ADHD Plaintiff Advanced Several Claims

​A 12-count complaint by a plaintiff with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) alleging discrimination based on race, religion and national origin, and harassment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in addition to harassment and failure to accommodate in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), withstood a motion to dismiss.

According to the allegations of the lawsuit, the plaintiff, a practicing Muslim, began temporary employment with the Contra Costa County district attorney's office in January 2015 as a forensic accountant. In October 2015, he received an offer for a permanent position.

The plaintiff alleged that throughout his employment, he was not appropriately compensated and was subject to certain accusations, questioning and disciplinary counseling—all based on his race, religion, national origin and disability. He also claimed that the county failed to grant him a reasonable accommodation for his disability.

Following his resignation in March 2017, he filed suit against the county. The county sought to dismiss, asserting that based on the allegations contained in the complaint, he failed to state viable causes of action.

In examining the Title VII discrimination claim, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California noted the plaintiff's allegations that the county required him to work 50 to 70 hours per week, while only paying him for a 40-hour workweek; failed and refused to process his new-hire paperwork; paid him at the incorrect salary level; accused him of posing a threat of workplace violence; questioned his attendance; issued him a memorandum of counseling and a written reprimand; and placed pressure on him to resign. The court reasoned that "considered collectively, it is plausible that these [alleged] actions materially affected plaintiff's terms, conditions and privileges of employment" and were sufficient to state a claim of discrimination at the initial pleadings stage.

As to the plaintiff's harassment claims asserted under Title VII and the ADA, the court began by noting the well-established principle that "a difficult work environment, standing alone, does not give rise to a cause of action under Title VII … or the ADA," and that "[t]he alleged harassment must be based on some protected trait." Nevertheless, the court found that, like the plaintiff's discrimination claim, collectively the plaintiff's factual allegations were also sufficient to state harassment claims under both Title VII as well as the ADA and allowed them to proceed.

With respect to the failure-to-accommodate claim brought under the ADA, the plaintiff alleged that during his employment, he requested certain accommodations for his ADHD, including:

• A later start time, generally 10 a.m.
  
• Flexibility to work from home as needed.
  
• 24 hours' notice prior to meeting with supervisors and colleagues.
  
• A private office with a lock on the door.
  

[SHRM members-only toolkit: Accommodating Employees' Disabilities]

Rejecting the county's argument that the foregoing accommodations were plainly unreasonable, the court reasoned that "such a question of fact is not appropriate for determination on a motion to dismiss," and thus this claim could also proceed.

Banafa v. Contra Costa County, N.D. Cal., No. 18-cv-01642-MEJ (June 27, 2018).

Professional Pointer: Even when a claim is dismissed, courts often provide plaintiffs with the opportunity to amend complaints to remedy the pleading deficiencies. Employers and their litigation counsel should carefully evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of seeking dismissal at the early stages of litigation, as opposed to seeking summary judgment following discovery, the information-gathering phase. 

Jonathan E. O'Connell, SHRM-SCP, is a labor and employment attorney practicing with the federal government in Washington, D.C.