United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Kaymani D. West United States Magistrate Judge
employment-related matter is before the court on
Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 14, in
which Defendant Florence County Disabilities and Special
Needs Board (“Defendant” or “FCDSN”)
seeks Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal as to one of Plaintiff's
several causes of action. Plaintiff Lakeshia Mumford
(“Plaintiff” or “Mumford”) opposes
the Motion, ECF No. 18, and Defendant has filed a Reply, ECF
No. 19. All pretrial proceedings in this case were referred
to the undersigned pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(g)
(D.S.C.). As the pending motion is dispositive, this Report
and Recommendation (“Report”) is entered for
review by the district judge. Having reviewed the pleadings,
briefs, and applicable law, the undersigned recommends
Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 14, be
Factual and procedural background
operative Amended Complaint, ECF No. 12, includes federal
causes of action for discrimination and retaliation in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(“ADA”), as amended; the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act (“ADEA”); and the Family Medical
Leave Act (“FMLA”). The Complaint also includes a
state-law-based cause of action for wrongful discharge in
violation of public policy (“WDPP”). Am. Compl.,
ECF No. 12. Defendant responded to the Amended Complaint by
filing an answer as to the federal causes of action and
moving to dismiss the WDPP cause of action. ECF Nos. 14, 15.
Discovery has begun. ECF No. 16.
from the Amended Complaint and accepted as true for purposes
of this Report, Plaintiff alleges the following potentially
was employed by Defendant as a vocational specialist from
February 2002 until her discharge on August 16, 2018. Am.
Compl. ¶ 6. Plaintiff avers that, during the course of
her employment with Defendant she informed Defendant of a
medical condition that “had the ability to affect her
ability to perform essential functions of her job.”
Id. ¶ 7. Plaintiff is over the age of 40 and
has the “disability of Attention deficit disorder [ADD]
which affects her ability to perform her job duties without
accommodations.” Id. ¶ 8.
averments continue to include the following:
10. Plaintiff engaged in the protective activity of
requesting and utilizing her employer granted FMLA leave in
2016, when her mother needed to be cared for a serious health
condition; Plaintiff returned to work approximately one week
after her mother passed away in May 2016.
11. After returning to work from FMLA leave in May 2016,
Plaintiff was asked to complete paperwork falsely
representing that she was present at the times indicated on
the paperwork, although she knew this would have been the
time she was out on FMLA leave.
12. Since being out on FMLA leave and returning in May 2016
and since being asked to falsify paperwork, Plaintiff has
requested accommodations of decreased case load and/or
additional time to complete tasks as she had fallen behind on
paperwork or charts and was having trouble completing them
with her attention deficit disorder.
Am. Compl. ¶¶ 10-12.
alleges her request for accommodation was denied and several
individuals “corrected Plaintiff about her paperwork
and charts” despite their knowing about Plaintiff's
medical condition. Am. Compl. ¶ 13. Plaintiff avers
younger employees were not disciplined for poor performance.
claims she was “singled out” and her work was
more scrutinized. Id. ¶ 14. Plaintiff “is
aware” of younger employees who do not have ADD and
have not been out on FMLA leave who were treated better than
she has been treated. Id. ¶ 15. On July 25,
2018, Plaintiff complained to human resources of
“harassment and unfair treatment and not being
accommodated with more time to complete tasks, ” and
she was terminated on August 16, 2018. Id. ¶
16. Plaintiff appealed her termination on August 21, 2018,
complaining that she needed more time to do her work because
of ADD. Id. ¶ 17. Defendant determined on
September 6, 2018 that Plaintiff's termination would be
claiming an ADA violation, Plaintiff indicated she
communicated her ADD disability to Defendant and advised of
her “need for an accommodation of extended time to
complete paperwork due to ADD issues[.]” Am. Compl.
¶ 23. Plaintiff claims she was harassed through
discipline and heightened scrutiny of her work and claims