Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Blakely v. Cessna Aircraft Co.

United States District Court, D. Kansas

June 22, 2017




         This matter is before the Court on Defendant Cessna Aircraft Co.'s and Textron Aviation, Inc.'s (collectively “Textron”) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff Shawn Blakely filed Americans with Disabilities Act[1] (“ADA”) and Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) actions against Textron. Textron moved to dismiss and Blakely filed an amended complaint in response. Textron subsequently filed another motion to (Doc. 19). Textron argues under Rule 12(b)(6) that Blakely has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Because Blakely has successfully stated a claim, the Court denies Textron's motion to dismiss.

         I. Factual and Procedural Background[2]

         Blakely was an employee of Textron's subsidiary, Beechcraft, from 2001 to 2014. Beechcraft fired Blakely in 2010 for attendance infractions stemming from a stomach ulcer. The ulcer incapacitated Blakely for three consecutive days, required him to seek medical attention, and limited major life activities such as working, eating, and digesting. After Beechcraft fired him in 2010, Blakely filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor for wrongful termination. Beechcraft subsequently re-hired Blakely, admitting that the ulcer qualified as a serious health condition under the FMLA. In 2014, Textron acquired Beechcraft, along with all of its records and HR personnel relating to Blakely's prior termination and medical condition. Textron then laid off Blakely in 2014 due to a regular reduction in force.

         Blakely applied and interviewed for a position with Textron on June 19, 2015. On July 28, Textron offered Blakely the job, which he accepted. On August 11, Textron sent congratulatory emails to Blakely, requesting more paperwork for the onboarding process. On September 8, Textron verbally committed the job to him, stating he was “100% good to go.” Blakely's start date was set for September 28.

         On September 11, Textron's HR representative Kari Duerfelt called Blakely to rescind his job offer. She stated that this was due to his previous employment with Beechcraft. When Blakely inquired further, Ms. Duerfelt responded by saying: “You know what's in your file.”

         Blakely exhausted his administrative remedies through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and received a “right to sue” letter on August 31, 2016. Blakely then filed this action on November 22, alleging ADA discrimination and ADA and FMLA retaliation. In response to Textron's motion to dismiss, Blakely filed a First Amended Complaint. Textron now moves to dismiss Blakely's First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).

         II. Legal Standard

         A defendant may move for dismissal of any claim for which the plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.[3] Upon such motion, the Court must decide “whether the complaint contains ‘enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'”[4] A claim is facially plausible if the plaintiff pleads facts sufficient for the Court to reasonably infer that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct.[5] The plausibility standard reflects the requirement in Rule 8 that pleadings provide defendants with fair notice of the nature of claims as well the grounds on which each claim rests.[6] Under 12(b)(6), the Court must accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint, but need not afford such a presumption to legal conclusions.[7] Viewing the complaint in this manner, the Court must decide whether the plaintiff's allegations give rise to more than speculative possibilities.[8] If the allegations in the complaint are “so general that they encompass a wide swath of conduct, much of it innocent, then the plaintiffs ‘have not nudged their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible.'”[9]

         III. Analysis

         Textron argues that Blakely's action should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. First, Textron asserts that Blakely bases his disability on vague and conclusory allegations. They further assert that he has failed to connect the disability with Textron's alleged discrimination. Next, Textron argues that Blakely's retaliation claims fail because he has not shown a connection between his protected activity and Textron's adverse action. The Court will consider these issues in turn.

         A. ADA Discrimination

         Under the ADA, “[n]o covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.”[10] The term “disability” means “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual, ” or a “record of having such an impairment.”[11] An impairment is any “physiological disorder or condition . . . affecting one or more body systems.”[12] This includes conditions affecting the digestive system.[13] Major life activities include eating and digesting.[14] In determining whether an individual is substantially limited in a major life activity, the Court considers facts such as “pain experienced when performing a major life activity. . . .”[15]

         To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA, Blakely must show (1) he is disabled as defined under the ADA; (2) he is qualified, with or without reasonable accommodation by Textron, to perform the essential functions of the job; and (3) he was discriminated against because of his disability.[16] “[W]hile Plaintiff is not required to set forth a prima facie case for each element, [he] is required to set forth plausible claims.”[17] Textron primarily disputes that Blakely has alleged a disability under the ADA.

         To show actual disability, Blakely “must (1) have a recognized impairment, (2) identify one or more appropriate major life activities, and (3) show the impairment substantially limits one or more of those activities.”[18] The third factor requires Blakely to show that he is limited in his major life activity “as compared to most people in the general population.”[19] Blakely alleges that he had a debilitating stomach ulcer during his previous employment with Textron. This medical condition caused him to take consecutive days off work and to regularly seek treatment from a physician. Even though “the law does not require [him] to provide a precise description of the major life activity which [his] disability allegedly affected, ” Blakely alleges that the ulcer limited major life activities such as eating and digesting.[20] While Blakely may ultimately be unable to prove that his ulcer is a disability, at this stage his allegations are adequate to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. The Court reasonably infers from these alleged facts that Blakely has a “record of impairment, ” qualifying as a disability under the ADA.

         Additionally, in his allegations, Blakely notes that Textron hired him based on his ability to perform the essential functions of the job, and they did not rescind his offer for a lack of ability to perform any of those functions. Textron does not refute this rationale. ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.