Hadley v. Walmart Corporation

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SETH HADLEY, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 24-291-KD-MU
)
WALMART, )
)
Defendant. )
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss (Doc.
18), Plaintiff’s Response (Doc. 20), and Defendant’s Reply (Doc. 21). This motion has
been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for entry of a report and
recommendation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and S.D. Ala. Gen LR 72(a)(2)(S).
Upon consideration of all relevant filings in this case, the undersigned recommends that
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss be DENIED.
I. Standard of Review
In deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for “failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted,” the Court must construe the complaint in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff, “accepting all well-pleaded facts that are alleged therein to be
true.” E.g., Miyahira v. Vitacost.com, Inc., 715 F.3d 1257, 1265 (11th Cir. 2013). “Fed. R.
Civ. P. 8(a)(2) requires that a pleading contain ‘a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief’ in order to give the defendant fair notice of
what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Am. Dental Ass'n v. Cigna Corp.,
605 F.3d 1283, 1288 (11th Cir. 2010) (quotation omitted). “ ‘While a complaint attacked
Case 1:24-cv-00291-KD-MU Doc# 22 Filed 06/24/25 Page 1 of 8 PageID#
<pageID>

2
by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a
plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than
labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will
not do.’ ” Id. at 1289 (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). “[T]o
survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must now contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ ” Id. (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). While this “plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability
requirement’ at the pleading stage…the standard ‘calls for enough fact to raise a
reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence’ of the claim.” Id. (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
In determining whether a claim is stated, the court “must accept the factual
allegations in a complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff.” Almanza v. United Airlines, Inc., 851 F.3d 1060, 1066 (11th Cir. 2017).
“However, conclusory allegations, unwarranted factual deductions or legal conclusions
masquerading as facts will not prevent dismissal.” Davila v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 326 F.3d
1183, 1185 (11th Cir. 2003). Iqbal “suggested that courts considering motions to dismiss
adopt a ‘two-pronged approach’ in applying these principles: 1) eliminate any allegations
in the complaint that are merely legal conclusions; and 2) where there are well-pleaded
factual allegations, ‘assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give
rise to an entitlement to relief.’” Am. Dental Ass'n., 605 F.3d at 1290 (quoting Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 679).
II. Legal Analysis
Case 1:24-cv-00291-KD-MU Doc# 22 Filed 06/24/25 Page 2 of 8 PageID#
<pageID>

3
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint alleges violations under the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. ("ADA"), and any other
applicable laws. (Doc. 17, PageID.48). Plaintiff’s initial complaint was dismissed without
prejudice with leave to refile upon the Court finding that the complaint impermissibly relied
on legal conclusions rather than factual allegations in support of his claims. (Docs. 11,
13). Hadley refiled his complaint with minimal changes, and the main factual allegations
upon which his claims are premised now state (with the only additions to the allegations
in bold type):
9. Plaintiff was hired by Defendant in or around January 2024 as a Personal
Shopper.
10. Throughout Plaintiff's employment, Plaintiff performed the duties of his
position satisfactorily and received positive performance reviews.
11. Despite Plaintiff’s satisfactory performance, Defendant subjected
Plaintiff to discrimination based upon disability. Specifically, disparaging
remarks were made about the Plaintiff’s disability and requests for
reasonable accommodation were ignored or denied. This includes
remarks made by management and agents of Walmart that Plaintiff’s
condition made customers uncomfortable, and that it might be better
if he worked in the back.
12. Plaintiff reported the discriminatory conduct to management in March of
2024, but Defendant failed to take appropriate corrective action. Instead,
Defendant made disparaging remarks regarding Plaintiff’s disability and
created a hostile work environment; ultimately leading to Plaintiff’s
departure from the Defendant’s employment.
13. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct,
Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer damages, including but not
limited to lost wages, emotional distress, and other damages.
(Doc. 17, PageID.49) (emphasis added). Plaintiff’s complaint also states that he “timely
filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
alleging discrimination based on a bona fide disability” and filed suit within 90 days of
Case 1:24-cv-00291-KD-MU Doc# 22 Filed 06/24/25 Page 3 of 8 PageID#
<pageID>

