Nicole Colton v. FEHRER Automotive, North America, LLC
20-12039
| 11th Cir. | Jul 21, 2021Background
- Colton, a 4'6" temp worker, was assigned in April 2018 to work at FEHRER Automotive on a table too tall for her height.
- She requested a shorter table or a step stool from trainers; requests were declined.
- She complained to FEHRER HR; a few days later FEHRER terminated her and marked her ineligible for rehire.
- Colton filed an EEOC charge, received a right-to-sue letter, then sued under the ADA for discrimination and retaliation.
- The district court dismissed her complaint for failure to plead that she is a person with a disability and for failure to state a retaliation claim; Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether short stature is an ADA "disability" (discrimination claim) | Colton: her 4'6" height is a physical impairment substantially limiting activities (e.g., reaching). | FEHRER: height is a physical characteristic, not a physiological disorder or impairment under ADA. | Court: Dismissed — pleading shows only a physical characteristic; no facts alleging an underlying physiological disorder. |
| Whether FEHRER "regarded as" disabled | Colton: FEHRER perceived her as disabled because she was "short." | FEHRER: it perceived shortness, not an underlying physiological impairment. | Court: Dismissed — no allegations FEHRER perceived a physiological disorder. |
| Whether termination and "red flag" constitute ADA retaliation | Colton: she opposed discrimination by requesting accommodation; termination and ineligibility were retaliatory. | FEHRER: Colton did not engage in protected EEOC participation before termination; her belief that height is a disability was not objectively reasonable. | Court: Dismissed — participation clause inapplicable; opposition clause fails because belief that height is an ADA disability is not objectively reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sutton v. United Air Lines, 527 U.S. 471 (1999) (height and similar physical characteristics are examples of traits that may not constitute ADA impairments)
- Surtain v. Hamlin Terrace Found., 789 F.3d 1239 (11th Cir. 2015) (elements of an ADA employment discrimination claim)
- Carruthers v. BSA Advert., Inc., 357 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir. 2004) (definition of "regarded as" disabled under ADA)
- EEOC v. STME, LLC, 938 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. 2019) (employer must be alleged to have perceived an existing impairment for a "regarded as" claim)
- Morriss v. BNSF Ry. Co., 817 F.3d 1104 (8th Cir. 2016) (obesity must stem from physiological condition to qualify as an ADA impairment)
- Furcron v. Mail Ctrs. Plus, LLC, 843 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2016) (height treated as a physical characteristic, not an ADA impairment)
- Howard v. Walgreen Co., 605 F.3d 1239 (11th Cir. 2010) (opposition clause requires objectively reasonable belief that conduct opposed was unlawful)
- EEOC v. Total Sys. Servs., Inc., 221 F.3d 1171 (11th Cir. 2000) (participation clause protects activities tied to formal EEOC charges)