By Reba Weiss and Brennen Johnson
In Banks v. Yoke’s Foods, a U.S. District Court in Washington State denied a grocery company’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by a former deli manager. In her lawsuit, the former employee alleged that the company wrongfully demoted (and eventually fired) her because of her anxiety disorder, in violation of the Washington Law Against Discrimination. The company requested that the Court dismiss the lawsuit, claiming that the former employee failed to allege that her disability was a substantial factor in her termination. The Court concluded that the former employee had alleged sufficient facts to support an inference that the company had discriminated against her based on her anxiety disorder.
Jill Banks joined Yoke’s Foods, Inc. as an Assistant Deli Manager in 1997 and, after five years, was promoted to the position of Corporate Assistant Deli Supervisor. Until her termination, she maintained an excellent employment record, was never disciplined, and never received a negative performance evaluation. However, in 2007, Banks began to experience severe anxiety and panic attacks. As a result, she requested a leave of absence to seek mental health treatment, which the company granted. Shortly after her return, in 2008, the company informed her that her position was no longer needed. She was consequently demoted and relocated to the position of Deli Manager.
At her new location, Banks worked under an aggressive supervisor who subjected his supervisees to “explosive anger outbursts in the workplace, which often included inappropriate language and gestures, swearing, yelling, kicking items down the sales floor in front of employees and customers, punching trashcans, talking negatively about employees, and calling employees names like ‘crybaby,’ ‘clown,’ and ‘idiot.’” This behavior exacerbated Banks’ anxiety. In the summer of 2013, she went to the emergency room and suffered severe panic and anxiety attacks allegedly triggered by her supervisor’s aggressive behavior. The company’s HR Department subsequently instructed the supervisor to take an anger management class, but the supervisor refused, choosing instead to place a label reading “The Offendinator” on his work inbox while further antagonizing employees he knew to have lodged complaints.
Banks again sought leave to receive medical treatment for severe anxiety and panic later that year. The company granted this request as well, but stated that her position would only be held open for twelve weeks and that she could not return to work until released by a psychiatrist. Banks subsequently took approximately six weeks off to engage in multiple forms of treatment, after which she returned to her position.
In December 2013, an employee placed an outdated container of macaroni salad on the deli’s display shelf. Although Banks had neither instructed this behavior nor was aware of its occurrence, she was held responsible, escorted from the premises, and placed on a three day suspension. After the suspension was completed, she received a call from her supervisor, “The Offendinator,” instructing her to come in at 6 a.m. not in uniform, with no further explanation. When she arrived, her supervisor informed her that she was terminated “due to her extended absences and the salad incident.” She later met with an HR coordinator who informed her that a different position was available, although it paid substantially less, was part-time, and lacked benefits. Banks applied for the position and continued to inquire about other positions for the next several months, during which the company hired four less experienced applicants at the location where she applied.
Finally, after the company informed an inquiring potential employer that “we’re not done with her yet,” Banks filed her lawsuit in September 2014. Among other claims, Banks asserted that Yoke’s had discriminated against her because of her disability both when it demoted her from Corporate Assistant Deli Supervisor and when it fired her. In a request to dismiss the lawsuit at the onset, the company argued that Banks had failed to allege enough facts that would support a claim of discrimination.
The Court began by noting that the standard used to assess a lawsuit in a motion to dismiss is less scrutinizing than the standard used in a later request for summary judgment. It then summarily rejected Yoke’s argument. It stated:
[A] plaintiff alleging a claim for disparate treatment need only present sufficient factual allegations asserting that the employer’s adverse employment decision was motivated by plaintiff’s [disability]… Plaintiffs alleged the following facts in support of their assertion that anxiety issues were the cause of Ms. Banks’ demotion [and termination]: (1) Ms. Banks has an excellent employment record, was never previously disciplined or written up, and never received negative employee evaluations; (2) Ms. Banks suffered her first episode of panic and anxiety in 2007; (3) Yoke’s [was] aware of Ms. Banks’ condition… (4) Yoke’s subsequently reassigned Ms. Banks to a new location and demoted her… [5] Ms. Banks took several weeks of leave in 2013 after she was hospitalized for an anxiety attack… [6] Yoke’s informed Ms. Banks it would only keep her position open for twelve weeks; [7] Yoke’s discharged Ms. Banks less than three months after she returned from work from extended leave; and [8] Ms. Banks knew of other employees, employees without her medical condition and need for medical leave, who engaged in similar conduct and were not similarly discharged. Plaintiffs have undoubtedly satisfied [the] less burdensome pleading standard for a claim of disparate treatment.
Based on these facts, the Court concluded that Banks had alleged sufficient facts to support her claim of disability discrimination. It therefore rejected Yoke’s motion to dismiss.
The Court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss claims of disability discrimination, failure to accommodate and violations of the FMLA and WFMLA. However, the Court dismissed the less common claims of blacklisting, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent retention. These latter claims are very challenging and often do not survive motions to dismiss or summary judgment motions.
