Tracey Tucker v. United Way Worldwide

Tucker · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division · February 2, 2026 · No. 1:25-cv-990 (RDA/WEF)

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia addressed United Way Worldwide’s motion to dismiss claims brought by Tracey Tucker under the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Virginia Human Rights Act. The court held that Tucker plausibly alleged FMLA interference and retaliation claims but failed to plausibly allege disability discrimination claims under the ADA and VHRA. Counts 2 and 3 were dismissed without prejudice, with leave to amend, while the motion was denied as to Count 1.

Holdings

  1. The complaint plausibly alleged FMLA interference because Tucker alleged that United Way terminated her retroactively while she was entitled to, and had allegedly been approved for, FMLA leave, treating the absences as unexcused.
  2. The complaint plausibly alleged FMLA retaliation because Tucker alleged protected FMLA activity, an adverse employment action, and a causal connection between her termination and her leave activity.
  3. The complaint failed to state ADA and VHRA disparate-treatment disability-discrimination claims because it alleged adverse action based on disability but did not allege that Tucker was treated differently from anyone else.
  4. The ADA and VHRA claims were dismissed without prejudice, and Tucker was granted leave to amend because the court could not conclude that amendment would be futile.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Tucker plausibly alleged FMLA interference based on her termination while she was allegedly entitled to FMLA leave.
  2. Whether Tucker plausibly alleged FMLA retaliation based on her termination during leave that was ultimately approved.
  3. Whether Tucker plausibly alleged ADA and VHRA disparate-treatment disability discrimination where she alleged adverse employment action because of her disability but did not allege that she was treated differently from similarly situated persons.
  4. Whether Tucker should receive leave to amend the dismissed disability-discrimination claims.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (13)

  • Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)(followed)
  • Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 556, 570 (2007)(followed)
  • E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Industries, Inc., 637 F.3d 435, 440 (4th Cir. 2011)(followed)
  • Wahi v. Charleston Area Medical Center, Inc., 562 F.3d 599, 616 n.26 (4th Cir. 2009)(followed)
  • Kloth v. Microsoft Corp., 444 F.3d 312, 319 (4th Cir. 2006)(followed)
  • Goldfarb v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 791 F.3d 500, 508 (4th Cir. 2015)(followed)
  • Twine v. AT&T, Inc., 755 F. Supp. 3d 959, 981-82 (E.D. Va. 2024)(followed)
  • Adkins v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 70 F.4th 785, 796 (4th Cir. 2023)(followed)
  • Bennett v. Spartanburg Community College, 2023 WL 9067801, at *4 (D.S.C. Oct. 24, 2023)(followed by analogy)
  • Hines v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of North Carolina, 2020 WL 3452155, at *3 (M.D.N.C. June 24, 2020)(distinguished)

Showing top 10 of 13.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…