DEHONNEY v. G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS, 2:17-cv-00661

Plaintiff Ramon Dehonney, an African American security officer promoted to shift supervisor, alleges G4S enforced a clean-shaven policy that conflicted with his medical condition (pseudofolliculitis barbae) and that he also suffers from ulcerative colitis (UC).
Plaintiff provided medical documentation about his beard condition; supervisors nonetheless repeatedly demanded he shave and disciplined him for being unshaven.
After calling off for UC symptoms and providing medical documentation, supervisors told him he could arrive late for UC and that HR would provide FMLA paperwork; paperwork was not provided and he later was not disciplined for a December tardiness related to UC.
Plaintiff was in a car accident, hospitalized, returned to work, and was terminated for excessive tardiness in January 2013.
Plaintiff sued asserting claims under Title VII, the PHRA, the ADA (failure to accommodate and retaliation), and the ADEA. Defendant initially argued EEOC untimeliness but withdrew that challenge after plaintiff produced a charge and right-to-sue letter.
The court denied G4S’s motion to dismiss (without prejudice), finding the complaint plausibly alleged disability (UC and pseudofolliculitis), retaliation, and discriminatory intent sufficient to survive Rule 12(b)(6).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness / subject-matter jurisdiction (EEOC filing)	Charge and Right-to-Sue attached; claims timely	Claims were untimely filed with EEOC	Defendant withdrew timeliness challenge after plaintiff produced charge and letter; court proceeded
ADA — whether UC and pseudofolliculitis qualify as disabilities	UC and pseudofolliculitis plausibly meet ADA disability definition; alleged accommodations and limitations	Conditions do not rise to statutory disability	At pleading stage, allegations are plausible; ADA claims survive dismissal
Retaliation (request/seek accommodation → termination)	Told he could arrive late for UC; later terminated for tardiness—causal link for retaliation	No sufficient causal or protected activity pleaded	Allegations plausible (timing and prior statements); retaliation claims survive
Discrimination pleading standard (need for comparator evidence)	Alleged medical documentation, repeated demands to shave, and statements support inference of intentional discrimination	Insufficient because no similarly situated comparator alleged	Comparator evidence not required at pleading stage; inference of discrimination plausible; claim survives

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleading)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading must show plausibly pleaded entitlement to relief)
Connelly v. Lane Constr. Corp., 809 F.3d 780 (Third Circuit discussion of Twombly/Iqbal standards)
Winokur v. Office of Court Admin., 190 F. Supp. 2d 444 (ADA claim survival where plaintiff alleged UC impaired punctuality)
Seaborn v. State of Fla., Dep’t of Corr., 143 F.3d 1405 (discussion of pseudofolliculitis barbae as disability at summary judgment)
Fitzpatrick v. City of Atlanta, 2 F.3d 1112 (addressing pseudofolliculitis barbae in disability context)