Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—M.D. La.: Rejected job applicant’s ADA disability discrimination suit against Al Copeland Investments dismissed, (Aug 24, 2026)

By Wendy Biddle, J.D.

A job applicant's bare legal conclusions about her disability could not sustain her ADA or state law claims.

A federal district court in Louisiana dismissed all claims brought by a job applicant who alleged that her prospective employer screened her out of consideration for employment by requiring her to complete an online skills assessment without providing a reasonable accommodation for her disability and ultimately refusing to consider her application on account of both her disability and her accommodation request. The court found that the complaint was insufficient to sustain a claim because it never identified the nature of the plaintiff's disability or explained how it impaired any major life activity. The court granted the company's motion to dismiss across all five counts, dismissing the ADA, state employment discrimination, and unfair trade practices claims without prejudice and the state negligence claims with prejudice as time-barred (Laird v. Al Copeland Investments, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-01138-BAJ-SDJ (M.D. La. Aug. 21, 2026)).

The plaintiff brought suit against Al Copeland Investments, L.L.C., a company that had advertised open positions through the online platform Indeed.com. The applicant alleged that as part of the application process, the company required applicants to complete an online assessment or skills test. Contending that she was a qualified individual with a disability within the meaning of the ADA, the applicant alleged that she requested a reasonable accommodation for the assessment both through Indeed and directly from the employer. She further alleged that the company failed to engage in the interactive process, failed to provide the requested accommodation, and ultimately failed to consider her application because of her disability and her accommodation request.

The applicant originally filed suit in state court, but it was removed by the defendant to federal court. The complaint contained five counts: disability discrimination and failure to accommodate under the ADA; violation of the Louisiana Employment Discrimination Law; violation of the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act; negligence and, in the alternative, negligent misrepresentation; and declaratory and injunctive relief under the ADA and LEDL. The defendant moved to dismiss all counts under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

ADA and LEDL claims. The court's central analysis focused on whether the applicant had adequately alleged the threshold element of disability under the ADA. The ADA defines disability as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a record of such an impairment, or being regarded as having such an impairment. Both a discrimination claim and a failure-to-accommodate claim require the plaintiff to establish that she has a disability meeting that definition.

No disability identified or described. The court found that the applicant's complaint was fatally deficient on this point. She had not specified whether her disability was physical or mental, had not identified what the disability was, and had not described how it impaired any major life activity. Instead, her complaint offered only the legal conclusion that she was a "qualified individual with a disability within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Louisiana law," with no supporting factual allegations. The court characterized this as labels and conclusions rather than factual content sufficient to allow the court to draw a reasonable inference of liability, precisely the kind of pleading that Iqbal and Twombly prohibit.

The applicant countered that because the ADA is to be broadly construed, she was not required to plead a medical diagnosis or supply medical evidence at the pleading stage. The court rejected this argument, noting that broad statutory construction does not relieve a plaintiff of the obligation to plead facts, not mere legal conclusions, in support of each element of her claim. Because the LEDL is modeled after the ADA, the court analyzed both statutes together and reached the same conclusion under each. Counts One, Two, and Five were dismissed without prejudice.

LUTPA claim. The court next addressed the applicant's claim under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act, which prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce. Recovery under LUTPA requires proof of some element of fraud, misrepresentation, deception, or other unethical conduct, and courts have held that the range of prohibited practices under the statute is extremely narrow. Only egregious conduct that offends established public policy and is immoral, unethical, oppressive, or substantially injurious will support a LUTPA claim.

The court found that the applicant's complaint contained no factual allegations showing that the company had engaged in fraud, misrepresentation, deception, or any similarly unethical conduct in connection with its hiring process and online assessment tools. The applicant argued that whether the company's practices were immoral, unethical, or substantially injurious was a question of fact unsuited to resolution at the dismissal stage. The court rejected that argument as well, holding that a plaintiff must first plead sufficient facts to support a LUTPA claim before that question of fact can arise. The LUTPA claim was dismissed without prejudice.

Negligence claims. Under Louisiana Civil Code Article 3492, as it existed at the time of the events at issue, tort actions were subject to a one-year prescriptive period. The court noted that while Louisiana subsequently enacted a two-year prescriptive period for tort claims, effective July 1, 2024, that provision applies prospectively only to causes of action arising after its effective date. Because the underlying facts predated July 1, 2024, the one-year period controlled.

The applicant offered no dates in her complaint, but the company attached her Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Charge of Discrimination to its motion to dismiss. The court considered the charge because it was referenced in the complaint and central to its claims, consistent with Fifth Circuit precedent. The charge reflected that the applicant had applied for a Banquet Sales Representative position on or about June 17, 2022, and October 12, 2022, and the Charge was dated December 13, 2022. The applicant did not file suit until approximately September 12, 2025, nearly three years after the events described in the Charge.

The applicant argued that prescription had been suspended because the defendant's wrongful conduct and resulting damages were continuous throughout her application process. The court found this argument conclusory and unsupported, and declined to apply suspension on that basis.

Leave to amend. The applicant alternatively requested leave to amend her complaint. The court granted leave with respect to the ADA, LEDL, and LUTPA claims, acknowledging the general principle that leave to amend should be freely given. However, the court denied leave to amend the negligence claims, finding that any amendment would be futile because those claims are time-barred as a matter of law. That count was dismissed with prejudice.

The case is No. 3:25-cv-01138-BAJ-SDJ.

Judge: Jackson, B.

Attorneys: Donald Carl Hodge, Jr. (Donald Carl Hodge, Jr., Attorney at Law) for Donna Laird. Erica Sensenbrenner (Adams and Reese) for Al Copeland Investments, Inc. d/b/a Copeland's Cheesecake Bistro.

Companies: Al Copeland Investments, Inc.; Copeland's Cheesecake Bistro

Cases: Discrimination DisabilityDiscrimination StateLawClaims Procedure TortClaims LouisianaNews