In Wilson v. Dollar General Corp., the key litigated issue was whether a Chapter 13 debtor had standing to assert a cause of action exclusive from the authority vested in the bankruptcy trustee. After ruling that the plaintiff had standing, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit then decided whether Wilson established a prima facie case of ADA discrimination.

In April of 2010, Lamont Wilson was discharged from Dollar General following a prolonged absence from work. On June 10, 2010, Wilson, who had missed several weeks of employment due to complications from the inflammatory eye condition, contacted the EEOC following his termination and filed a charge of discrimination. Later that month, Wilson filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, where he identified as part of his personal property "a potential claim against Dollar General." On November 10, 2010, Wilson's Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan was confirmed.

On June 15, 2011, Wilson filed suit in the US District Court for the Western District of Virginia against Dollar General alleging that his former employer failed to provide a reasonable accommodation for his disability in violation of the ADA. Dollar General moved for summary judgment, arguing that because Wilson was a Chapter 13 debtor, he lacked standing to maintain his pre-petition claim. Consequently, Dollar General argued, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear Wilson's claim.

On May 17, 2013, the Fourth Circuit issued an opinion in Wilson v. Dollar General Corp., upholding the district court’s rejection of Dollar General’s argument based on standing. The Fourth Circuit held that the plaintiff retains standing to sue based on the possessory rights of a Chapter 13 debtor. Specifically, the court held that under Chapter 13, unlike under Chapter 7, a debtor retains possession of the underlying property in the estate facing bankruptcy. The court reasoned that implicit in the possessory right is the right to sue in one's own name, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

After ruling that the plaintiff retained standing, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the employer. The Fourth Circuit ruled that although the plaintiff had standing to sue, his claim failed because he could not identify a possible reasonable accommodation that would have enabled him to perform the essential functions of his position on the night of his discharge.

Employers nationwide should take notice that courts are reluctant to deny standing to a plaintiff simply because that plaintiff declared Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The Fourth Circuit is now the sixth Federal Appellate Court, joining the US Courts of Appeals for the Second, Third, Seventh, Tenth and Eleventh Circuits, to find that a Chapter 13 debtor has standing to bring a cause of action in his own name, including for employment discrimination.