Khirey Lewis v. Didlake, Inc.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted Didlake, Inc.’s motion to dismiss a pro se plaintiff’s claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court held that the complaint did not plausibly allege failure to accommodate, hostile work environment, or wrongful termination, and that the alleged conduct did not support an emotional-distress tort claim. The court also denied leave to amend because the plaintiff did not properly move to amend or provide a proposed amended complaint.

Holdings

1. The complaint failed to state an ADA failure-to-accommodate claim because it did not allege that Didlake refused a reasonable accommodation that would have enabled Lewis to perform the essential functions of his position.
2. The complaint failed to state an ADA hostile-work-environment claim because it did not allege harassment sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter a term, condition, or privilege of employment, or facts establishing a basis to impute the coworkers' conduct to Didlake.
3. The complaint failed to state an ADA wrongful-termination claim because it did not allege that Lewis was meeting Didlake's legitimate expectations when discharged or that the circumstances raised a reasonable inference of unlawful disability discrimination.
4. The complaint failed to state a Maryland intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim because it alleged no intentional or reckless conduct that was extreme or outrageous.
5. The court denied leave to amend because Lewis made only a bare request in his opposition, identified no proposed amendments, and did not provide a proposed amended complaint as required by the local rules.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint plausibly stated an ADA failure-to-accommodate claim.
2. Whether the complaint plausibly stated an ADA hostile-work-environment claim.
3. Whether the complaint plausibly stated an ADA wrongful-termination claim.
4. Whether the complaint plausibly stated a Maryland intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim.
5. Whether Lewis should be granted leave to amend when he made only a bare request in a response and did not identify proposed amendments or provide a proposed amended complaint.

Disposition

dismissed