Davis v. CEVA Logistics
1:12-cv-00351
S.D. OhioFeb 5, 2013Background
- Plaintiff William J. Davis, employed by CEVA Logistics U.S., Inc., transported inventory between Cincinnati-area Home Depot stores.
- In Aug 2010, Davis underwent emergency gall bladder surgery and went on short-term disability.
- Davis returned to work on Nov 10, 2010, and was then terminated due to the loss of CEVA's Home Depot contract and absence of available work.
- Davis amended his complaint to assert ADA disability discrimination, Ohio Rev. Code 4112.01 discrimination, ADEA discrimination, and FMLA retaliation.
- Defendant moved to dismiss the ADA and Ohio-law disability claims and the FMLA retaliation claim; ADEA claims were not challenged in the motion.
- Court treats amended complaint as superseding prior pleading and denies the initial motion as moot, then grants in part and denies in part the amended motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADA disability discrimination standard | Davis need not plead every fact; sufficient to allege disability and adverse action. | Plaintiff failed to allege a substantial limitation in a major life activity or a broad class of working limitations. | ADA claim dismissed for failure to plead substantial limitation. |
| Ohio disability discrimination under § 4112.01 | Ohio law mirrors federal standards and relies on the ADA pleadings. | No adequate allegation of substantial limitation under major life activity. | Ohio disability claim dismissed. |
| FMLA retaliation claim viability | Discovery should determine eligibility and retaliation facts. | Rule 8 requires more than conclusions; no adequate FMLA retaliation pleading at this stage. | FMLA retaliation claim dismissed; leave to amend if facts obtained. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1999) (requires broad-class-of-work limitation for working as a major life activity)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility pleading standard for claims)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (twombly plausibility standard applied to pleadings)
- Directv, Inc. v. Treesh, 487 F.3d 471 (6th Cir. 2007) (pleading standards under federal rules)
- Bassett v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 528 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2008) (reaffirmed plausibility standard)
- Serrano v. Cintas Corp., 699 F.3d 884 (6th Cir. 2012) (reaffirmed pleading standards post-Twombly/Iqbal)