Marie v. Pike Telecom & Renewables, LLC

1

JOHN ST. MARIE v. PIKE TELECOM & RENEWABLES, LLC

Civil Action No. 23-77

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

May 24, 2023

MEMORANDUM

John R. Padova, J.

Plaintiff John St. Marie commenced this employment discrimination action against his former employer, Defendant Pike Telecom & Renewables, LLC (“Pike Telecom”), alleging that he was terminated from his job on account of his disability and age. Defendant has moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint (“the Complaint”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. For the following reasons, we grant in part and deny in part Pike Telecom's Motion.

I. BACKGROUND

The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff is a fifty-eight-year-old male, who has over thirty-five years of experience as an engineer. (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 14.) In 2022, Plaintiff was recruited for a position with Pike Telecom by a third party, and he had a telephone interview with Patrick Itterly from Pike Telecom and the company's Vice President. (Id. ¶ 13.) On March 15, 2022, Plaintiff was offered a position as a “Communications Specialist 3,” and Itterly told him that he would be tasked with training junior engineers. (Id. ¶ 14.) Plaintiff was officially hired that same day. (Id. ¶ 12.)

When Plaintiff started the job, he was given very few training responsibilities, and he was not provided with any orientation regarding his job duties. (Id. ¶ 15.) Instead, Plaintiff was required to draft engineering designs, without first being given any direction regarding the company's stylistic design preferences or work processes. (Id. ¶ 16.) In the absence of direction Plaintiff conferred with other engineer employees as to Pike Telecom's expectations. (Id. ¶ 17.) Plaintiff repeatedly asked for training and feedback, but he did not receive either and, on one occasion, Itterly told him that, in light of his age and experience, he should not have any questions. (Id. ¶ 32.)

Plaintiff has an amputated finger on his right, dominant hand, which limits his ability to perform manual tasks, including his ability to hold a pencil. (Id. ¶ 18.) He was nonetheless able to perform the essential functions of his job well with reasonable medical accommodations. (Id. ¶ 19.) In order to do his job with Pike Telecom, Plaintiff installed on his company-issued computer his own CAD drafting and design program called BlueBeam which aided him in performing his drafting work. (Id. ¶ 17.) Plaintiff had one “hiccup” using the program, when he discovered that the CAD program “had not been converting [his] designs correctly to [Pike Telecom's] program,” but that was “easily remedied and resolved.” (Id. ¶ 25.)

Itterly did not become aware of Plaintiff's disability until April 2, 2022, when Itterly asked Plaintiff in a meeting why he was using a CAD program instead of hand-drawing his designs. (Id. ¶ 20.) Plaintiff showed Itterly his amputated finger, and “Itterly expressed an immediate, visible look of distaste.” (Id. ¶ 21.) Plaintiff explained to Itterly that he used his own CAD program because he is unable to hold a pencil in his right hand. (Id.) Itterly “chastised Plaintiff for requiring the use of the CAD BlueBeam program, and disparagingly advised Plaintiff that ‘most guys hand draw.'” (Id.)

In addition to using the CAD program, Plaintiff also asked that Pike Telecom “provide him a tablet to use in lieu of being required to take handwritten notes when out in the field, which was very difficult for Plaintiff due to his disability.” (Id. ¶ 22.) Itterly told Plaintiff that he would provide Plaintiff with a tablet, but no tablet was ever provided. (Id. ¶ 23.) Moreover, Plaintiff never received any confirmation that Pike Telecom had ordered him a tablet. (Id.)

Shortly after the April 2, 2022 meeting, Itterly “began to unduly criticize Plaintiff's work,” informing Plaintiff for the first time in an April 14, 2022 email that he had concerns about Plaintiff's work. (Id. ¶ 24.) At the same time, Plaintiff's co-workers and the company's drafting department were approving Plaintiff's designs. (Id. ¶ 25.) Plaintiff was also asked to train two younger employees, which further indicated that his performance was not lacking. (Id. ¶ 29.)

