Ehlerding v. American Mattress & Upholstery, Inc., 208 F. Supp. 3d 944

Background

Plaintiff Jason Ehlerding, a biracial male, worked as a sales manager for American Mattress from Jan 21, 2013 until his termination on Apr 4, 2014; he filed a Charge with the EEOC and a subsequent suit alleging discrimination, retaliation, and FMLA/ADA/§1981 violations.
Plaintiff underwent hernia surgery on Mar 10, 2014, was placed on physician work restrictions (including no heavy lifting), and alleges employer failed to accommodate those restrictions (limited assistance provided) and increased his workload on return.
On Apr 4, 2014, after a dispute with regional manager Mark Roedeske over a customer delivery issue, Roedeske allegedly used profanity and then terminated Plaintiff.
Claims pleaded: ADA disability discrimination and failure to accommodate; Title VII race discrimination and retaliation; § 1981 race discrimination (including against individuals); FMLA interference/retaliation; damages sought include compensatory, punitive, liquidated, and attorneys’ fees.
Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and to strike portions of the complaint under Rule 12(f); the court considered the complaint together with the attached EEOC Charge.
Court denied both the 12(b)(6) motion (as to the ADA claim) and the 12(f) motion, finding Plaintiff plausibly pled an ADA disability and that Rule 12(f) is not a vehicle to challenge claim sufficiency.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Plaintiff plausibly alleged a disability under the ADA (post-ADAAA)	Hernia surgery led to physician-imposed lifting/work restrictions that substantially limited major life activities (lifting, working)	Hernia/surgery were short-term and not a covered disability; Brodzik and similar cases preclude coverage	Denied dismissal: allegations of lifting/work restrictions plausibly state a disability under the ADAAA at the pleading stage
Whether documentary materials attached to the complaint may be considered on 12(b)(6)	Charge is incorporated and central to claims	—	Court may consider the attached EEOC Charge without converting to summary judgment
Whether individual liability (Roedeske, Wade) should be stricken under Rule 12(f) for Title VII/ADA claims	Plaintiff concedes he is not asserting individual ADA/Title VII claims against them	Defendants seek to strike individual ADA/Title VII claims and challenge Section 1981 allegations and certain damages	Denied: Rule 12(f) is improper to attack claim sufficiency; Title VII/ADA not individually actionable is recognized, §1981 may reach individuals; pleading gives fair notice
Whether punitive/emotional distress damages under FMLA should be stricken	Plaintiff concedes punitive damages not recoverable under FMLA but seeks them under other statutes	Defendants seek to strike damages unavailable under FMLA	Denied as a 12(f) matter; court notes punitive/emotional distress damages are not recoverable under FMLA but refusal to strike remains because Rule 12(f) not the proper vehicle

Key Cases Cited

Johnson v. Rivera, 272 F.3d 519 (7th Cir. 2001) (standard for evaluating allegations on motion to dismiss)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standard; conclusory allegations insufficient)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
Gogos v. AMS Mech. Sys., Inc., 737 F.3d 1170 (7th Cir. 2013) (ADA elements and recognition that some impairments may be ‘transitory and minor’ but still covered)
Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (U.S. 2002) (pre-ADAAA definition of ‘substantially limits’)
Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1999) (pre-ADAAA interpretation of ‘regarded as’ disabled)
Adams v. City of Indianapolis, 742 F.3d 720 (7th Cir. 2014) (courts may consider documents referenced in complaint on a 12(b)(6) motion)
Vicom, Inc. v. Harbridge Merck Serv., Inc., 20 F.3d 771 (7th Cir. 1994) (Rule 8’s notice function and examples of egregious pleading violations)
Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi‑Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2010) (Rule 12(f) cannot be used to dismiss claims that should be addressed under Rule 12(b)(6))
Smith v. Bray, 681 F.3d 888 (7th Cir. 2012) (§ 1981 permits suits against individuals)
Bob‑Manuel v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 10 F. Supp. 3d 854 (N.D. Ill. 2014) (holding hernia-related lifting restriction can plausibly constitute a disability under the ADAAA)