COMPLAINT 1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY } 

COMMISSION, } 

 } CIVIL ACTION NO.

 Plaintiff, } 

 } 

v. } COMPLAINT

 } 

INTERNATIONAL PAPER CO. } 

 } JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

 Defendant. } 

__________________________________________} 

NATURE OF THE ACTION

This is an action under Title I of the American with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), as 

amended by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (“ADAAA”), and Title I of the Civil Rights Act 

of 1991, to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of disability and to provide 

appropriate relief to Michael Pennington who was adversely affected by such practices. As alleged 

with greater particularity in paragraphs 13-24 below, Defendant discriminated against Mr. 

Pennington by failing or refusing to accommodate his disability, Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity 

Disorder (“ADHD”), and subsequently failing or refusing to hire him because of his disability in 

violation of the ADA. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 

1343, and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 107(a) of the ADA,

42 U.S.C. § 12117(a), which incorporates by reference Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 

U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3), and pursuant to Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 

U.S.C. Section 1981(a). 

Case 3:22-cv-00810-B Document 1 Filed 04/11/22 Page 1 of 7 PageID 1
COMPLAINT 2 

2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the 

jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

PARTIES

 3. Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, is an agency of the United 

States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title I of the 

ADA and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 107(a) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §

12117(a), which incorporates by reference Sections 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C.§ 

2000e-5(f)(1).

 4. At all relevant times, Defendant International Paper has continuously been doing 

business in the State of Texas and has continuously had at least fifteen (15) employees.

 5. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been an employer engaged in an 

industry affecting commerce under Section 101(5) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12111(5), and Section

101(7) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12111(7), which incorporates by reference Section 701(g) and (h) 

of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(g) and (h). 

 6. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been a covered entity under 

Section 101(2) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. Section 12111(2).

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

 7. More than thirty (30) days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Michael 

Pennington filed a charge of discrimination with the Commission alleging violations of the ADA

by Defendant. 

 8. On August 16, 2021, the Commission issued to Defendant a Letter of 

Determination finding reasonable cause to believe that the ADA was violated and inviting 

Case 3:22-cv-00810-B Document 1 Filed 04/11/22 Page 2 of 7 PageID 2
COMPLAINT 3 

Defendant to join with the Commission in informal methods of conciliation to endeavor to 

eliminate the unlawful employment practices and provide appropriate relief.

 9. The Commission engaged in communications with Defendant to provide Defendant

the opportunity to remedy the discriminatory practices described in the Letter of Determination. 

 10. The Commission was unable to secure from Defendant a conciliation agreement

acceptable to the Commission. 

 11. On February 4, 2022, the Commission issued to Defendant a Notice of Failure of 

Conciliation advising Defendant that the Commission was unable to secure from Defendant a 

conciliation agreement acceptable to the Commission.

 12. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

 13. Since at least April 2020, Defendant has engaged in unlawful employment practices 

at its Grand Prairie, Texas location, in violation of Title I of the ADA, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 

12101 et seq., by failing or refusing to accommodate Michael Pennington’s disability, ADHD, and 

subsequently failing or refusing to hire Mr. Pennington because of this disability. 

 14. Michael Pennington is a qualified individual with a disability under Sections 3 and 

101(8) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12102 and 12111(8). At all relevant times, Mr. Pennington has 

had an impairment, ADHD. Mr. Pennington’s ADHD substantially limits him in the major life 

activities of thinking, concentrating, sleeping, and speaking. 

 15. In or around April 2020, Michael Pennington applied and interviewed for an entrylevel position at Defendant’s facility in Grand Prairie, Texas. On or around April 6, 2020 

Defendant extended Mr. Pennington an offer of employment conditioned upon successful

completion of, among other things, a medical examination and drug test. Mr. Pennington 

Case 3:22-cv-00810-B Document 1 Filed 04/11/22 Page 3 of 7 PageID 3
COMPLAINT 4

subsequently filled out various documents in advance of the medical examination and drug test 

and disclosed both his disability and the medication he is prescribed for treatment of that disability 

(Adderall). Adderall is an amphetamine. Mr. Pennington also signed documents that authorized 

Defendant to contact his treating physician about his medical history and his prescription 

medication. Finally, Mr. Pennington told the medical professionals who administered the medical 

examination and drug test about his ADHD diagnosis and that he was taking prescription Adderall. 

These medical professionals told Mr. Pennington that neither would create a problem for his hire. 

16. Mr. Pennington’s drug test result was generated on or around April 13, 2020 and 

was reviewed by a Medical Review Officer. The test showed a positive result for amphetamines. 

