Wilcox v. W.K.S. Restaurant Corporation dba WKS Restaurant Group

- 1 -
No. 6:25-cv-00299
Michael Wilcox,
Plaintiff,
v.
W.K.S. Frosty Corporation,
Defendant.
O R D E R
Plaintiff brought this action against defendant for alleged vio-
lations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Family
and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and the Texas Labor Code. Doc.
6. The case was referred to a magistrate judge. Doc. 5. Defendant
then moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Doc. 12. The
magistrate judge issued a report recommending that defendant’s
motion be granted but that plaintiff be granted leave to file an
amended complaint. Doc. 17 at 11. Plaintiff filed written objec-
tions to the report. Doc. 19.
The court reviews the objected-to portions of a magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation de novo. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). However, the “objections
must specifically identify those findings objected to. Frivolous,
conclusive or general objections need not be considered by the
district court.” Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th
Cir. Unit B 1982) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by Douglass
v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
Furthermore, a party’s entitlement to de novo review does not en-
title it to raise arguments that were not presented to the magis-
trate judge without a compelling reason. See Cupit v. Whitley, 28
F.3d 532, 535 & n.5 (5th Cir. 1994). When there have been no
timely objections to a report, or the objections are improper, “the
court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face
Case 6:25-cv-00299-JCB-JDL Document 21 Filed 12/16/25 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

- 2 -
of the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory committee’s notes
to 1983 amendment.
I. Background
Plaintiff alleges that he hurt his lower back while installing
heat lamps. Doc. 6 at 3. Plaintiff informed his supervisors of this
injury but did not seek treatment until January 2024—three
months later. Id. Later, plaintiff’s supervisor asked plaintiff to
perform another heat-lamp job. Id. When plaintiff informed his
supervisor that he would need help on the job due to his back in-
jury, the supervisor allegedly rescinded the work order. Id. At
some point, plaintiff’s supervisor also told plaintiff that he should
take FMLA leave and that he was being demoted to “PM tech.”
Id. at 4.
Plaintiff then initiated a worker’s-compensation claim. Id.
That claim was ultimately denied as untimely and deemed related
to a preexisting injury. Id. On July 25, 2024, plaintiff’s supervisor
told plaintiff to return his work van and company credit cards. Id.
After returning the van, plaintiff received a call from an HR rep-
resentative. Id. The representative told plaintiff that he had been
put on FMLA leave back in May of 2024. Id. The representative
also asked if plaintiff had any work restrictions. Id. Plaintiff as-
serted restrictions against lifting, stooping, and driving for more
than 30 minutes. Id. The representative allegedly told plaintiff
that defendant could not accommodate these restrictions. Id. at
4–5. Plaintiff also requested a non-driving job. Id. at 5. The repre-
sentative allegedly said that she would look into that but never
contacted plaintiff about returning to work. Id.
II. Legal standards
To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, plaintiff’s com-
plaint must include “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007). The court will accept all alleged facts as true, even if
doubtful, but those facts must establish a right to relief that rises
“above the speculative level.” Id. at 555.
Case 6:25-cv-00299-JCB-JDL Document 21 Filed 12/16/25 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

