Allegations in Lawsuit Must be "Reasonably Related" to Allegations in Charge of Discrimination to Survive Motion to Dismiss

Joseph Abellard filed a charge of discrimination against Boeing, his employer, with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights and EEOC on June 15, 2008. The charge alleged discrimination on the bases of race, age and disability. Plaintiff's charge read as follows:

I was hired by [Boeing] in November 1995. My last position held was Engineer Specialist/Sr. Engineer. In December 2007 I went on medical leave. I returned to work on March 5, 2008. I worked through March 7, 2008 but was informed that I had not provided the required documents for a release to return to work. I provided the employer with a release to return to work from my Psychiatrist. I was told I had to get another release from my primary doctor. I provided all of the required documents as instructed. Around March 26, 2008 I received a termination letter stating that I was terminated for being on leave illegally. I believe that I have been discriminated against due to a record of and/or perceived disability. I also believe that I have been discriminated against due to my race (African American) and age (52). This is in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.

Sometime thereafter, Mr. Abellard filed suit against Boeing alleging harassment, retaliation, failure to transfer, failure to accommodate, and being subjected to different terms and conditions of employment. Boeing filed a motion to dismiss arguing that these allegations were outside the scope of Mr. Abellard's charge of discrimination and therefore must be dismissed. The trial court agreed and dismissed these allegations finding that the allegations were not "reasonably related" to Mr. Abellard's charge and that Mr. Abellard had therefore failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.
Abellard v. Boeing, No. 4:10CV724 JCH (E.D.Mo. 2010).

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Rejects County Employee's Disability Discrimination Claim

Roger Duello sued Buchanan County, Iowa for wrongful termination, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the Iowa Civil Rights Act. The district court found in favor of the County, holding that Mr. Duello could not prevail under either statute because he was not a "qualified individual" within the meaning of the ADA.

Mr. Duello appealed the District Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the County and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. Specifically, the reviewing court found that even assuming Mr. Duello met the essential prerequisites for his position, he was unable to perform the essential functions of his job because he had lost his driver's license. According to the court, driving and working around machinery were essential functions of Mr. Duello's job. The court noted Mr. Duello's own deposition testimony where he testified: "Q: You couldn't perform the functions or the duties of [an] Operator II? A: Correct." The court also found that, although other County employees who had lost their driver's licenses were not terminated, those employees were not "similarly situated" to Mr. Duello and thus their situations failed to create an issue of fact as to whether the County had an ongoing practice of excusing employees from driving and working around machinery when they were temporarily disabled from doing so.

Duello v. Buchanan County Bd. of Supervisors, No. 10-2016 (8th Cir. Dec. 20, 2010).