A federal court in Maryland has denied summary judgment motions from both parties in a disability discrimination case where a cocktail server at MGM National Harbor claims she was terminated for wearing supportive shoes instead of high heels required by the company’s dress code.
The case highlights the complex interplay between workplace dress codes and reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act (MFEPA).
Background of the case
R.L-D. began working as a cocktail server for MGM National Harbor in November 2016. Like other cocktail servers, she was required to wear black high heels as part of her uniform.
According to her claim, R.L-D. requested an accommodation in January 2017 to wear flat shoes due to a medical condition, but this request was denied. MGM maintains it has no record of this initial accommodation request.
In July 2019, MGM sent a “Request for Information from Health Care Provider” to R.L-D.’s doctor, who diagnosed her with “Equinus Deformity” and “Achillis Tendinitis.” The doctor recommended that R.L-D. “avoid heels” and “wear good supportive shoes” to perform her job duties.
On August 30, 2019, MGM granted R.L-D. an accommodation to “wear flats/good support shoes instead of heels.” The notification stated, “If you would like to request an additional accommodation in the future or modification to your original accommodation, please contact Employee Relations immediately to discuss your options.”
Dispute over shoe styles
R.L-D. claims she wore “Skechers-style black shoes” from July 2019 to December 2021 as part of her accommodation. MGM does not dispute she wore these shoes but contends this was “contrary to the accommodation granted and in violation of the dress policy.”
In December 2021 or January 2022, MGM issued a memo concerning “shoe standards” for beverage employees. The memo specified that “shoes that are not approved are: Ballerinas, Birkenstocks, bedroom slippers, wedge heels, flip flops, sling backs, crocs, any slipper style, sneakers, tennis shoes or shoes with excessive strapping or ornamentation.”
The memo included images of approved shoes, including three non-heeled options for employees with ADA accommodations, and warned that failure to comply by January 3, 2022, could result in “disciplinary action up to and including separation.”
Disciplinary action and termination
On March 16, 2022, R.L-D. received her “second Written discipline under Job Performance” for not having “approved shoes” during her shift.
On April 22, 2022, R.L-D.’s doctor provided a note stating, “Please allow patient to wear previously approved sketcher like soft top shoes without a heel and/or similar style to them permanently due to patient’s foot condition.”
Whether MGM received this doctor’s note before R.L-D.’s termination is disputed. R.L-D. claims she provided it shortly after receiving it, while MGM contends it didn’t receive the note until July 18, 2022, after her termination.
R.L-D. was terminated on May 12, 2022. The termination letter cited “multiple violations of MGM National Harbor General Rules of Conduct,” specifically noting she “has been progressively disciplined for violating the company’s appearance standards” and that “the final incident occurred on March 21, 2022, when the employee wore shoes which violated the appearance standards.”
Legal proceedings
R.L-D. filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Maryland Commission on Civil Rights (MCCR) on May 14, 2022. She received a Notice of Right to Sue from the EEOC on July 27, 2023, and filed her complaint on October 18, 2023.
Her complaint contains six counts: failure to accommodate under the ADA and MFEPA, disability discrimination under both acts, and retaliation under both acts.
One week after filing her lawsuit, R.L-D. filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy, initially valuing her lawsuit at “$0.00” as an exempt asset, which she later amended to “Unknown.”
Court’s analysis
MGM moved for summary judgment, arguing that judicial estoppel should bar R.L-D.’s claims because she valued the lawsuit at zero dollars in her bankruptcy petition. The court rejected this argument, finding disputes as to whether a court accepted the assertion and whether R.L-D. intentionally misled the court.
The court noted that if R.L-D.’s claims are exempt under Maryland law, “their value would be immaterial because the value of an exempt asset has no practical effect on Plaintiff’s bankruptcy plan.”
R.L-D. moved for partial summary judgment on her failure to accommodate claims, arguing that MGM “prohibited the very accommodation… Plaintiff needed, sneaker type footgear.”
In denying both motions, the court identified several disputed material facts, including:
- Whether sneakers were permitted under R.L-D.’s original ADA accommodation
- When MGM received the April 22, 2022 doctor’s note
- The practical application of the July 2019 accommodation
- Whether the prior accommodation was altered
- Whether R.L-D. properly engaged in discussions about her accommodation
The court concluded that these disputed facts preclude summary judgment for either party on all claims.
For more information, see Lopez-Duprey v. MGM National Harbor, LLC.
