1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

JACQUETTA L. CLAYTON § 

 §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:22-CV-984-P

§ 

AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS

Pending before the Court is Defendant Amazon.com Services LLC (“Amazon”)’s Rule 12(b)(6) 

Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint [doc. 76], filed April 11, 2024. Having 

carefully considered the motion, response, reply, and applicable law, the Court recommends that

Amazon’s motion be DENIED. 

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On November 1, 2022, Plaintiff Jacquetta L. Clayton (“Clayton”), who was proceeding pro se at 

the time, filed a Complaint [doc. 1] against Amazon. Based on a lengthy and convoluted procedural 

history, which includes Plaintiff obtaining counsel on January 30, 2024 [doc. 63], the Court has allowed 

Plaintiff to file multiple complaints. Plaintiff, on March 12, 2024, filed her Third Amended Complaint 

[doc. 72], which is the current live pleading before the Court. In the Third Amended Complaint, Plaintiff 

alleges claims pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) against Defendant for 

intentionally discrimination, refusing to accommodate, harassment, failing to allow Plaintiff access to 

new job opportunities, and retaliation. (Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint (“Pl.’s Third Am. Compl.” 

at 6-7.)

In its motion to dismiss, Amazon argues that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

(“Rule”) 12(b)(6), all Plaintiff’s claims against it should be dismissed because: (1) Plaintiff has not stated

claims under the ADA because she has not alleged sufficient facts to establish that she was disabled as 

Case 4:22-cv-00984-P-BJ Document 82 Filed 05/30/24 Page 1 of 11 PageID 510
2 

defined by the ADA; (2) Plaintiff has not stated a claim for disability discrimination under the ADA 

because she does not allege that she was treated less favorably than non-disabled employees; and (3) 

Plaintiff has not stated a claim for retaliation under the ADA because she has not alleged sufficient facts 

to show she was retaliated against. (Defendant’s Brief in Support of Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss 

Third Amended Complaint (“Def.’s Br.”) at 6-12.) 

II. LEGAL STANDARD AND ANALYSIS

Rule 12(b)(6) authorizes the dismissal of a complaint that fails “to state a claim upon which relief 

can be granted.” This rule must be interpreted in conjunction with Rule 8(a), which sets forth the 

requirements for pleading a claim for relief in federal court. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 

U.S. 544, 545 (2007). Rule 8(a) calls for “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); see also Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 

506, 513 (2002) (holding that Rule 8(a)'s simplified pleading standard applies to most civil actions). The 

Court must accept as true all well-pleaded, non-conclusory allegations in the complaint and liberally 

construe the complaint in favor of the plaintiff. Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Sales, Inc. v. Avondale 

Shipyards, Inc., 677 F.2d 1045, 1050 (5th Cir. 1982). 

The plaintiff must, however, plead specific facts, not mere conclusory allegations, to avoid 

dismissal. Guidry v. Bank of LaPlace, 954 F.2d 278, 281 (5th Cir. 1992). Indeed, the plaintiff must plead 

“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “Factual 

allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, . . . on the assumption 

that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Id. at 555 (citations omitted). 

The Court need not credit bare conclusory allegations or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 

cause of action.” Id. Rather, “[a] claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content 

that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct 

Case 4:22-cv-00984-P-BJ Document 82 Filed 05/30/24 Page 2 of 11 PageID 511
3 

alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “Generally, a court ruling on a motion to dismiss 

may rely on only the complaint and its proper attachments. A court is permitted, however, to rely on 

documents incorporated into the complaint by reference, and matters of which a court may take judicial 

notice.” Dorsey v. Portfolio Equities, Inc., 540 F.3d 333, 338 (5th Cir. 2008) (citations and internal 

quotation marks omitted). 

