Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—11th Cir.: Former claims analyst, denied indefinite leave, failed to show race, disability discrimination, (Aug 25, 2025)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

According to the former employee, her supervisor once ordered her to perform work that was the responsibility of a white coworker.

An African-American claims analyst, who was denied an indefinite period of leave after developing anxiety and exhausting her PTO following alleged race discrimination and bullying by her supervisor, failed to establish race or disability discrimination or retaliation, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed in an unpublished opinion. Although a “leave of absence might be a reasonable accommodation in some cases,” undisputed evidence reflected that the analyst requested an indefinite leave of absence in which to ameliorate her condition, which is not a reasonable accommodation under circuit precedent. The employer also met its burden of identifying a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for her termination: her “failure to return to work once she had exhausted all available PTO” (Hairston v. Community Hospital Holding Company, LLC, No. 24-11407 (11th Cir. Aug. 21, 2025, unpublished)).

Medicare claims analyst. The plaintiff, an African-American woman, worked as a Medicare claims analyst in Health Systems’ billing department. She assisted in collecting outstanding medical debt from third-party insurance providers.

Alleged mistreatment by supervisor. In March 2019, her supervisor allegedly began talking to her in a derogatory and unprofessional way. She also felt that her workload was becoming heavy and noted that the supervisor began emailing her more frequently and complaining about “simple” things. In addition, the supervisor allegedly once ordered her to perform work that was the responsibility of a white coworker.

Application for open position and test. Feeling that she was being treated unfairly, she applied for an open position in a different department on March 25, 2019. As part of the application process, she took a content or competency test, which she believed was not a common requirement.

Interview. She also sat for an interview with a manager who allegedly treated her unprofessionally, demanding to know why she was trying to transfer and suggesting she should get better at her current job. She had seen the manager speaking with her supervisor before the interview, and she suspected that the supervisor coached the manager for the interview.

Discipline. On March 26, 2019, the day after she applied for a new position, the supervisor called her into her office and gave her a disciplinary action form for failing to complete certain spreadsheets. When she asked why she was being disciplined, the supervisor replied that she had failed to complete tasks by certain dates.

Grievance. On March 29, 2019, she met with another manager and told him “some of the things that [had been] happening” and about the discipline. He encouraged her to put her concerns into a written grievance, and she emailed a formal grievance to the HR director and CEO on April 2, 2019. In the grievance, she wrote that the supervisor had created a toxic work environment and was, among other things, “partial to her Caucasian employees.” She also described the incident in which the supervisor allegedly ordered her to perform work that was the responsibility of the white coworker. She alleged that these actions constituted racial discrimination and bullying, and that she had learned that other African-American women who had worked under the supervisor had also suffered discrimination and bullying and had reported it to governmental officials.

Migraine and anxiety. Later that same day, the analyst emailed the HR director to say that she “ha[s] a migraine and can’t see or focus well” and was “going to the doctor.” She testified that the supervisor had been staring at her and peppering her with questions about an account.

When she left work, she drove to the nearest urgent care center, where a nurse practitioner told her that she was suffering from anxiety. The center gave her a doctor’s note, which requested that she be excused from work until she could visit with her primary-care physician.

Unable to return to work. In an email on April 7, 2019, she informed the employer that, at a follow-up appointment on April 5, 2019, her doctor determined “that [she was] unable to return to work until further notice due to [her] condition.” She also asked about pursuing her grievance.

An HR representative responded the next day and informed her that she was “not eligible for [Family Medical Leave Act leave] as you must be employed for a year and have worked 1250 hours,” and that she “must return to work tomorrow,” April 9, 2019. At her request, HR provided her with the employer’s benefit guide and her PTO accrual.

Date of return? On April 9, 2019, the HR rep emailed her and said that the employer had not “received notification from you regarding your return” and asked whether she would “be returning to work today.”

Her daughter responded on her behalf, but the HR rep said she could not discuss employee matters with her and would attempt to reach the analyst directly. The next day, after attempting to call her, the HR rep wrote an email informing her as follows: “As previously stated you are not eligible for FMLA at this time. Your time off balances will exhaust on Tuesday, April 16. Please provide us with your medical documentation and if you will be returning on Wednesday, April 17th. If you do not return on Wednesday you will have exhausted all time off available and will be considered job abandonment.”

Ready to return when released. She responded that she would be ready “to return to work” when released by her doctor, and she attached her doctor’s notes.

No exceptions. Then, on April 15, 2019, she sent an email to the HR rep acknowledging the company’s position and asking if “any exception can be made to that policy to grant me additional leave.” The HR rep replied that the employer “made a two[-]week[] accommodation but no other time off can be granted at this time.”

No indefinite leave. According to testimony from the HR director, there were no types of leave an employee could take aside from PTO and FMLA leave, and that the employer had a policy or practice of denying additional leave. She also explained that, in the employer’s view, it was not reasonable to grant the analyst an “indefinite leave period” because “the work was already greatly falling behind and the volumes were increasing.”

Lawsuit and appeal. The former analyst sued the employer in August 2022, alleging race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, and disability discrimination and retaliation under the ADA. After discovery, the employer moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted, concluding that no reasonable jury could find in favor of the former analyst. She appealed to the Eleventh Circuit.

ADA. The appeals court first found that the district court properly granted summary judgment to the employer on the employee’s ADA claim. She took leave after experiencing a migraine and symptoms of an anxiety disorder, the Eleventh Circuit noted, and during her two-week absence, she consistently told the employer that she could not return to work until cleared by her doctor, but she never set a “temporal limit on the advocated grace period” in her communications, and she never provided any indication of when or how she would be able to resume her job in the immediate future. The undisputed evidence thus reflected that she “requested an indefinite leave of absence in which to ameliorate her condition,” which is not a reasonable accommodation under Eleventh Circuit precedent. And the employer accordingly did not violate the ADA by refusing that accommodation or by failing to engage in the interactive process.

Title VII retaliation. Summary judgment against her Title VII retaliation claim was also appropriate, according to the Eleventh Circuit. Assuming that she established a prima facie case, the appeals court found that the employer met its burden of identifying a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for her termination: her “failure to return to work once she had exhausted all available PTO.” The record established that she did not return to work on April 3, 2019, the day the HR director said she would follow up with her about her April 2 grievance, or any time thereafter before her termination on April 17, 2019, despite repeated warnings that she would be dismissed if she failed to return. Thus, despite the close temporal proximity, “the intervening discovery” of grounds for termination—namely, the failure to return to work when ordered—“undercuts the inference that [her] complaint[] caused her termination.” Nor did she come forward with any evidence that the employer’s rationale was pretextual.

The case is No. 24-11407.

Judge: Per curiam.

Attorneys: James M. McCabe (The McCabe Law Firm) for Brenda Hairston. Marcus M. Crider (Holland & Knight) for Community Hospital Holding Co., LLC dba Optim Health Systems.

Companies: Community Hospital Holding Co., LLC; Optim Health Systems

Cases: Discrimination RaceDiscrimination DisabilityDiscrimination Retaliation EmployeeLeave AlabamaNews FloridaNews GeorgiaNews