4
receiving his Notice of Right to Sue.1 (Doc. 17, PageID.49). While Hadley’s factual
allegations remain undeniably sparse, the undersigned finds that the additional
allegations have - just barely - “nudged [his] claims across the line from conceivable to
plausible.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
Plaintiff’s Response indicates that he is alleging a disability discrimination claim
under the ADA for failure to accommodate, as well as claims for a hostile work
environment and constructive discharge. (See Docs. 20, 20-1). An ADA plaintiff
establishes a case by showing (1) they have a disability; (2) they are a qualified individual
under the ADA; and (3) the employer discriminated against them “on the basis of
disability.” See Beasley v. O'Reilly Auto Parts, 69 F.4th 744, 754 (11th Cir. 2023); 42
U.S.C. § 12112(a). Discrimination can be demonstrated if the employer failed to make a
reasonable accommodation or if the plaintiff suffered disparate treatment. See
Richardson v. Honda Mfg. of Ala., LLC, 635 F. Supp. 2d 1261, 1277-78 (N.D. Ala. 2009)
(discussing nuances between disparate treatment and a failure to accommodate under
the ADA). Here, Plaintiff’s amended complaint states that his requests for reasonable
accommodation were ignored or denied. This statement was notably absent from the
initial complaint and fatal to that pleading. However, Hadley has now alleged a minimal
amount of facts to support this claim, stating that he has a “bona fide disability,” he was
able to perform his job in a satisfactory manner, he requested reasonable
accommodations that were ignored or denied, and the basis of his discrimination was his
disability, which is supported by allegations that disparaging remarks were made by
1 The timeliness of Plaintiff’s suit is not challenged.
Case 1:24-cv-00291-KD-MU Doc# 22 Filed 06/24/25 Page 4 of 8 PageID#
<pageID>

5
management about his disability. Hadley also alleges that his employer’s failure to take
corrective action ultimately led to his departure from his employment with Walmart.
A plaintiff wishing to establish a hostile work environment claim must show: (1) that
he belongs to a protected group; (2) that he has been subject to unwelcome harassment;
(3) that the harassment must have been based on a protected characteristic of the
employee, such as national origin; (4) that the harassment was sufficiently severe or
pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of employment and create a discriminatorily
abusive working environment; and (5) that the employer is responsible for such
environment under either a theory of vicarious or of direct liability. Miller v. Kenworth of
Dothan, Inc., 277 F.3d 1269, 1275 (11th Cir. 2002). Here, Hadley has alleged he is
disabled, was subject to disparaging remarks about his disability, that management made
some of those remarks, was aware of the remarks, refused to take corrective action, and
failed to respond to his requests for accommodation, all of which ultimately led to his
leaving his job with Walmart. Reviewing these allegations in a light most favorable to
Plaintiff, the undersigned finds Hadley has now alleged a minimum threshold of facts to
state his claim.
The Court finds the cases cited by Walmart in support of its argument that Hadley
has not sufficiently plead a claim for hostile work environment are distinguishable from
this case, as the claims in those cases were dismissed based on the plaintiffs’ failure to
allege that the offending conduct was based on a protected characteristic rather than a
finding that the conduct was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute a hostile
environment. See Edwards v. Prime, Inc., 602 F.3d 1276, 1300-01 (11th Cir. 2010); see
also Wells v. Gourmet Servs., Inc., No. 2:13-CV-516-MEF, 2014 WL 3611819, at *8 (M.D.
Case 1:24-cv-00291-KD-MU Doc# 22 Filed 06/24/25 Page 5 of 8 PageID#
<pageID>

