Pitts-Brown v. Renal Treatment Centers-Mid Atl., Inc.

• Decision Date: 15 November 2022
• Docket Number: Civil Action 2:21-cv-232
• Parties: MICHELE PITTS-BROWN, Plaintiff, v. RENAL TREATMENT CENTERS-MID ATLANTIC, INC., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia

MICHELE PITTS-BROWN, Plaintiff,
v.
RENAL TREATMENT CENTERS-MID ATLANTIC, INC., Defendant.

Civil Action No. 2:21-cv-232

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Norfolk Division

November 15, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Raymond A. Jackson, United States District Judge

Before the Court is Defendant Renal Treatment Centers-Mid Atlantic, Inc.'s (“Defendant” or “RTC”) Motion to Dismiss. Def.'s Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 22. Defendant moves to dismiss, in its entirety, Plaintiff Michele Pitts-Brown's (“Plaintiff' or “Pitts-Brown”) Second Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Id.; Def.'s Mem. Supp. Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 23 (“Def.'s Mem. Supp.”). The Court has considered the memoranda of the parties and this matter is now ripe for determination. See Def.'s Mem. Supp.; Pl.'s Mem. Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 24 (“Pl.'s Mem. Opp'n”); Def.'s Reply to Pl.'s Mem. Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 25 (“Def.'s Reply”). Upon review, the Court finds that a hearing on this Motion is not necessary. See E.D. Va. Local Civ. R. 7(J). For the reasons stated herein, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On April 27, 2021, Plaintiff filed a pro se Complaint against Defendant. Compl., ECF No. 1. On September 5, 2021, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint against Defendant, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (“ADA”), and the

1

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. (“Rehabilitation Act”). Am. Compl., ECF No. 14. On October 5, 2021, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) or, in the alternative, Motion to Strike Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). Def.'s Mot. Dismiss or Alt. Mot. Strike, ECF No. 15. The Court granted the Motion to Dismiss, rendering the Motion to Strike Moot. Memo Order Granting Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 20. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. Id.

On September 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). Second Am. Compl., ECF No. 21. On September 16, 2022, Defendant moved to dismiss, in its entirety, Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Def.'s Mem. Supp. Mot. Dismiss. Relevant to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and stated in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the following facts are drawn from the Second Amended Complaint. See Adams v. Bain, 697 F.2d 1213, 1219 (4th Cir. 1982).

Plaintiff is an adult female resident of the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. Second Am. Compl. at ¶ 8. Defendant is a corporation owned by DaVITA, Inc. that does business in Virginia. Id. at ¶ 9. At all times relevant to the Second Amended Complaint, Defendant operated a business that was engaged in an industry affecting commerce and employed more than fifteen employees. Id. at ¶ 10. At all times relevant to the Second Amended Complaint, Defendant received federal grants, federal contracts, or similar other financial assistance. Id. at ¶ 11. Plaintiff worked as a Licensed Master Social Worker II (“MSW II”) at Defendant's Lehigh Dialysis Center in Norfolk, Virginia, from 2011 to June 4, 2021. Id. at ¶ 12. During this time, Plaintiff performed the essential functions of her job with reasonable accommodations and never received a negative performance evaluation, meeting the expectations of the job. Id. at ¶¶ 13-14. During this time, Plaintiff suffered

2

from a visual disability that substantially limited her ability to see peripheral areas and substantially limited her depth perception, though it did not render her totally blind. Id. at ¶ 15.

In May of 2016, Defendant was given written notice of Plaintiffs impairment and was aware that she was requesting an accommodation through the IT Department. Id. at ¶¶ 16-17. Defendant modified some portions of Plaintiffs desktop computer but not others. Id. at ¶ 18. Defendant did not modify any of the Defendant specific portals, provide magnification equipment, or lighting. Id. at ¶ 19. Plaintiff alleges by not modifying any of the Defendant specific portals, not providing magnification, and not providing lighting, Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff with an effective accommodation. Id. at ¶ 20. Around late December 2019 or early January of 2020, Plaintiff could no longer perform key aspects of her job because Plaintiff could not adequately read her computer screen without the requested modifications to Defendant specific portals and without proper magnification equipment. Id. at ¶ 21. Plaintiff believes that around December of 2019 and for several months after, Defendant had vacant jobs that Plaintiff was qualified to perform. Id. at ¶ 22.

In late 2019 or early 2020, Plaintiff applied for short term disability because she could no longer safely work for Defendant. Id. at ¶ 23. Plaintiffs last day worked was January 4, 2020 and shortly thereafter she was placed on a leave of absence with short-term disability benefits effective January 6, 2020. Id. at ¶ 24. On February 25, 2020, Plaintiff completed and signed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC, describing Plaintiffs desire and efforts to be transferred to a new position among other things. Id. at ¶ 25. In this document, Plaintiff also stated that “[i]n December 2019, [Plaintiff] had no other option but to request short term disability because [Defendant] would not engage with [Plaintiff].” Id. at ¶ 26. Around June 2020, Defendant transitioned Plaintiffs leave of absence pay from short-term disability benefits to Long Term Disability benefits (“LTD”) and

3

required her to apply for Social Security Disability Insurance (“SSDI”). Id. at ¶¶ 27-28. In June 2020, Defendant's agents prepared an application for SSDI for Plaintiff to sign, including a section whereby Plaintiff appointed Defendant's agents to act as her representative in connection with her claim for benefits. Id. at ¶¶ 29-30. The SSDI application sought benefits on the grounds that, if Plaintiff was not given an effective accommodation to help her, she could not do any job in the economic marketplace. Id. at ¶ 31.

On August 5, 2020, Defendant submitted its position statement to EEOC, describing Plaintiffs efforts to be transferred to a new position among other things. Id. at ¶¶ 32-33. Around August 15, 2020, Defendant continued Plaintiffs leave of absence but changed her benefits to LTD pay effective July 4, 2020. Id. at ¶ 34. On September 6, 2020, Plaintiff responded to Defendant's position statement with information to EEOC that included her desire and efforts to be transferred to a different or vacant job within the Defendant's organization so that she could continue to work. Id. at ¶ 35. On January 29, 2021, the EEOC completed its investigation and issued Plaintiff a right to sue notice. Id. at ¶ 36.

On April 29, 2021, Defendant requested an update regarding Plaintiffs ability to work. Id. at ¶ 37. On or about May 10, 2021, one of Plaintiff s doctors sent Defendant a report stating that Plaintiff could not return to work without a reasonable accommodation and that he did not know enough about the work duties to identify a specific accommodation. Id. at ¶ 38. Plaintiff alleges that before May 10, 2021 Defendant was on notice of a recommendation that Defendant provide Plaintiff with a RUBY 7 magnification device with specific technology that could effectively accommodate Plaintiffs impairment and allow her to perform the essential functions of her job. Id. At all times relevant, Defendant had a policy or practice of limiting medical leaves to a fixed period. Id. at ¶ 39. On June 4, 2021, Defendant terminated Plaintiffs employment on June 4, 2021

4

because of a policy that only allowed a limited period of leave. Id. at ¶ 40. Accordingly, Plaintiff asserts three counts against Defendant:

Count 1. Failure to

...