Plaintiff “reached out to Itterly on . . . April 26, 2022, asking if everything looked good moving forward, but he never received a response.” (Id. ¶ 26.) Plaintiff continued to forward his designs to Communications Specialist 2 employees, and they continued to approve and forward his designs to drafting, stating that his designs “looked good.” (Id. ¶ 27.) Nevertheless, on May 13, 2022, Itterly terminated Plaintiff, purportedly for design and performance issues. (Id. ¶ 28.) Following Plaintiff's termination, Pike Telecom reassigned Plaintiff's duties and responsibilities to individuals significantly younger than Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 33.)

After filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC and receiving a right to sue letter, Plaintiff filed the instant action on January 9, 2023. (Id. ¶ 5.) The Complaint contains two Counts. Count I asserts claims of disability discrimination/wrongful termination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation pursuant to the American with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. Count II asserts claims of age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. Pike Telecom has filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint in its entirety.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

When deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), we “consider only the complaint, exhibits attached to the complaint, [and] matters of public record, as well as undisputedly authentic documents if the complainant's claims are based upon [those] documents.” Alpizar-Fallas v. Favero, 908 F.3d 910, 914 (3d Cir. 2018) (quoting Mayer v. Belichick, 605 F.3d 223, 230 (3d Cir. 2010)). “We accept the factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Shorter v. United States, 12 F.4th 366, 371 (3d Cir. 2021) (citing Warren Gen. Hosp. v. Amgen Inc., 643 F.3d 77, 84 (3d Cir. 2011)). However, we “are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Wood v. Moss, 572 U.S. 744, 755 n.5 (2014) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).

A plaintiff's pleading obligation is to set forth “a short and plain statement of the claim,” which “give[s] the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (first quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2); then quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957) (second alteration in original)). The complaint must allege “‘sufficient factual matter to show that the claim is facially plausible,' thus enabling ‘the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for [the] misconduct alleged.'” Warren Gen. Hosp., 643 F.3d at 84 (quoting Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009)). “The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,' but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Under this standard, a Complaint need not need plead all of the facts necessary to prove each element of the plaintiff's claims; it need only allege enough facts to “raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of [each] necessary element.” Martinez v. UPMC Susquehanna, 986 F.3d 261, 266 (3d Cir. 2021) (alteration in original) (quoting Fowler, 578 F.3d at 213). In the end, we will grant a motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) if the factual allegations in the complaint are not sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Geness v. Admin. Off, of Pa. Cts., 974 F.3d 263, 269 (3d Cir. 2020) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

III. DISCUSSION

A. ADA - Disability Discrimination/Wrongful Termination

The ADA provides that “[n]o covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to . . . the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, . . . job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). In order to state a claim for disability-based discrimination under the ADA, a complaint must allege: “(1) that [the plaintiff] is disabled within the meaning of the ADA, (2) that he is otherwise qualified for the job, with or without reasonable accommodations, and (3) that he was subjected to an adverse employment decision as a result of discrimination.'” Sulima v. Tobyhanna Army Depot, 602 F.3d 177, 185 (3d Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). A person is disabled under the ADA if he has “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities” or is “regarded as having such an impairment.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1).

Here Plaintiff asserts that he was wrongfully terminated on account of his disability. Pike Telecom argues that the Complaint fails to allege facts to support the first and third elements of the Plaintiff's wrongful termination claim. With respect to the first element, the Complaint alleges that Plaintiff is disabled because he has an amputated finger on his dominant hand, which substantially limits his ability to perform manual tasks, including “tasks involving fine motor coordination, grasping, and hand strength.” (Compl. ¶ 18.) Pike Telecom nevertheless argues Plaintiff has “admitted” that he is not disabled because he alleges that his amputated finger did not inhibit his ability to perform the functions of his job. However, the Complaint alleges that Plaintiff can perform his job with...