A. No Allegations of a Disability Under ADA

Defendant argues that, “[a]s a threshold issue, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for disability 

discrimination, harassment, or failure to accommodate because she has not set forth facts from which it 

could be established that she was disabled as defined by the ADA.” (Def.’s Br. at 6.) Defendant further 

states:

Plaintiff alleges she was diagnosed with a disability related to pain in her hands 

and back that affected her ability to walk, bend, and lift. She does not, however, state 

what her diagnosis was or how her ability to walk, bend, or lift was substantially impaired

by that disability. Plaintiff does not allege any information about the severity of her 

symptoms, the expected duration of her disability, or how it made her unable to walk or 

significantly restricted her ability to walk. Plaintiff’s mere description of her symptoms, 

combined with her conclusion that they affect her ability to engage in certain activities, 

is not adequate to allege that she was disabled during the relevant period. 

(Def.’s Br. at 8 (emphasis in original) (internal citations omitted).) 

In her response, Plaintiff claims that she has stated a claim for discrimination under the ADA as 

she “has alleged sufficient facts to establish her disability.” (Plaintiff’s Brief in Support of Response to 

Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss (“Pl.’s Br.”) at 6 (emphasis omitted) (mistakes in 

original).) Plaintiff further states: 

29. Plaintiff describes that she informed Defendant of the pain in her neck and

back as early as June 16, 2021, and provided a doctors note stating she was disabled, 

which was accepted and met with the start of the accommodation process when she was 

given a form to complete. Plaintiff also pleaded that the pain in her neck and back 

affected her ability to walk, bend, and lift. 

Case 4:22-cv-00984-P-BJ Document 82 Filed 05/30/24 Page 3 of 11 PageID 512
4 

30. Plaintiff then requested accommodation from Defendant in September

2021. Defendant responded by sending Plaintiff an Accommodation Approval Form and 

granted her accommodation. Further, Plaintiff was eventually granted short-term 

disability by Defendant. At the very least, Defendant, as Plaintiff’s employer, perceived 

Plaintiff as having an impairment that was substantially limiting.

31. Walking, bending, and lifting are major life activities. Plaintiff notified

Defendant of her condition and was accommodated. Plaintiff has plead sufficient facts 

to show that she was disabled pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12111(8) and at the very least was 

regarded as disabled, which also complies with the definition of a disabled individual 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12102(2). 

(Pl.’s Br. at 6 (mistakes in original).) Plaintiff also requests, in the alternative, that she be granted “leave 

to amend her Complaint to specify her claims more succinctly.” (Pl.’s Br. at 9.) 

In its reply, Amazon claims that “Plaintiff has not stated sufficient facts to show that she is 

actually disabled or was regarded as disabled by Amazon.” (Defendant’s Reply in Support of 

Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint (“Def.’s Reply”) at 

1.) Defendant states that “[i]t is simply not the law that Amazon’s mere granting of an accommodation 

and short-term disability benefits is sufficient to show either that she was disabled or regarded as such.” 

(Id.; see Def.’s Reply at 2-5.) 

The ADA prohibits an employer from discriminating “against a qualified individual on the basis 

of disability.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). It also prohibits an employer from “discriminat[ing] against any 

individual because such individual has opposed any act or practice made unlawful by [the ADA] of 

because such individual made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an 

investigation, proceeding, or hearing under [the ADA].” 42 U.S.C. § 12203(a). To state a plausible

claim under the ADA, a plaintiff must allege, with facts, that she had a disability. See Coleman v. Ark 

Contracting Servs., No. 3:21-CV-2553-N, 2023 WL 159777, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 11, 2023) (stating 

that establishing a qualified disability is a required element of a disability discrimination claim and a 

failure-to-accommodate claim); Brewster v. AVA Risk Grp. Ltd., No. H-20-1967, 2021 WL 5828376, at 

Case 4:22-cv-00984-P-BJ Document 82 Filed 05/30/24 Page 4 of 11 PageID 513
5 

*2 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 16, 2021) (quoting Olivarez v. T-mobile USA, Inc., 997 F.3d 595, 600 (5th Cir. 2021)

(stating that having a history of cancer does not, without more, qualify as a disability under the ADA)). 

