ST. LOUIS — A federal judge granted a motion to dismiss a lawsuit against Packsize LLC filed by a former employee.
U.S. District Judge Sarah E. Pitlyk agreed with the defendant that Elizabeth Wilmes complaint failed to state a claim from which relief could be granted, according to the April 21 order.
Wilmes claimed in her complaint that during her employment with Packsize, she was asked to falsify customer data by her supervisor, Michael Kreitzer, to lower pricing figures. When she refused to do so and reported Kreitzer to his supervisor, Drew Derrico, Derrico instructed her to report the conduct to the human resources department.
Wilmes claimed Derrico arranged for her to report directly to him and not Kreitzer. In her claim Wilmes said she later disclosed to Derrico "in a social interaction" that she had previously been diagnosed with cancer, but she did not request any accommodation from Packsize.
However, she was repeatedly questioned about her medical condition. Sometime later, she was told she had to report to Kreitzer again, which she protested, according to the suit. She was then put on an improvement plan and then she was fired.
The plaintiff filed discrimination complaints with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights (MCHR) and the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Council (EEOC), Judge Pitlyk's order said. The EEOC issued a dismissal in May 2018 and the MCHR issued a notice of Termination of Proceedings in July 2019, closing her case and terminating proceedings related to Wilmes' charge without issuing a right-to-sue letter.
Wilmes filed the complaint in U.S. District Court on Aug. 23, 2019. It was removed to federal court on Oct. 10, 2019. The defendant then filed a motion to dismiss.
"The factual allegations in plaintiff’s complaint are simply not sufficient to ground a reasonable inference that she 'has suffered an adverse employment action because of her disability,'" Pitlyk wrote. "The sum total of plaintiff’s relevant allegations is that she disclosed a past diagnosis of cancer to a colleague, that she sought no accommodation but was 'repeatedly questioned about her medical condition,' and that she later experienced unwelcome professional developments, culminating in her dismissal."
Pitlyk wrote that Wilmes did not allege anything that would support a specific link between the alleged disability and the adverse actions that followed. She wrote that "sheer possibility" that Packsize had acted unlawfully failed to satisfy the requirements under facial plausibility to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
"Because Plaintiff’s complaint is devoid of any suggestion that she was disciplined or terminated because of her alleged disability, it would not be reasonable for the Court to infer that she was," Pitlyk wrote. "Therefore, she fails to state a claim under the ADA."
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri case number 4:19-cv-02749