- 3 -
III. Analysis
A. Discrimination claim
Plaintiff objects that the magistrate judge erred in finding that
plaintiff failed to allege a qualified disability. Doc. 19 at 2. Plaintiff
misreads the report. The magistrate found that plaintiff ade-
quately pleaded that he has a disability. Doc. 17 at 6. However, the
magistrate judge nonetheless found that plaintiff failed to plead an
ADA discrimination claim because plaintiff did not adequately al-
lege that he was qualified for his job despite his disability or that
he could have performed essential job functions with reasonable
accommodations. Id. at 6–7.
Plaintiff did not specifically object to those findings, and the
court finds no clear error in them. As such, the court accepts the
magistrate judge’s findings at to the ADA discrimination claim.
B. Failure-to-accommodate claim
The magistrate judge also found that plaintiff failed to ade-
quately plead a failure-to-accommodate claim. Id. at 8. Specifi-
cally, the magistrate judge found that plaintiff did not allege facts
showing that he was qualified to perform essential job functions
despite his disability or that he could have performed those func-
tions with a reasonable accommodation. Id. Plaintiff objects that
(1) he alleged that defendant failed to engage in an interactive pro-
cess or identify any available alternative position, (2) he requested
a non-driving position, and (3) whether a proposed accommoda-
tion is reasonable is a factual question inappropriate for resolution
at the pleading stage. Doc. 19 at 3.
To bring a failure-to-accommodate claim under the ADA, a
plaintiff must allege that he is a qualified individual with a disabil-
ity. See Thompson v. Microsoft Corp., 2 F.4th 460, 467 (5th Cir.
2021). To establish that he is qualified, a plaintiff must show ei-
ther (1) that “he could perform the essential functions of the job
in spite of his disability, or (2) that a reasonable accommodation
of his disability would have enabled him to perform the essential
functions of the job.” Id.
Case 6:25-cv-00299-JCB-JDL Document 21 Filed 12/16/25 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

- 4 -
Here, plaintiff ’s pleaded facts do not suggest that he was qual-
ified despite his disability or that a reasonable accommodation
would allow him to perform essential job functions. Rather, plain-
tiff relies on vague assertions that he was qualified and that de-
fendant failed to accommodate his request for a non-driving posi-
tion. Furthermore, while the reasonableness of an accommoda-
tion request may be a fact question, plaintiff has not alleged that
there were any non-driving positions available for plaintiff to per-
form. As such, plaintiff’s objections lack merit and are overruled.
The court accepts the magistrate judge’s findings with respect to
the failure-to-accommodate claim.
C. FMLA interference and retaliation claims
The magistrate judge found that plaintiff had no claim for
FMLA interference because placing an employee on involuntary
FMLA leave does not constitute interference. Doc. 17 at 9. Plain-
tiff objects to this finding. This objection lacks merit as the Fifth
Circuit has expressly held that “it is not contrary to the FMLA
for an employee to be placed on involuntary FMLA leave.” Willis
v. Coca Cola Enters., 445 F.3d 413, 417 (5th Cir. 2006) (cleaned
up).
As to retaliation, plaintiff contends that defendant unilaterally
placed him on FMLA leave, failed to communicate, required him
to return company property, denied PTO payout, and terminated
him prior to the exhaustion of his FMLA leave. Docs. 6 at 6, 19 at
3–4. Plaintiff further objects that the temporal proximity between
the FMLA designation and termination supports a causal connec-
tion for retaliation. Doc. 19 at 4.
However, plaintiff does not allege that he sought protection
under the FMLA, as required for a retaliation claim. See Ion v.
Chevron USA, Inc., 731 F.3d 379, 390 (5th Cir. 2013). Because
plaintiff was involuntarily placed on FMLA leave, he cannot plau-
sibly claim that defendant retaliated against him for taking such
leave. Rather, plaintiff ’s real claim appears to be that defendant
fired him due to the injury he sustained. That claim is rooted in
Case 6:25-cv-00299-JCB-JDL Document 21 Filed 12/16/25 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

- 5 -
the ADA, not the FMLA. As such, the court accepts the magis-
trate judge’s findings as to the FMLA claims.
D. Worker’s compensation retaliation claim
The magistrate judge declined to address plaintiff’s state-law
claim because the report recommended dismissal and amendment
as to the federal claims. Plaintiff objects that the court can retain
supplemental jurisdiction over his state claims so long as any fed-
eral claim remains plausible. Doc. 19 at 4. Because the court is
granting plaintiff leave to amend, it declines to address plaintiff’s
state-law claim at this stage.
IV. Conclusion
Having reviewed the report de novo, the court finds no error.
As such, the court accepts the report’s findings and recommen-
dations and grants defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 12). Plain-
tiff is granted leave to file a second amended complaint that ad-
dresses the deficiencies identified in this order and in the magis-
trate judge’s report (Doc. 17).
So ordered by the court on December 16, 2025.
J. CAM PB EL L BA RK ER
United States District Judge
Case 6:25-cv-00299-JCB-JDL Document 21 Filed 12/16/25 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>