The court held that the plaintiff’s EEOC charge sufficiently put the agency on notice of a retaliation claim, even though he failed to check the specific "Retaliation" box on the form. The charge detailed that he was fired after pushing back on a policy change implemented shortly after he requested an accommodation for cancer treatment.
The court also rejected the defendants' argument that the plaintiff failed to exhaust remedies by omitting one of the two dental entities, Allenwood Dental, from the EEOC charge. Judge Berg determined that the question of whether the two entities share an identity of interest is a fact-intensive inquiry better suited for summary judgment than a motion to dismiss.
Plaintiff Dr. Robert Kanas sued G. Ghannam DDS, P.C. (doing business as Campbell Dental) and Allenwood Dental, PLLC, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Michigan’s Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act.
Kanas, who underwent prostate cancer surgery in 2020, began working at the dental practices in January 2022. In December 2023, he informed the owner, Dr. Robert Ghannam, that he needed an accommodation for cancer treatment.
Three weeks later, Lara Moya, the owner’s wife and a dental hygienist, texted Kanas instructing him to stop treating patients with metal brackets and to refer them elsewhere. Kanas objected to the policy via text and email, requesting a contract renegotiation.
Kanas completed 39 radiation treatment sessions between January and March 2024 without missing a day of work. He was terminated on March 7, 2024, by Dr. Ghannam and Moya. The defendants cited complaints about a dental assistant and equipment as the reason for the firing.
Kanas filed an EEOC charge on November 8, 2024, listing Campbell Dental as the employer and selecting "Disability" as the basis for discrimination. He did not select "Retaliation." The EEOC issued a right-to-sue letter in March 2025.
In its motion to dismiss, the defendants argued that Kanas failed to exhaust administrative remedies because the EEOC charge contained no retaliation claim and did not name Allenwood as a respondent.
Judge Berg disagreed on the retaliation point, citing Sixth Circuit precedent that pro se complaints are construed liberally. The court found that Kanas’s allegation that he was fired after "pushing back" on the policy change was sufficient to put the EEOC on notice of a retaliation claim.
Regarding the identity of interest between Campbell Dental and Allenwood, the court noted that Kanas’s complaint treated the entities as sharing common management and operations under a single owner. The court declined to dismiss the claims against Allenwood at this stage, stating that discovery is necessary to determine if the entities share a clear identity of interest.
The court denied the motion to dismiss in its entirety, allowing Kanas’s federal and state law claims against both dental entities to proceed.