6
Ala. July 21, 2014), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Wells v. Gourmet
Servs., 2014 WL 4444233 (M.D. Ala. Sept. 9, 2014) (dismissing plaintiff’s hostile work
environment claim where the court was “unable to identify any facts from which it could
reasonably be inferred that any workplace hostility alleged in the complaint was the result
of racial animus.”); see also Uppal v. Hosp. Corp. of Am., 482 F. App'x 394, 396-97 (11th
Cir. 2012) (affirming dismissal of hostile work environment claim where plaintiff failed to
allege sufficient facts suggesting that gender, race, or national origin played any part in
the adverse employment actions, which “necessarily defeats any allegation that the
hostile work environment was on account of protected characteristics.”). In contrast,
Hadley has unequivocally alleged that the offensive remarks and treatment of him were
based on his disability. Therefore, these cases do not persuade the undersigned that
Hadley has failed to state a hostile environment claim. Further, the undersigned
recognizes that a single instance of harassing conduct may not be sufficient to support a
hostile environment claim but, reading Hadley’s Amended Complaint in a light most
favorable to him, the Court finds that he has alleged multiple instances of offensive
conduct based on his disability.
In order to show constructive discharge, a plaintiff must show that the situation was
so intolerable that he had no choice but to separate from his employment. Blake v. City
of Montgomery, Alabama, 492 F. Supp. 3d 1292, 1306 (M.D. Ala. 2020), aff'd sub nom.
Blake v. City of Montgomery, No. 20-14229, 2021 WL 5177429 (11th Cir. Nov. 8, 2021).
Constructive discharge constitutes an adverse employment action under the ADA.
Atkinson v. Wiley Sanders Truck Lines, Inc., 45 F. Supp. 2d 1288, 1295 (M.D. Ala. 1998),
aff'd sub nom. Atkinson v. Wiley Sanders Truck, 189 F.3d 486 (11th Cir. 1999). While the
Case 1:24-cv-00291-KD-MU Doc# 22 Filed 06/24/25 Page 6 of 8 PageID#
<pageID>

7
undersigned recognizes that the standard for establishing a constructive discharge is
even higher than a hostile work environment claim, Hadley’s allegations at this stage are
sufficient to state a plausible constructive discharge claim. See Blake, 492 F. Supp. 3d at
1307. Again, Hadley has alleged he is disabled, was subject to disparaging remarks about
his disability, that management made some of those remarks, was aware of the remarks,
refused to take corrective action, and failed to respond to his requests for
accommodation, all of which ultimately led to his leaving his job with Walmart. The
undersigned reads the amended complaint to allege that disparaging remarks were made
about Hadley’s disability and that additional disparaging remarks were made after he
reported the earlier remarks to management. Therefore, the remarks were not an isolated
incident and the discriminatory actions to which Hadley was subjected were, to some
extent, ongoing. Thus, despite the lack of detailed facts in the current complaint regarding
the context or content of the remarks and Hadley’s requested accommodations, the
undersigned finds that, at this stage, the Amended Complaint plausibly states disability
discrimination claims against Walmart.
III. Conclusion
Based on the analysis above, it is recommended that Defendant’s Renewed
Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 18) be DENIED.
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO FILE OBJECTIONS
A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all parties in the
manner provided by law. Any party who objects to this recommendation or anything in it
must, within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this document, file specific written
objections with the Clerk of this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b);
Case 1:24-cv-00291-KD-MU Doc# 22 Filed 06/24/25 Page 7 of 8 PageID#
<pageID>

8
S.D. Ala. Gen. LR 72(c)(1) & (2). The parties should note that under Eleventh Circuit Rule
3-1, “[a] party failing to object to a magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations
contained in a report and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on
unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions if the party was informed of the time period
for objecting and the consequences on appeal for failing to object. In the absence of a
proper objection, however, the court may review on appeal for plain error if necessary in
the interests of justice.” 11th Cir. R. 3-1. To be specific, an objection must identify the
specific finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the
objection, and specify the place in the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation
where the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by
reference or refers to the briefing before the Magistrate Judge is not specific.
DONE this the 24th day of June, 2025.
s/P. BRADLEY MURRAY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:24-cv-00291-KD-MU Doc# 22 Filed 06/24/25 Page 8 of 8 PageID#
<pageID>