Randy Brown v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc
416 U.S. App. D.C. 1
D.C. Cir.2015Background
- Pro se plaintiff Randy Brown, who has a cognitive disability from traumatic brain injury, alleges Whole Foods employees repeatedly harassed and profiled him (including racially) and that this culminated in his false arrest for theft/trespass; trespass charge was later dismissed.
- Brown told store management about his disability, requested that management discourage employee profiling, and asked for an accommodation allowing him access to a manager if problems arose.
- On the day of his arrest, a manager-level employee (Khalil) confronted him, accused him of stealing, and told police Brown had been eating while in the store; Brown alleges he asked for a manager but was denied effective managerial assistance.
- Brown sued in federal court asserting (1) disability discrimination under the ADA (failure to provide reasonable modifications) and (2) race discrimination under Title II of the Civil Rights Act (CRA); the district court dismissed both claims.
- District court dismissed ADA claim for failure to plead that Brown actually sought or was denied the requested managerial assistance, and dismissed CRA claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because Brown failed to give pre-suit notice to the D.C. Office of Human Rights (DCOHR) and the one-year D.C. filing period had passed.
- D.C. Circuit reversed: it held Brown’s pleadings (including his opposition and amendment) sufficiently alleged requests for accommodation and denial, and held the CRA notice provision is non-jurisdictional and Brown may comply post-complaint (court to hold CRA claim in abeyance while he provides DCOHR notice).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brown plausibly pleaded an ADA reasonable-modification claim | Brown alleged he told management of his disability, requested management instruct employees to stop profiling, and asked for access to a manager; he was denied managerial assistance on the day of arrest | Whole Foods: Brown never actually sought to exercise the requested accommodation or was denied such assistance; pleadings don’t allege policy modification request | Reversed district court; pleadings (complaint + opposition/amendment) sufficiently alleged requests and denial; ADA claim survives 12(b)(6) dismissal |
| Whether Title II CRA pre-suit notice requirement is jurisdictional | Brown (through amicus) argued notice is not jurisdictional; he sent post-complaint communication to DCOHR and seeks equitable relief/excuse | Whole Foods: statute is a mandatory jurisdictional prerequisite and Brown’s failure to provide timely notice (and D.C. one-year limit) divests court of jurisdiction | CRA notice provision is non-jurisdictional; plaintiff may still comply post-complaint. Court reversed dismissal and ordered district court to hold CRA claim in abeyance pending DCOHR notice compliance |
Key Cases Cited
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (pro se pleadings held to less stringent standard)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006) (distinction between jurisdictional conditions and elements of a claim)
- Oscar Mayer & Co. v. Evans, 441 U.S. 750 (1979) (statutory notice requirement construed to permit post-filing administrative notice and abeyance)
- United States v. Wong, 135 S. Ct. 1625 (2015) (statutory time limits and notice requirements are jurisdictional only if Congress clearly states so)