Rubino v. New Acton Mobile Industries, LLC
44 F. Supp. 3d 616
D. Maryland2014Background
- Rubino, a Virginia resident, sues New Acton Mobile for ADA violations and Kurt Walton for assault.
- Plaintiff alleges a long history of depression and requests accommodations to avoid abusive, confrontational conduct.
- Walton allegedly escalated abuse after Rubino disclosed his depression in 2012.
- Plaintiff was terminated the day after a July 31, 2012 confrontation.
- EEOC issued a right-to-sue letter on June 25, 2013, exhausting administrative remedies.
- Plaintiff amended the complaint to add intentional infliction of emotional distress and removed Walton from ADA claims; Defendants moved to dismiss I, II & V.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADA: is Rubino a qualified individual with a disability? | Rubino can perform with accommodation | Plaintiff failed to plead qualification | Counts I & II dismissed |
| ADA: adequacy of pleading essential functions and accommodation | Plaintiff can perform essential functions with accommodation | Pleading is threadbare | Counts I & II dismissed |
| Intentional infliction of emotional distress viability | Conduct was extreme and caused severe distress | Not addressed; motion to dismiss | Count V survives (not dismissed) because allegations suffice at pleading stage |
| Leave to amend second time | Request to amend should be freely granted | Would cause undue delay and prejudice | Denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must show plausible claim, not mere allegations)
- Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard governs Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals)
- Evans v. Techs. Applications & Serv. Co., 80 F.3d 954 (4th Cir. 1996) (perception of decision maker governs discrimination claim)
- Haulbrook v. Michelin N. Am., 252 F.3d 696 (4th Cir. 2001) (elements of disability discrimination under ADA)