Background
Roger Greer filed a pro se action under Section nineteen hundred eighty-three of Title forty-two of the United States Code alleging violations of Title Seven of the Civil Rights Act of nineteen sixty-four and the Rehabilitation Act. He was terminated as a firefighter for the United States Department of the Army after testing positive for illegal substances. Greer appealed the district court’s dismissal of his First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim without leave to amend.
The court’s reasoning
The panel reviewed the dismissal de novo and affirmed. Regarding the Title VII claim, the court noted that Greer did not plausibly allege he belonged to a protected class, as Title Seven does not protect against discrimination based on disability. For the Rehabilitation Act claim, the court found the complaint failed to allege the threshold requirement of being disabled because it did not describe the nature of the impairment with sufficient particularity. On the retaliation claims, the court determined the complaint did not plausibly allege a causal link between the alleged Equal Employment Opportunity complaint and the termination, citing the over one-year gap and the timing of the positive drug test. Finally, the court held the district court did not err in denying leave to amend the complaint.
What it means going forward
This decision reinforces the requirement that plaintiffs in employment discrimination cases must plead specific factual allegations regarding disability status and causal connections to adverse actions, rather than relying on conclusory statements.