10.  In July 2018, Simmons experienced chronic and severe pain stemming   from a previous Achilles rupture.     11.  The previous fall, Simmons was off of work and had surgery to rupture.    12.  On July 19, 2019, Dr. Patricia Antero informed Mercedes that do to the   nature of the degeneration and previous rupture that Simmons was in pain had  difficulty walking and needed a surgical procedure.    13.  On August 9, 2019, Southlake Orthopedics advised Mercedes of  upcoming appointment for surgical consult with an expected return to work date of  September 06, 2018.    14.   Mercedes rejected the doctor’s explanation, denied Simmons any short   term disability and requested additional information.   17.      Mercedes maintains a short term disability plan that allows for  continuation of salary for team members because of non-work related medical  impairment extending beyond seven days.    18.  The terms of the plan make clear that the company’s business needs as  determined by company’s supervisor come before the employee’s need and or  qualifications for short term disability leave.     19.  Simmons was denied a reasonable accommodation of allowing to be  off of work under the policy and terminated.    20.      Allowing Simmons to be absent from work for definite 90 day period  or to work from home would not have been undue hardship on the company.   21.     The company has allowed white employee Kathy Norris an  accommodation to work for other reasons.   31.  Plaintiff is disabled by way of an Achilles injury, which is a  physical impairment that substantially limits one or more of his major life  activities; in particular, his ability to, inter alia, work in a class of jobs or a  broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person  having comparable training, skills and abilities.  In addition, Plaintiff has a  history of having an impairment, which substantially limits one or more of his  major life activities, and/or he is perceived by Defendant as a person with a  disability as that term is defined under the ADA.  Thus, Plaintiff has a  disability under the ADA.  (42 U.S.C. § 12102).      32.  The Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff because of his  disability with respect to the terms and conditions of his employment  in  violation of the ADA.   34.    The Defendant’s discriminatory actions toward Plaintiff were  reckless, malicious,and willful and in violation of Plaintiff's statutory rights  pursuant to the ADA, as amended.   35.  The Defendant Mercedes also discriminated against Simmons  because of his race with respect to denial of a reasonable accommodation,  and termination of his employment in violation of 42 U.S.C § 2000e, as  amended, and 42 U.S.C §1981 and 42 U.S.C.§1981a.   36.    Mercedes accommodated white employee Kathy Norris who  was allowed to work from home.     37.  Mercedes’ decision to terminate Simmons’ employment rather  than examine his medical paper work was discriminatory.    38.  Simmons has suffered loss of pay and benefits. Furthermore, as  a result of the treatment he received from the Defendant, Simmons suffered  mental anguish, humiliation, embarrassment.  The Defendant’s  discriminatory actions toward Simmons was reckless, malicious, and willful  and in violation of his statutory rights pursuant to Title VII of the Civil  Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and 42 U.S.C. 1981.  7.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-6 above  with the same force and effect as if fully set out in specific detail herein below.    9.  Simmons worked as specialist procuring automotive parts as in the   Mercedes Benz’s supply chain.     