Dieter v. Crossmark, 8:24-cv-00169

Plaintiff Mary Dieter, a disabled former event specialist with degenerative disc disease, worked for Crossmark and its parent company, Wis International, performing product demonstrations at Sam’s Club in Lincoln, Nebraska.
After returning from medical leave in May 2022 (due to a broken ankle), Dieter resumed work but experienced severe pain connected to her disability and provided doctor’s notes for needed accommodations (principally the ability to sit while working).
In December 2022, Dieter's working hours were significantly reduced from two or more days per week to one day per week; Crossmark subsequently removed her from the schedule, allegedly based on a misunderstanding involving a supposed request for that accommodation.
Dieter claims she was not the one who requested to work just one day weekly and that requiring her to provide extra documentation or removing her from the schedule constituted discriminatory adverse actions under the ADA.
The court is performing initial review of her complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), requiring dismissal if the claim fails to state a plausible entitlement to relief.
The court found that the complaint did not allege sufficient facts to support a causal connection between Dieter’s disability/protected activity and any adverse employment action as required under the ADA and gave her 30 days to amend her complaint.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
ADA Discrimination - Causation	Employer reduced her hours and removed her from schedule because of her disability and accommodation requests.	(Not yet presented—initial review stage)	Complaint fails to plausibly allege causal connection between disability/protected activity and adverse action.
Failure to Accommodate	Employer ignored doctor-approved work accommodations.	(Not yet presented—initial review stage)	Insufficient facts to establish actionable failure to accommodate; facts do not plausibly show discrimination.
Procedural Sufficiency	Plaintiff has administrative exhaustion and timely filed suit.	(Not yet presented—initial review stage)	Plaintiff met administrative prerequisites, but complaint does not meet federal pleading standards.
Leave to Amend	Dieter should be allowed to amend complaint to state plausible ADA claim.	(Not opposed—no argument)	Plaintiff granted 30 days to file amended complaint.

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard requires factual allegations to render claims plausible, not just conceivable)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (a complaint must allege factual content leading to a plausible inference of liability)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (sets out the burden-shifting framework for employment discrimination claims)
Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (notice pleading does not require plaintiff to establish prima facie case at the pleading stage)