Mesi v. Hoskin & Muir, Inc. dba Cardinal Shower Enclosures
1:16-cv-00630
D. Haw.Apr 7, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Kesio J. Mesi, Jr. worked for Hoskin & Muir and suffered a work injury on June 19, 2014, resulting in a 10-pound lifting restriction and a workers’ compensation claim.
- Mesi allegedly was denied light-duty work, remained off work under physician care, and was told by a manager on September 26, 2014 that he was terminated because he could not work with restrictions; he was later released to full duty on October 6, 2014.
- Mesi filed charges with the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission and the EEOC and received right-to-sue letters from both agencies in 2016.
- Mesi’s First Amended Complaint asserts disability discrimination under the ADA and Hawaii law for failure to accommodate and wrongful termination; he initially included an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim which he concedes should be dismissed.
- Defendant moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing Mesi failed to plead that he was disabled, qualified, or that the requested accommodation was reasonable; the court denied the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mesi sufficiently alleges he is "disabled" under ADA/Hawaii law | Mesi alleges a physical impairment (10-lb lifting restriction), medical treatment, and a multi-month impact — sufficient to show substantial limitation | Hoskin & Muir: lifting restriction not shown to substantially limit a major life activity | Court: Allegations adequate at pleading stage; disability sufficiently alleged |
| Whether Mesi sufficiently alleges he is a "qualified individual" | Mesi was hired, performed satisfactorily pre-injury, and had job-related qualifications | Hoskin & Muir: insufficient facts to show ability to perform essential functions with accommodation | Court: Allegations that he was hired and previously performed satisfactorily suffice to plead he was qualified |
| Whether Mesi pleaded failure to provide a reasonable accommodation | Mesi alleges he requested temporary light-duty work and was denied, forcing him off work | Hoskin & Muir: complaint lacks detail showing reasonableness, who was notified, and interactive process | Court: At pleading stage, request for temporary light duty and denial plausibly alleges failure to accommodate |
| Whether Mesi pleaded unlawful discharge because of disability | Mesi alleges manager told him he was fired for inability to work with restrictions | Hoskin & Muir: allegations are conclusory and speculative | Court: Factual allegation of termination for inability to work with restrictions, combined with denial of accommodation, plausibly alleges discriminatory discharge |
Key Cases Cited
- Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2001) (pleading standards and limits on judicially accepting conclusory allegations)
- Campanelli v. Bockrath, 100 F.3d 1476 (9th Cir. 1996) (pleading standard context)
- WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 197 F.3d 367 (9th Cir. 1999) (construing allegations in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (requirements for nonconclusory factual allegations)
- Coons v. Secretary of U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, 383 F.3d 879 (9th Cir. 2004) (definition of impairment and substantially limited analysis)
- Fraser v. Goodale, 342 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 2003) (consideration of nature, severity, duration, and impact for substantial limitation)
- Humphrey v. Memorial Hospitals Ass’n, 239 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2001) (link between failure to accommodate and discriminatory discharge)