Sherryl Darby v. Childvine, Inc., 964 F.3d 440

Background

Darby was hired as an administrative assistant and scheduled a double mastectomy after doctors found an epithelial cell abnormality and a positive BRCA1 genetic test. She delayed surgery to finish a 90-day probationary period.
After taking leave for surgery, Childvine terminated her effective the last day of probation, citing attitude, dress violations, and inability to work; Darby alleges those reasons were pretextual and termination was because of her condition.
Early discovery showed Darby had a BRCA1 mutation and pre-cancerous abnormal epithelial cells but not an actual cancer diagnosis; Darby stipulated to amend her complaint to reflect those facts.
The district court treated the stipulation as part of the operative complaint and dismissed Darby’s ADA claim, holding that a genetic mutation/precancerous condition that has not developed into cancer does not substantially limit normal cell growth and thus is not an ADA disability.
The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding Darby plausibly alleged a disability under the ADA (normal cell growth is a major life activity), and remanded for further proceedings; it also remanded the state-law claim for the district court to consider.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether BRCA1 mutation + pre-cancerous abnormal cell growth constitute a disability under the ADA	Darby: mutation + abnormal epithelial cell growth substantially limits the major life activity of normal cell growth	Childvine: absence of cancer means no current substantial limitation; mutation only predisposes to future disease	Court: At pleading stage, allegations are plausible that the mutation + abnormal cells substantially limit normal cell growth; reversal and remand for discovery
Whether the district court needed to convert the motion to dismiss into a summary-judgment motion when considering medical records/stipulation	Darby: court relied on evidence outside the complaint improperly	Childvine: Darby’s stipulation was incorporated into the operative complaint	Court: No conversion required; stipulation treated as part of the complaint, so Rule 12(b)(6) review was proper
Whether Darby pleaded other ADA elements (qualified; causation)	Darby: alleged she was qualified with accommodation and alleged facts (harassment, contemporaneous statements, immediate termination) showing causation beyond mere temporal proximity	Childvine: temporal proximity alone is insufficient and facts do not show causal link	Court: Allegations are sufficient to plausibly plead qualification and causation at the pleading stage
Whether the district court should have adjudicated the Ohio-law claims	Darby: asserted state-law claims as well	Childvine: district court declined after dismissing ADA claim	Court: Remanded state-law claims to the district court to decide in the first instance

Key Cases Cited

Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624 (1998) (HIV infection can be an ADA disability based on immediate physiological effects)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleading)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (application of Twombly plausibility standard)
Lonergan v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., [citation="623 F. App'x 990"] (11th Cir. 2015) (pre-cancerous cell growth alleged to substantially limit normal cell growth)
Shell v. Burlington N. Santa Fe Ry. Co., 941 F.3d 331 (7th Cir. 2019) (predisposition to future conditions does not by itself create an ADA disability)
Baum v. Metro Restoration Servs., Inc., [citation="764 F. App'x 543"] (6th Cir. 2019) (uncommon conditions often require expert evidence to show substantial limitation at summary judgment)
Whitfield v. Tennessee, 639 F.3d 253 (6th Cir. 2011) (summary-judgment standards in ADA disability disputes)
Randolph v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Servs., 453 F.3d 724 (6th Cir. 2006) (temporal proximity plus other indicia may support causation)
United States v. Demmler, 655 F.3d 451 (6th Cir. 2011) (party cannot induce an erroneous ruling and later profit from it)
Harvis v. Roadway Exp. Inc., 923 F.2d 59 (6th Cir. 1991) (same principle regarding invited rulings)
Baker v. Sunny Chevrolet, Inc., 349 F.3d 862 (6th Cir. 2003) (appellate courts typically refrain from addressing issues not passed on by the district court)