An individual is considered disabled within the meaning of the ADA if she has a “physical or mental 

impairment that substantially limits one or more of [her] major life activities;” if she has “a record of 

such impairment;” or if she is “regarded as having such an impairment.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1). “Major 

life activities” are defined to include, but not limited to, “caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, 

seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, 

reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(A). An 

individual can be said to be “regarded as” having a disability “if the individual establishes that he or she 

has been subjected to an action prohibited under this chapter because of an actual or perceived physical 

or mental impairment whether or not the impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity.” 

42 U.S.C. § 12102(3)(A). 

In this case, Plaintiff alleges in her Third Amended Complaint, as relevant here, the following: 

7. On June 16, 2021, Plaintiff reported pain in both hands and lower back.

Plaintiff’s doctor diagnosed her with a disability related to the pain in the hands and lower 

back.

8. In September 2021, Plaintiff requested accommodation for her disability.

On September 27, 2021, Plaintiff received an Accommodation Approval form from 

Defendant.

. . . .

23. On October 27, 2021, Defendant’s employee Donna Turnley informed

Plaintiff that Plaintiff was approved for Short Term Disability through November 23, 

2021. 

. . . .

36. On February 22, 2022, Plaintiff’s Short Term Disability benefits were cut

off, despite Plaintiff complying with Defendant’s requirements to be on Short Term 

Disability

. . . .

Case 4:22-cv-00984-P-BJ Document 82 Filed 05/30/24 Page 5 of 11 PageID 514
6 

41. Plaintiff is disabled, as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act

(ADA). Plaintiff’s pain in her hands and back affects her ability to walk, bend, and lift. 

Plaintiff is otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of her job as an inventory 

associate with Defendant.

(Pl.’s Third Am. Compl. at 2-3, 5-6 (mistakes in original).) 

Contrary to Defendant’s assertions, the Court finds and concludes, that Plaintiff has alleged 

enough facts regarding her disability to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Plaintiff claims that 

she had pain in her hands and back, which are physical impairments, that affect her ability to walk, bend, 

and lift, which are all defined as major life activities in the ADA. See 42 U.S.C. § 12102. While Plaintiff 

could have alleged her claims more artfully, Plaintiff’s factual assertions are sufficient to make her 

allegations of disability under the ADA plausible. Thus, the Court RECOMMENDS that Defendant’s 

motion to dismiss on this issue be DENIED. 

B. No Allegations Plaintiff Treated Less Favorably Than Non-Disabled Employees

Defendant next argues that Plaintiff has not stated a claim for discrimination under the ADA 

because she does not allege that she was treated less favorably than non-disabled employees. (Def.’s 

Br. at 9-10.) In support, Defendant states:

In addition, Plaintiff has not included facts in the Third Amended Complaint that 

would plausibly show that she was subjected to any adverse employment decisions at 

Amazon because she is disabled. Critically, Plaintiff alleges only that she was treated 

less favorably than other disabled Amazon associates who also received disability 

accommodations. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that she was treated unfavorably with 

regards to her computer assignment . . . . These allegations are inapposite to a claim for 

disability discrimination, which requires Plaintiff to plead that she was treated differently 

than non-disabled employees, not other disabled employees. With regards to the other 

potentially adverse employment actions identified by Plaintiff, including allegedly not 

being provided an opportunity to apply for a seated, non-inventory position and having 

her short-term disability benefits cut off, Plaintiff likewise provides no comparison to 

non-disabled employees. For these reasons, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief 

for disability discrimination under the ADA. 

(Def.’s Br. at 12-13 (footnotes omitted) (internal citations omitted).)

Case 4:22-cv-00984-P-BJ Document 82 Filed 05/30/24 Page 6 of 11 PageID 515
7 

Plaintiff, in her response, argues that she has pled sufficient facts to support her claim that she 

suffered an adverse employment action as she alleges that she was reassigned to a position that was in 

violation of her accommodations and was denied the opportunity to interview for a promotion. (Pl.’s 

Br. at 7.) In addition, Plaintiff claims that she has pled that she was treated differently than other nondisabled employees because her Third Amended Complaint states that she was denied a promotion that 

another employee, John, who was not disabled, was allowed to interview for and that other non-disabled 

employees were given chairs to perform their duties while Plaintiff was forced to stand. (Id.)

