616 F.Supp.3d 920
E.D. Mo.2022Background:
- Plaintiff Aleksandra Shklyar worked for Carboline from 2005 until September 2021 as an RD&I lab manager and challenges COVID-19 workplace policies as ADA discrimination and retaliation.
- Carboline had COVID-19 protocols beginning May 2020 and updated them May 2021 to require unvaccinated employees to wear masks in common areas; proof of vaccination to avoid masking was required.
- Shklyar complied with earlier protocols but after the May 2021 update refused to wear a mask, asserted ADA-related objections in June 2021, and participated in an interactive process with HR.
- Carboline sent communications showing the mask/vaccine rules applied generally to RD&I employees; it warned of disciplinary action (including termination) for noncompliance.
- Shklyar alleges Carboline misclassified and regarded her as having a contagious-disease disability and imposed mitigation measures (masking, testing, isolation), withheld pay, and ultimately terminated her in retaliation.
- Procedural posture: Shklyar filed an amended complaint asserting ADA discrimination and retaliation; Carboline moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); the court granted the motion and dismissed both claims with prejudice.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Shklyar pleaded a disability under the ADA (record-of or regarded-as) | Carboline misclassified and regarded her as having a contagious-disease disability (impaired immune/respiratory), limiting major life activities at work and imposing medical requirements | COVID-19 policies were generally applicable safety measures applied to all RD&I employees, not an individualized classification or perception of disability | Dismissed: plaintiff failed to plausibly allege she was disabled; inference that employer misclassified or regarded her as disabled was implausible given general application of policies |
| Whether Shklyar pleaded retaliation (causal connection) | She engaged in protected opposition to discriminatory policies and employer retaliated (isolation, exams, pay withholding, termination) | Adverse actions flowed from noncompliance with preexisting COVID-19 policies that predated her protected complaints; thus no causal link | Dismissed: plaintiff failed to plausibly allege causation because the policies (and consequences) predated her protected activity |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must state a plausible claim; legal conclusions insufficient)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Hill v. Walker, 737 F.3d 1209 (8th Cir. 2013) (elements of ADA discrimination and retaliation claims)
- Scheffler v. Dohman, 785 F.3d 1260 (8th Cir. 2015) (definitions of "disabled" and the regarded-as prong under the ADA)
- Taylor v. Nimock's Oil Co., 214 F.3d 957 (8th Cir. 2000) (record-of-disability standard)
- Amir v. St. Louis Univ., 184 F.3d 1017 (8th Cir. 1999) (retaliation causation requirement under the ADA)