Johnson v. Maximus Servs. LLC, 23-7672-cv

Jennifer Johnson, proceeding pro se, sued her former employer, Maximus Services LLC, alleging wrongful termination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) due to her refusal to comply with the company’s COVID-19 testing and vaccination policies.
Johnson claimed her employment ended because Maximus regarded her as disabled or had recorded her as disabled, based on her noncompliance with their COVID-19 policies.
The district court dismissed Johnson’s claims with prejudice, both on collateral estoppel grounds and for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
Johnson filed a timely post-judgment motion, which the district court denied; she subsequently appealed both the underlying judgment and the order denying her post-judgment motion.
The Second Circuit reviewed de novo the dismissal and for abuse of discretion the denial of the post-judgment motion, ultimately affirming the lower court’s decision in all respects.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
ADA Discrimination	Maximus "regarded" her as disabled or had created a record of disability due to her objection to COVID-19 policies	Plaintiff failed to allege facts supporting that she was regarded or recorded as disabled under the ADA; policy was neutral	For defendant: Neutral policy, no facts supporting "regarded as" or "record of" disability
ADA Retaliation	Termination or reduction of hours was retaliation for objecting to COVID-19 mandate	No causal connection; policy in effect before objections, enforcement was neutral	For defendant: No but-for causation established
Failure to Conduct Individual Assessment	Maximus had to evaluate if refusal to vaccinate posed a direct threat before taking adverse action	No duty arises without a sufficient disability claim	For defendant: No obligation to conduct assessment without plausible disability allegations
Medical Examinations & Privacy	Employer’s COVID-19 requirements amounted to impermissible medical inquiries and disclosure of confidential info	No ADA protection absent disability or “regarded as” disability; no disclosure of private info alleged	For defendant: No ADA violation without protected status; no facts pled on improper disclosure

Mazzei v. The Money Store, 62 F.4th 88 (2d Cir. 2023) (sets forth de novo review standard for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals)
Fox v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 918 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2019) (outlines elements of an ADA retaliation claim)
Schwartz v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 539 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2008) (addresses standard for reviewing denial of Rule 59(e) motions)