In its reply, Defendant argues that being reassigned to a new computer station, not being provided 

a chair, and not being offered an opportunity to apply for a position where she could remain seated are 

not adverse employment actions. (Def.’s Reply at 5.) Defendant claims that “[i]t is not enough for 

Plaintiff to assert that someone else had a chair, the workstation she wanted, or a position she desired—

she has to plausibly allege that these actions caused her an identifiable harm, one that is more than de 

minimis. (Def.’s Reply at 6.) As to the other employee, John, Defendant argues: 

Finally, as to the assertion that “John” was given “a non-inventory position that 

was a seated position,” Plaintiff does not actually allege in the Third Amended Complaint 

that “John” was not disabled, the assertion to the contrary in the Opposition 

notwithstanding. Nor does the Third Amended Complaint indicate whether that position 

was a promotion, a lateral position, or even a lower position, and, thus, there is nothing 

in her allegation to show that not receiving that position was adverse, nor does she provide 

any indication of “John’s” qualifications for the position or how they compare to hers. 

Plaintiff simply has not plausibly alleged him getting the position was even 

discriminatory. Without such allegations, she has not stated such a claim. 

(Id.) 

“To state a plausible disability discrimination claim, a plaintiff must allege, with facts, that he 

had a disability, that ‘he was qualified for his position, and that he suffered an adverse employment 

action because of his disability.’” Brewster, 2021 WL 5828376, at *2 (quoting Olivarez, 997 F.3d at 

600. As to ADA claims, “the Fifth Circuit has adopted the same definition of ‘adverse employment

Case 4:22-cv-00984-P-BJ Document 82 Filed 05/30/24 Page 7 of 11 PageID 516
8 

action’ as applies in Title VII claims.” Ricks v. Friends of WWOZ, Inc., No. 18-9767, 2019 WL 4671582, 

at *11 (E.D. La. Sept. 25, 2019). Moreover, “[t]he Fifth Circuit[, in Hamilton v. Dallas Cnty., 79 F.4th

494 (5th Cir. 2023),] recently expanded the universe of actionable employment actions under Title VII 

and Section 1981.” Fleming v. Methodist Healthcare Sys. of San Antonio, Ltd., L.L.P., No. SA-21-CV01234-XR, 2024 WL 1055120, at *11 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 2024). 

Contrary to Defendant’s assertions, the Court finds and concludes, that Plaintiff has alleged 

enough facts regarding her disability discrimination claim under the ADA to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) 

motion to dismiss. In this case, Plaintiff alleges in her Third Amended Complaint that she has a disability 

(pain in both hands and lower back that affect her ability to walk, bend, and lift), she was qualified for 

her position of working in the inventory department as she had been hired to perform such position, and 

that she suffered an adverse employment action of not being provided with the opportunity to apply for 

a job and having her short-term disability benefits interrupted multiple times, which resulted in lost pay 

and benefits. Once again, while Plaintiff could have possibly alleged her claim more artfully, Plaintiff’s 

assertions, especially in light of Hamilton, supra, are enough to make her allegations of disability 

discrimination under the ADA plausible, at least at the motion to dismiss stage of the proceedings. Thus, 

the Court RECOMMENDS that Defendant’s motion to dismiss on this issue be DENIED. 

C. Not Sufficient Allegations to Support ADA Retaliation Claim

Defendant also argues the Plaintiff’s retaliation claim under the ADA should be dismissed 

because she has not plausibly alleged sufficient facts to show she was retaliated against. (Def.’s Br. at 

11-12.) In support, Defendant states:

Although Plaintiff mentions filing complaints with various external agencies, and 

says she complained of “harassment” on numerous occasions, the Third Amended 

Complaint does not state facts sufficient to tie her request for accommodations in 

September of 2021 to any materially adverse employment action, including the alleged 

cutting off of her short-term disability benefits, which allegedly occurred five months 

later, in February of 2022. 

