Johnson v. Waterlogic East, LLC, 1:16-cv-00672

Background

Plaintiff Paul Johnson, pro se and in forma pauperis, sued Waterlogic East, LLC under the ADA after his March 19, 2015 termination.
Johnson alleges he has heart failure and used an automated external defibrillator (AED) as a reasonable accommodation that enabled him to work.
He received a "meets expectations" review in ~January 2015, was transferred to an understaffed Northeast Region in February, and was coached for performance in March 2015.
On March 9, 2015 Johnson requested FMLA leave for heart surgery; he was offered unpaid leave and an option to work from home as an accommodation; surgery was postponed and he returned to work March 11.
Johnson was terminated March 19, 2015; he alleges the termination was disability discrimination and retaliation for seeking medical leave, and points to non-disabled comparators who were reassigned rather than fired.
Defendant moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); the court reviewed the complaint liberally and considered attached EEOC charge materials.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Johnson sufficiently alleges he is disabled under the ADA	Johnson alleges heart failure that substantially limits his ability to work absent an AED accommodation	Defendant says complaint fails to plead substantial limitation of a major life activity and being "regarded as" disabled	Court: Allegations suffice at pleading stage that heart condition + need for AED constitute a disability for ADA purposes
Whether termination qualifies as an adverse employment action tied to disability	Johnson alleges he was terminated after requesting leave and that comparators were treated differently	Defendant contends termination reasons were non-discriminatory (poor performance), and Johnson never used the approved leave	Court: Allegations that he sought leave, was terminated shortly after, and comparators were treated differently are adequate to plead discriminatory adverse action
Whether Johnson stated a retaliation claim under the ADA	Johnson says requesting medical leave was protected activity and termination followed within ten days	Defendant argues timing alone is not unusually suggestive and plaintiff lacks other evidence of retaliation	Court: Denies dismissal — temporal proximity (~10 days) plus context (prior "meets expectations" review and comparators) is sufficient at pleading stage
Whether complaint should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim	N/A (focus on adequacy of pleaded ADA discrimination and retaliation claims)	N/A	Court: Denied defendant's motion to dismiss; claims survive pleading-stage scrutiny

Key Cases Cited

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (pro se complaints are liberally construed)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (identify well-pleaded facts and plausibility inquiry)
Connelly v. Lane Constr. Corp., 809 F.3d 780 (3d Cir. 2016) (three-step pleading review process)
Davis v. Abington Mem'l Hosp., 765 F.3d 236 (3d Cir. 2014) (complaints must offer more than labels and conclusions)
Williams v. BASF Catalysts LLC, 765 F.3d 306 (3d Cir. 2014) (application of plausibility standard)
Shaner v. Synthes, 204 F.3d 494 (3d Cir. 2000) (elements of ADA discrimination claim)
Krouse v. American Sterilizer Co., 126 F.3d 494 (3d Cir. 1997) (elements of ADA retaliation claim)
Watson v. Rozum, 834 F.3d 417 (3d Cir. 2016) (temporal proximity requires other evidence when not unusually suggestive)