Diane Steppe applied on or about August 29, 2023, for a crew member position at a Williamsport, Pennsylvania location operated by Carrols LLC and Carrols Corporation, both doing business as Burger King. Steppe, who has been diagnosed with an intellectual disability and a learning disability, alleges she had worked for several years as a custodian at the Williamsport federal courthouse through the AbilityOne Program and had experience at a food concession stand during the Little League World Series. She alleges she met the listed qualifications and could perform the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodations.
According to the amended complaint, general manager Brandy Davis interviewed Steppe on September 1, 2023. During the interview, Steppe disclosed her disabilities and described her work history. According to the complaint, Davis stated that Steppe's concession work at the Little League World Series did not qualify as fast-food experience, and told her directly that the position was not suitable for her because it could, at times, be overwhelming. Davis ended the interview and informed Steppe she would not be hired.
Judge Julia K. Munley of the Middle District of Pennsylvania denied the defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss on March 9, 2026. The case is docketed as No. 4:25-cv-00609.
On the disability element, the court held that Steppe plausibly pleaded both an actual disability claim and a regarded-as claim. For the actual disability theory, the court noted that Steppe is not required at the pleading stage to detail the specific life activity affected or the precise nature of her limitations. For the regarded-as theory, the court held that Steppe's allegations — that Davis learned of her disabilities through Steppe's own disclosures and through her distinctive vocal characteristics and mannerisms — were sufficient to put forth allegations raising a reasonable expectation that discovery would reveal evidence of the necessary element, and that the question was better suited for summary judgment.
The court also rejected the defendants' argument that Steppe failed to exhaust her administrative remedies before the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, noting that Steppe attached the relevant closure notice to her opposition brief and that defendants did not address the argument in their reply.
On the fourth element of the prima facie case, the defendants argued that Steppe failed to adequately plead that the position remained open after her rejection. The court held that Steppe's allegation that Carrols continued to advertise the position, interviewed other candidates, and ultimately filled it with an individual who did not have an intellectual disability and learning disability was sufficient at the pleading stage. The court noted that the defendants' attempt to introduce contrary evidence was an effort to fast-forward to summary judgment, which is the more appropriate vehicle for assessing those factual disputes.