Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—W.D. Tenn.: Temp worker, allegedly denied job due to heart condition, beats motion to dismiss, (Aug 11, 2025)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

The court rejected the employer’s contention the employee was not disabled, noting she described her medical history and doctor’s recommendation and, at the pleading stage, need not provide medical proof.

A temporary employee who suffered from a heart condition that caused irregular heartbeats that could lead to fainting or seizures, and who claimed her job offer for a permanent position was revoked after her doctor recommended that she “avoid working close to heavy machinery and avoid strenuous physical activities,” survived the employer’s motion to dismiss her ADA discrimination claim. Rejecting the employer’s contention that she failed to show she had a disability, a federal district court in Tennessee concluded that she sufficiently alleged that her long QT syndrome substantially limited major life activities that included walking, lifting, and working (Summers v. Charms, LLC, No. 2:24-cv-02418-TLP-atc (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 8, 2025)).

Heart condition. The employee suffers from long QT syndrome—a medical conduction that affects the heart’s rhythm and causes sudden fast and irregular heartbeats. She claimed that to prevent the arrythmia and resulting fainting or seizures, she could not perform manual tasks, engage in strenuous physical activities, stand or walk for long periods of time, perform continuous or heavy lifting, bend or stoop, operate or be near heavy machinery or work in a class or range of jobs.

Temporary role. Through a staffing agency, the employee worked as a packer for Charms, LLC, from August 2022 to January 2023. She told her supervisor about her disability on the first day on the job, and he allegedly responded that her limitations would be “no issue.” Except for one short illness, she worked as a packer for several months without issues.

Job offer. After three months, she applied for a job directly with Charms, and her supervisor aided her with the application. The employer offered her a job as a box line operator, but her offer letter required that she take a physical test through its third-party provider.

Medical restrictions. Due to her physical limitations, the third-party provider deferred the test and sent a form to the employee’s treating doctor, who completed the physical and wrote under the “comments” section that she has a “history of long QT.” The doctor also advised that she “avoid working close to heavy machinery and avoid strenuous physical activities.”

Rescinded. When the employer received her paperwork, despite having offered her a job with the same or similar requirements she was already performing, it failed to hire her. She sued, alleging disability discrimination under the ADA.

Disability under ADA. The employer moved to dismiss, arguing that the employee failed to plausibly allege that she suffered a disability under the ADA since she did not claim she suffered from “an impairment that substantially limits one, or more, major life activity.” The court disagreed, finding that she sufficiently alleged that she suffered long QT syndrome, and that the disease limits her ability to live and work normally.

Physiological disorder. The court noted that the regulations that define each element of an ADA “disability,” state that a “physical or mental impairment” is “[a]ny physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more body systems . . . .” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1). Here, the employee sufficiently pled this element because she asserted that she suffered a physiological disorder—a condition that causes an arrythmia—affecting her heart.

“Substantially limited.” In addition, the employee sufficiently alleged that her long QT “substantially limits” one or more of her “major life activities.” For example, she detailed how, because of her heart condition, her treating physician stated that “patient [is] advised to avoid working close to heavy machinery and avoid strenuous physical activities.” She also claimed that she risked fainting and seizures when the arrythmia begins, and alleged that in order to keep her heart rate under control or prevent greater danger, she could not perform major life activities that included several life activities that the general population readily engaged in without restrictions.

The court rejected the employer’s contention that her allegations were merely a “simple recitation of symptoms associated with long QT.” While she described some symptoms—fainting, chaotic heartbeats, and seizures—the bulk of her allegations related to how long QT affected her daily activities. For instance, she alleged that she could not work close to heavy machinery and that her long QT limited activities like standing, walking, lifting, and bending. And at the pleading stage, she was not required to provide medical proof.

Limitations controlled disability. The court also rejected the employer’s argument that that she failed to allege she was disabled since she claimed that she could faint or suffer a seizure, not that she actually did so. As the Sixth Circuit has explained, “controlling a disability”—such as with medication or by limiting activities through reasonable accommodations—“does not necessarily mean removing a disability.”

The case is No. 2:24-cv-02418-TLP-atc.

Judge: Parker, T.

Attorneys: William A. Wooten (Wooten Law Office) for Jessica Summers. Robin H. Rasmussen (Dinkelspiel Rasmussen & Mink) for Charms, LLC.

Companies: Charms, LLC

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination TennesseeNews