## Facts

- Law Enforcement Associates Corporation (LEA) manufactured security and surveillance equipment and was led by a board that included executives Paul H. Feldman (president) and Martin L. Perry (director of sales), along with outside directors.
- LEA’s founder and former majority shareholder, John H. Carrington, had been convicted of export-related felonies and was subject to export restrictions; plaintiffs alleged ongoing concerns about Carrington’s influence and related compliance and disclosure issues.
- Perry had multiple sclerosis, including a 2004 flare-up causing temporary paralysis and lasting weakness; LEA had previously granted Perry medical leave for flare-ups.
- Feldman suffered a transient ischemic attack (TIA) on August 26, 2009, was hospitalized, and alleged ensuing limitations on major life activities that prevented him from working for weeks.
- On August 27, 2009, Perry suffered an MS flare-up and was briefly hospitalized; Feldman was also unable to attend a scheduled board meeting due to his TIA.
- The outside directors declined to reschedule the August 27 board meeting and voted to remove Feldman as president.
- LEA later terminated Perry, asserting he had abandoned his job; Perry alleged the stated reason was pretext and that LEA failed to accommodate his medical condition.
- Plaintiffs alleged their terminations were motivated by disability discrimination and retaliation for raising concerns about corporate misconduct, including export-control and securities-law compliance; Feldman also asserted Sarbanes–Oxley (SOX) whistleblower retaliation.

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged that Feldman’s TIA-related limitations and Perry’s MS (including flare-ups) constituted “disabilities” under the ADA as amended by the ADAAA.
2. Whether the complaint plausibly stated ADA claims for discriminatory discharge and failure to accommodate based on employer knowledge and alleged adverse actions taken during medical episodes.
3. Whether Feldman plausibly alleged SOX whistleblower retaliation (protected activity, employer knowledge, adverse action, and a causal link) sufficient to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
4. Whether other asserted state-law and corporate-governance-related claims were adequately pleaded or subject to dismissal.

## Decision

- The court ruled on defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motions by accepting the complaint’s factual allegations as true and applying the federal plausibility standard.
- The court denied dismissal, in relevant part, of the ADA discriminatory-discharge and failure-to-accommodate claims, holding plaintiffs plausibly alleged qualifying disabilities under the ADAAA and employer conduct that could violate the ADA.
- The court rejected the argument that the pleaded impairments were categorically non-disabling merely because they were characterized as temporary or episodic.
- The court permitted Feldman’s SOX retaliation claim to proceed past the pleading stage based on allegations of protected complaints and an adverse employment action.
- The court granted dismissal as to some other claims and/or defendants, while allowing the core ADA claims (and certain related claims) to move forward.

## Legal Principles

- Under the ADAAA, “disability” is construed broadly; episodic conditions or those in remission may qualify if they substantially limit a major life activity when active.
- At the motion-to-dismiss stage, detailed allegations of functional limitations and employer knowledge can plausibly establish ADA disability status and “qualified individual” status.
- An employer is not entitled to dismissal of ADA claims solely by labeling an impairment as temporary; the inquiry focuses on the alleged substantial limitation of major life activities under the ADAAA’s expanded coverage.
- A failure-to-accommodate claim may be plausibly stated where the complaint alleges a known impairment, a requested or apparent need for accommodation (including medical leave or scheduling changes), and adverse action without reasonable accommodation.
- A SOX retaliation claim at the pleading stage may proceed where the complaint plausibly alleges protected activity, knowledge, an adverse action, and a causal connection sufficient to infer retaliation.

## Conclusion

The court held that, under the ADAAA’s broad coverage, plaintiffs plausibly alleged that a TIA with lingering effects and MS with flare-ups could constitute disabilities, and that LEA’s actions during plaintiffs’ medical episodes plausibly supported claims for failure to accommodate and discriminatory discharge; it also allowed Feldman’s SOX retaliation claim to proceed beyond dismissal while dismissing other portions of the consolidated complaints.


Feldman v. Law Enf't Assocs. Corp., 779 F. Supp. 2d 472 (E.D.N.C. 2011)