Opinion ID: 2980359
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Retaliatory Failure to Accommodate

Text: The district court first determined that the amended complaint did not include any claim for retaliatory failure to accommodate, despite Johnson’s exhaustion of that issue in her OCRC/EEOC filing. Johnson failed to raise this as an issue on appeal, and therefore may very well have waived the argument15 However, even if the issue has been preserved, the district court did not err in this determination. This Court’s prior decision only looked at the narrow issue of whether Johnson’s EEOC charges exhausted various claims. See Johnson, 344 F. App’x at 110-11. It never addressed, or even discussed, whether such a claim was included in the complaint. Therefore, the district court was correct to analyze whether the claim was even properly before the court. The amended complaint sets forth one very general claim in Count I, alleging violation of the ADA.16 While the complaint, read liberally, includes allegations to support the other claims, it does not include enough to notify the Defendants of a retaliatory failure to accommodate claim. 15 The only place that Johnson ever addresses the court’s actual reason for dismissal—failure to include the claim in her complaint—is in a footnote. (Appellant Br. at 32 n.10) (arguing that the Complaint “clearly stated” that Defendants “terminated” Plaintiff in retaliation—not mentioning failure to accommodate). 16 The complaint states that “on or about August 21, 2007, Defendants, in retaliation for Plaintiff filing the OCRC/EEOC complaint and the current lawsuit, terminated Plaintiff effective August 22, 2007.” However, this Court has already upheld the district court’s determination that “there was no causal connection between Johnson’s protected activity and her termination,” and affirmed dismissal of that claim. Johnson, 344 F. App’x at 113. - 15 - No. 10-3267 Sha’Ron Johnson v. Cleveland City School District, et al. Indeed, it states that Johnson presented doctors’ letters in 2006 and early 2007, but that “suddenly on or about September 2, 2006, Defendants refused to provide reasonable accommodations to Plaintiff,” and that Defendants again “refused to provide reasonable accommodations” on February 26, 2007. Both of these allegations of denied accommodations were before she filed any OCRC or EEOC complaint. The only mention of retaliation in the complaint is later, alleging Johnson was “terminated” in retaliation for her OCRC/EEOC filings; the amended complaint never asserts any actions failing to accommodate her after her filings, much less because of her filings. The content of the amended complaint is wholly insufficient to put the Defendants on notice of a retaliatory failure to accommodate claim, and we therefore affirm summary judgment on that claim.