleged termination from employment as a Lead Store Associate at ALDI. Burdette sustained the first alleged injury while working a shift at ALDI's Earl L. Core Road location in Morgantown, Monongalia County, West Virginia. ECF No. 11, Am. Compl. ¶ 6-9. On August 22, 2021, Burdette was placing milk into a cooler, when there was “an audible ‘pop' from her right knee.” Id. ¶ 9. As a result of the knee injury, Burdette's doctor instructed her not to “bend/stoop, kneel, or pull/push . . . [and] . . . only [carry or lift] 6-10 lbs.” Id. ¶ 12. ALDI placed Burdette “on curb side and truck duty for the majority of her shifts” after learning of these restrictions. Id. ¶ 13.

Burdette sustained her second alleged injury on November 17, 2021, after she fell while unloading products into a cooler. Id. ¶ 14. After she was injured, she sat in a wheelchair at a cash register. Id. Because the store was short staffed, “Plaintiff felt that she needed to stay and continue working through her pain.” Id. She sought medical attention after she finished her shift, was treated for her hip and back pain, and was “ordered to be off work.” Id. ¶ 15. ALDI was informed of Burdette's order to be off work. Id. ¶ 15.

Burdette had a follow up medical visit, where she gained clearance to return to work on light duty and was instructed to “use her cane and perform sedentary work.” Id. ¶ 16. ALDI was again made aware of these instructions, but Burdette was never placed back on the work schedule. Id. ¶ 17. Burdette alleges she filed for FMLA because ALDI failed to accommodate her work restrictions. Id. ¶ 18. However, Plaintiff was not granted additional leave. Id. Burdette received a letter from ALDI “approving her requested accommodations of using a cane and sedentary work.” Id. ¶ 19. However, Human Resources informed Burdette the approval letter was a mistake, and her accommodations request was denied. Id. Burdette alleges she never received a letter from ALDI stating its denial of accommodations. Id.

On or about June 14, 2022, Burdette submitted a doctor's letter to ALDI, which outlined her work restrictions of sedentary work and use of a cane. Id. ¶ 20. Two days later, Burdette alleges a district manager called her “and asked that she get updated medical information that did not include her use of a cane.” Id. ¶ 21. When Burdette stated she was unable to fulfill that request, she “received a letter from Defendant ALDI that there were no accommodations available . . . [and] . . . further stated that if she could not return to work with no accommodations that she would be terminated, effective July 1, 2022.” Id. ¶ 22. On July 1, 2022, ALDI terminated Burdette. Id. ¶ 23.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Under Rule 12(b)(6), a defendant may move for dismissal upon the ground that a complaint does not “state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” In ruling on a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a court “must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint.” Anderson v. Sara Lee Corp., 508 F.3d 181, 188 (4th Cir. 2007) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)). A court is “not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986).

A court should dismiss a complaint if it does not contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).^[1]Plausibility exists “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A motion to dismiss “does not resolve contests surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim, or the applicability of defenses.” Republican Party of N.C. v. Martin, 980 F.2d 942, 952 (4th Cir. 1992).

A motion filed under Rule 12(b)(6) challenges the legal sufficiency of a complaint, Jordan v. Alternative Resources Corp., 458 F.3d 332, 338 (4th Cir. 2006), considered with the assumption that the facts alleged are true, Eastern Shore Mkts, Inc. v. J.D. Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 213 F.3d 175, 180 (4th Cir. 2000). And the legal sufficiency of a complaint is measured by whether it meets the standards for a pleading stated in Rule 8 (providing general rules of pleading), Rule 9 (providing rules for pleading special matters), Rule 10 (specifying pleading form), Rule 11 (requiring the signing of a pleading and stating its significance), and Rule 12(b)(6) (requiring that a complaint state a claim upon which relief can be granted).

Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186, 192 (4th Cir. 2009).

IV. DISCUSSION

ALDI moves for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of each count of the amended complaint, arguing Burdette failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted. ECF No. 12. Burdette filed an untimely response in opposition, and ALDI replied in support. ECF Nos. 15, 16. The Court will discuss each of ALDI's Rule 12(b)(6) challenges to the Amended Complaint in turn.

A. Count I - Disability Discrimination

To succeed on a claim for intentional discrimination, or disparate treatment, a plaintiff must establish she is “a member of a protected class,” “that the employer made an adverse decision concerning the plaintiff,” and “but for the plaintiff's protected status, the adverse decision would not have been made.” Woods v. Jefferds Corp., 824 S.E.2d 539, 547 (W.Va. 2019). Because Burdette failed to establish she is a member of a protected class, i.e., a qualified individual with a disability, her discrimination claim fails.

The West Virginia Human Rights Act (“WVHRA”) states

[i]t shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification, . . . for any employer to discriminate against an individual with respect to compensation, hire, tenure, conditions or privileges of employment if the individual is able and competent to perform the services required even if such individual is . . . disabled.

W. VA. CODE ANN. § 5-11-9(1). To establish an employment discrimination discharge based on disability under WVHRA, the plaintiff must show the following three elements: “(1) he or she meets the definition of [having a ‘disability'], (2) he or she is a ‘qualified individual with a disability],' and (3) he or she was discharged from his or her job.” Morgan v. Mylan Pharm. Inc., No. 1:21-CV-141, 2023 WL 2026539, *3 (N.D. W.Va. Feb. 15, 2023) (quoting Woods v. Jefferds Corp., 824 S.E.2d 539, 545 (W.Va. 2019)) . A plaintiff must prove whether she is qualified. Id. (citation omitted).

Indeed, “[n]o employer shall, on the basis of disability, subject any qualified individual with a disability to discrimination in employment as it relates to . . . termination.” W.Va. Code R. § 77-1-4.1.1, 77-1-4.1.2 (emphasis added). West Virginia state regulations go on to define “qualified individual with a disability”:

4.2. “Qualified Individual with a Disability” means an individual who is able and competent, with reasonable accommodation, to perform the essential functions of the job, and if an employer has prepared a written description before advertising or interviewing applicants for the job, this description may be considered evidence of the essential functions of the job. A job function may be considered essential for several reasons, including but not limited to the following:

4.2.1. The function may be essential because the reason the employment position exists is to perform that function;

4.2.2. The function may be essential because of the limited number of employees available among whom the performance of that job function can be distributed; and/or

4.2.3. The function may be essential because of the amount of time spent on the job performing the function.

W.Va. Code R. § 77-1-4.2. “A ‘[qualified individual with a disability]' under the West Virginia Human Rights Act and the accompanying regulations is one who is able and competent, with reasonable accommodation, to perform the essential functions of the job in question.” Woods, 824 S.E.2d at 546 (citations omitted).

The Court begins...