Case 4:22-cv-00984-P-BJ Document 82 Filed 05/30/24 Page 8 of 11 PageID 517
9 

Moreover, many of the other alleged wrongs Plaintiff complains of as being 

performed in retaliation, i.e., the moving of her workstation, having a supervisor watch 

her work, and someone temporarily sitting in a chair she believes was meant for her, do 

not rise to the level of actionable adverse employment actions. . . . 

(Def.’s Br. at 11 (internal citations omitted).) 

In her response, Plaintiff claims that “providing documents from her doctor and requesting an 

accommodation is a protected activity under the ADA.” (Pl.’s Br. at 8.) Plaintiff further argues that 

“she was subjected to a series of retaliatory actions at the hands of Defendant, including having a 

manager who didn’t normally work in the department sit and stare at her while she worked to intimidate 

her, being assigned to a new work area with no chairs, continually violating her accommodations, and 

failing to respond to her complaints.” (Id.) Plaintiff claims that she “was reassigned to a position that 

was in violation of her accommodations and was denied the opportunity to interview for a promotion.” 

(Id.) Plaintiff states that “[t]hese actions all started after she requested accommodation and got worse 

once she filed several complaints about the discrimination using the Ethics hotline and Human Resources 

as early as October 2021.” (Id.) 

To state a claim of prima-facie case of retaliation in violation of the ADA, Plaintiff must allege 

that she: (1) engaged in a protected activity; (2) that an adverse employment action occurred; and (3) 

that a causal link existed between the protected activity and the adverse action. Coleman, 2023 WL 

159777, at *4. In Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint, she alleges, inter alia, (1) that in September 

2021 she requested accommodation for her disability from Defendant; (2) in October 2021 she was not 

provided with the opportunity to apply for a new position and, in February 2022, her short-term benefits 

were cut off; and (3) she was continually harassed and continued to report such harassment from the 

time she received the accommodation approval until February 2022, when her short-term benefits were 

cut off. (Pl.’s Third Am. Compl. at 2-6.) 

Case 4:22-cv-00984-P-BJ Document 82 Filed 05/30/24 Page 9 of 11 PageID 518
10

After reviewing the parties’ arguments and the Third Amended Complaint, the Court, once again 

finds and concludes that Plaintiff’s assertions, especially in light of Hamilton, supra, are enough to make 

her allegation of retaliation under the ADA plausible, at least at this motion to dismiss stage of the 

proceedings. Thus, the Court RECOMMENDS that Defendant’s motion to dismiss on this issue be 

DENIED. 

RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons set out above, the Court RECOMMENDS that Defendant Amazon’s Rule 

12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint [doc. 76] be DENIED. 

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT TO PROPOSED

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

AND CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO OBJECT

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), each party to this action has the right to serve and file specific 

written objections in the United States District Court to the United States Magistrate Judge’s 

proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation within fourteen (14) days after the party has 

been served with a copy of this document. The United States District Judge need only make a de novo

determination of those portions of the United States Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings, 

conclusions, and recommendation to which specific objection is timely made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)

(1). Failure to file, by the date stated above, a specific written objection to a proposed factual finding 

or legal conclusion will bar a party, except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice, from 

attacking on appeal any such proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the United 

States District Judge. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428–29 (5th Cir. 

1996), modified by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending time to file objections 

to 14 days). 

Case 4:22-cv-00984-P-BJ Document 82 Filed 05/30/24 Page 10 of 11 PageID 519
11

ORDER

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636, it is hereby ORDERED that each party is granted until June 13, 2024,

to serve and file written objections to the United States Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings, 

conclusions, and recommendation. It is further ORDERED that if objections are filed, and the 

opposing party chooses to file a response, the response shall be filed within seven (7) days of the filing 

date of the objections. 

SIGNED May 30, 2024. 

___________________________________ 

JEFFREY L. CURETON 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 4:22-cv-00984-P-BJ Document 82 Filed 05/30/24 Page 11 of 11 PageID 520