In Coleman v EarthLink, LLC, No. 1:25CV00032, 2026 WL 1906086 (W.D.Va. July 2, 2026), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s failure-to-accommodate disability claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
From the decision:
Coleman alleges that he requested flexible break and lunch times to manage his diabetes. He contends that EarthLink’s management delayed his request and failed to provide timely accommodation. In response, EarthLink argues that Coleman has not satisfied the third and fourth elements of his failure to accommodate claim because he failed to allege facts showing that he could perform the essential functions of his job with reasonable accommodation, or that EarthLink failed to accommodate him altogether. EarthLink contends that a delay in providing accommodation does not necessarily constitute a denial of accommodation.
I find that Coleman has adequately stated a claim for failure to accommodate under the ADA. Coleman has pleaded that he has diabetes and that EarthLink knew about his medical condition, satisfying the first two elements of a failure to accommodate claim. As to the third element of the claim, Coleman explains that flexible break times would allow him to manage his diabetes.
As to the fourth element of the claim, Coleman states that he requested flexible break and lunch times and that, four months later, EarthLink still had not acted on his request. EarthLink is correct that a delay of four months may prove to be reasonable considering the circumstances. But the reasonableness of the delay is a fact-specific inquiry that is premature at the motion to dismiss stage, given that the record does not yet contain evidence that outside factors warranted the delay. In contrast, Coleman contends that he attempted to escalate the request with no success and that an EarthLink executive eventually acknowledged ADA process failures.
Accordingly, dismissal was not warranted.