After the Medical Review Officer communicated the test results to Defendant, Defendant’s Human 

Resources Specialist contacted Mr. Pennington and notified him that his conditional offer of 

employment was being rescinded because he did not successfully pass the drug screen. 

17. On or around April 16, 2020 Mr. Pennington emailed Defendant’s Human 

Resources Specialist and provided her with the phone number for his physician. He also expressed 

his understanding that withdrawing a job offer because of a prescription was discrimination 

prohibited by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mr. Pennington also called Defendant’s Ethics 

Hotline to report his concern.

18. Following Mr. Pennington’s email and hotline call, Defendant’s Human Resources 

employees discussed Mr. Pennington’s request to submit a doctor’s note evidencing his 

prescription for an amphetamine. Ultimately, Defendant upheld its decision to rescind Mr. 

Pennington’s offer of employment based on the results of his pre-employment drug test.

19. Defendant did not make any contact with Mr. Pennington’s physician as part of the 

review of Mr. Pennington’s drug test results. 

Case 3:22-cv-00810-B Document 1 Filed 04/11/22 Page 4 of 7 PageID 4
COMPLAINT 5 

20. Defendant did not provide the Medical Review Officer who reviewed Mr. 

Pennington’s drug test results with contact information for either Mr. Pennington or Mr. 

Pennington’s treating physician. 

21. Defendant did not provide Mr. Pennington with contact information for the Medical 

Review Officer who reviewed Mr. Pennington’s drug test results. 

22. Defendant did not otherwise engage in any discussion with Mr. Pennington about 

his disability or the prescription medication he was taking despite Mr. Pennington’s efforts to 

communicate with Defendant about both. 

23. Defendant failed or refused to accommodate Mr. Pennington’s disability during the 

hiring process in violation of the ADA. Mr. Pennington sought the reasonable accommodation of 

an exemption from Defendant’s substance abuse policy based on his prescription for Adderall, an 

amphetamine, for treatment of his disability. Defendant denied this request and rescinded Mr. 

Pennington’s conditional offer of employment. 

 24. The decision not to hire Mr. Pennington was based on Mr. Pennington’s disability,

ADHD, in violation of the ADA. 

 25. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 13-24 above were

intentional.

 26. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 13-24 above were 

done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Michael 

Pennington. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

 Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: 

Case 3:22-cv-00810-B Document 1 Filed 04/11/22 Page 5 of 7 PageID 5
COMPLAINT 6

A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining the Defendant, its officers, agents, servants,

employees, attorneys and all persons in active concert or participation with it from refusing to 

reasonably accommodate any individual with a disability, from basing any employment decision 

on an employee’s disability status, and from retaliating against any individual for engaging in an 

activity protected under the ADA.

B. Order the Defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs

which provide equal employment opportunities for qualified individuals with disabilities, and

which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.

C. Order the Defendant to make whole Mr. Pennington, who was adversely affected 

by Defendant’s discriminatory conduct, by providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment

interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the

effects of its unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to rightful-place hiring or 

front pay in lieu thereof.

D. Order the Defendant to make Mr. Pennington whole by providing compensation for 

past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described 

above, including but not limited to job search expenses.

E. Order the Defendant to make Mr. Pennington whole by providing compensation for 

past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described 

above, including but not limited to, humiliation, emotional pain and suffering, stress, 

inconvenience, and loss of enjoyment of life in amounts to be determined at trial.

F. Order the Defendant to pay Mr. Pennington punitive damages for its malicious or 

reckless conduct described above in amounts to be determined at trial.

Case 3:22-cv-00810-B Document 1 Filed 04/11/22 Page 6 of 7 PageID 6
COMPLAINT 7 

G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public 

interest.

H. Award the Commission its costs in this action.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

 The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its Complaint. 

Respectfully submitted,

CHRISTOPHER LAGE

Deputy General Counsel 

GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS

Associate General Counsel

ROBERT A CANINO

Regional Attorney 

Oklahoma State Bar No. 011782 

SUZANNE M. ANDERSON 

Supervisory Trial Attorney 

Texas State Bar No. 14009470 

/s/ Brooke E. López 

BROOKE E. LÓPEZ

Texas State Bar No. 24125141 

MEAGHAN L. KUELBS 

Texas State Bar No. 24105277 

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY 

COMMISSION

Dallas District Office

207 Houston, 3rd Floor 

Dallas, Texas 75202 

(TEL) (972) 918-3597 

(FAX) (214) 253-2749 

Case 3:22-cv-00810-B Document 1 Filed 04/11/22 Page 7 of 7 PageID 7