In Cassel v. Truss Communications, Inc., 2025 WL 2882054 (N.D.Okla. Oct. 9, 2025), the court, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim asserted under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
From the decision:
The ADA recognizes certain mental health conditions as qualifying disabilities. See 29 C.F.R. 1630.2(h) (“mental impairment means … (2) Any mental or psychological disorder, such as an intellectual disability … organic brain syndrome, emotional or mental illness, and specific learning disabilities”). However, the Court finds that the complaint fails to specify any mental health condition Cassel has that would qualify as a disability under the ADA. Thus, to the extent the complaint alleges actual impairment based on a mental health disability, it does not contain enough facts to support such a claim. Although “[s]pecific facts are not necessary,” a complaint requires sufficient factual assertions to give the defendant notice of “the grounds upon which [the claim] rests.” Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
The complaint also does not sufficiently allege that Cassel’s “obese weight” is a “recognized impairment” under the ADA. Although the Tenth Circuit has not yet addressed whether obesity qualifies as a “disability” under the ADA, the Eighth, Second, and Sixth Circuits have each held “for obesity to qualify as a physical impairment—and thus a disability—under the ADA, it must result from an underlying physiological disorder or condition.” Morriss v. BNSF Ry. Co., 817 F.3d 1104, 1109 (8th Cir. 2016); E.E.O.C. v. Watkins Motor Lines, Inc., 463 F.3d 436, 443 (6th Cir. 2006); Francis v. City of Meriden, 129 F.3d 281, 286 (2d Cir. 1997). The complaint makes no mention of any underlying disorder or condition for Cassel’s obesity.
Moreover, the complaint does not sufficiently allege why Cassell’s mental health or obesity substantially impair a major life activity. If he is bringing a claim under the “regarded as” category of disability, he would not need to plead or prove that the actual or perceived impairment “substantially limited one or more major life activities.” Morriss, 817 F.3d at 1111; 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(l)(1). However, because the complaint fails to show which category of ADA disability claim Cassel is bringing, the Court cannot conclude that any of his ADA claims have been sufficiently pled.
The court concluded that “[a]t bottom, the complaint’s conclusory statement that Cassel was discriminated against ‘based on mental health, obese weight’ is simply not enough to show a plausible ADA hostile work environment claim.”