994 F.3d 940
8th Cir.2021Background:
- Malik Weatherly, a Ford assembly-line worker, has asthma and scoliosis and requested intermittent FMLA leave for asthma-related absences.
- After requesting leave, Ford suspended Weatherly for excessive absences, and less than a year later terminated him for an asthma-related absence.
- Weatherly filed EEOC and MCHR charges; Ford rehired him in a more physically demanding role that aggravated his scoliosis, and after he reported doctor-ordered restrictions Ford again terminated him.
- Weatherly sued under the FMLA, the ADA (failure to accommodate, discrimination, retaliation for scoliosis-related claims), and the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA) for asthma-related termination.
- The district court dismissed Weatherly’s FMLA claims as time-barred and dismissed his ADA and MHRA claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
- The Eighth Circuit: affirmed dismissal of the ADA scoliosis claims for lack of exhaustion, reversed dismissal of the FMLA claims (pleading-stage treatment of willfulness/statute of limitations), and reversed dismissal of the MHRA asthma termination claim (exhaustion satisfied); remanded for further proceedings.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Weatherly's FMLA claims were time-barred | Weatherly argued his complaint permits a reasonable inference of willfulness (3-year limitations) because Ford failed to train/enforce FMLA policies | Ford argued Weatherly did not plead willfulness, so the 2-year limitations period applies and claims are untimely | Court: At pleading stage Weatherly need not negate affirmative defenses; complaint does not plead him out of court, so FMLA claims survive pleading dismissal and may be decided later on the merits or summary judgment |
| Whether Weatherly exhausted ADA claims related to scoliosis (failure to accommodate, discrimination, retaliation) | Weatherly contended his second EEOC/MCHR charge covered his scoliosis-related claims | Ford argued the second charge focused on retaliation and the earlier charge did not raise scoliosis; boxes and narrative did not allege disability discrimination/accommodation | Court: ADA scoliosis claims not exhausted; dismissal of those claims affirmed |
| Whether Weatherly exhausted MHRA claim that Ford fired him for asthma-related absences | Weatherly relied on his first administrative charge alleging he was terminated despite available paid time off and alleging failure to accommodate | Ford argued the charge focused on failure to accommodate, not a discriminatory termination, so termination claim was not exhausted | Court: MHRA claim exhausted because an EEOC investigation into the charge could reasonably be expected to include the termination tied to the accommodation denial; reversal and remand |
| Whether a plaintiff must plead around affirmative defenses (statute of limitations/willfulness) | Weatherly argued he need not expressly plead willfulness and that facts allow inference of willfulness | Ford argued the complaint failed to plausibly allege willfulness, so claims are time-barred at the pleading stage | Court: Plaintiffs need not anticipate or plead against affirmative defenses; dismissal for limitations is proper only if the complaint affirmatively shows the defense (i.e., pleads itself out of court). Here dismissal was improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Blomker v. Jewell, 831 F.3d 1051 (8th Cir. 2016) (accept allegations as true on motion to dismiss)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility pleading standard applied to factual allegations)
- Fernandez v. Clean House, LLC, 883 F.3d 1296 (10th Cir. 2018) (plaintiff need not plead around affirmative defenses; willfulness affects limitations, not elements)
- Xechem, Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 372 F.3d 899 (7th Cir. 2004) (complaints need not anticipate and plead against defenses)
- Wedow v. City of Kansas City, 442 F.3d 661 (8th Cir. 2006) (scope of judicial complaint limited to what EEOC investigation could reasonably be expected to cover)
- Sellers v. Deere & Co., 791 F.3d 938 (8th Cir. 2015) (each incident/retaliatory decision must be addressed to EEOC individually for exhaustion)
- Peebles v. Potter, 354 F.3d 761 (8th Cir. 2004) (failure-to-accommodate is a type of discrimination claim)
- Hanger v. Lake Cty., 390 F.3d 579 (8th Cir. 2004) (definition of willfulness for FMLA limitations)