Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—D. Ariz.: Arizona federal court allows doctor’s discrimination claims to continue against former employer, (May 20, 2026)

By Ursula Furi-Perry, J.D., MBA

The employer said it fired him for alleged accreditation failures and performance deficiencies.

A doctor of Kenyan origin who suffered from colorectal cancer and worked as a Director of Nursing from January 2023 until his termination in December 2023, allegedly instructed to terminate supervisors because one was “too old” and others had accents, may proceed to trial on his ADA and Title VII claims, a federal district court found. Granting summary judgment only against his Section 1981 claim, the court found that his allegations regarding accents and national origin were not race-based discrimination under that statute. Genuine disputes of material fact existed, however, regarding pretext, retaliation, and whether the employer failed to engage in the interactive process (Mogaka v. Physician’s Management Employee Leasing Company, LLC, No. CV-24-01977-PHX-SMB (D. Ariz. May 15, 2026)).

Director of Nursing. The plaintiff, a doctor of Kenyan origin who suffered from colorectal cancer, worked for the employer as Director of Nursing from January 2023 until his termination in December 2023. He alleged that his CEO instructed him to terminate supervisors because one was “too old” and others had accents, and that he refused to comply with those directives.

CEO’s warning. Afterward, the doctor alleged that the CEO excluded him from meetings, ignored his communications, belittled him in front of coworkers, and later reduced his salary. When the doctor reported the CEO’s conduct to human resources and upper management, the CEO allegedly responded by warning him that the report would “come back to bite” him.

Disclosure of diagnosis, discharge. Around the same time, the doctor informed management about his colorectal cancer diagnosis and requested time off to attend medical appointments. According to the doctor, management denied his requests for leave and instructed him to schedule appointments so they would not interfere with work responsibilities. He alleged that the employer failed to discuss accommodations or engage in any interactive process required under the ADA. Ultimately, the employer terminated him in December 2023.

Lawsuit. The doctor filed suit for discrimination and retaliation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, and the employer moved for summary judgment, arguing that the termination was based on legitimate performance concerns tied to accreditation and regulatory compliance issues. Specifically, the employer claimed that a Joint Commission survey resulted in a Preliminary Denial of Accreditation and that the doctor, as Director of Nursing, was responsible for deficiencies contributing to that outcome. The employer also contended that the salary reduction resulted from an administrative payroll error rather than retaliation. The doctor disputed those explanations, asserting there were no documented disciplinary issues, no progressive discipline, and no evidence connecting nursing services to the accreditation problems that were identified in the report.

ADA wrongful termination. The court analyzed the retaliation and discrimination claims under the McDonnell-Douglas burden-shifting framework. First, the court held that the doctor established a prima facie case of ADA wrongful termination because he demonstrated that he had a disability, was qualified for the position, and was terminated shortly after requesting leave for medical treatment. The court emphasized that the evidentiary burden at the prima facie stage is minimal and that temporal proximity between the request for accommodations and termination supported an inference of discrimination.

Although the employer articulated legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for termination by noting accreditation failures and performance deficiencies, the court concluded that the doctor produced sufficient evidence of pretext to survive summary judgment. The accreditation report itself did not identify deficiencies in nursing services, despite the employer’s claim that nursing failures caused the accreditation denial. The court also noted the absence of documented warnings or progressive discipline in the doctor’s personnel file, even though company policy generally required such measures before termination. Additionally, the employer failed to provide key documentation it referenced, including termination paperwork and disciplinary notices, which also weakened its position. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the doctor, the court determined that a reasonable jury could conclude the employer’s stated reasons were not the true reasons for termination.

Retaliation. The court similarly denied summary judgment on the Title VII retaliation claim. The doctor had engaged in protected activity by refusing to fire supervisors based on discriminatory factors and by reporting the conduct internally. The court found sufficient evidence linking those actions to adverse employment actions, including salary reduction and termination. The court noted that timing was particularly important, because the salary reduction occurred shortly after the doctor refused the CEO’s instructions, and the employer’s explanations for the pay reduction were inconsistent, with one explanation referencing financial problems and another citing administrative error. However, the court granted summary judgment on the Section 1981 retaliation claim, noting the law applies only to race-based discrimination, while the doctor’s allegations focused on accents and national origin.

Failure to accommodate. The court denied summary judgment on the ADA failure-to-accommodate claim, emphasizing that once an employer becomes aware of an employee’s disability and need for accommodation, the employer has an obligation to engage in an interactive process. The doctor testified that management denied leave requests, discouraged him from taking time off, and failed to discuss accommodations. The court concluded that factual disputes existed regarding whether the employer reasonably accommodated the disability and complied with its ADA obligations.

The case is No. CV-24-01977-PHX-SMB.

Judge: Brnovich, S.

Attorneys: Elizabeth Diane Tate (Elizabeth D. Tate Attorney at Law) for Ronald Mogaka. Christopher James Meister (Ogletree Deakins PC) for Physician's Management/Employee Leasing Co. LLC.

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination RaceDiscrimination NationalOrigin Discrimination Discharge Retaliation ArizonaNews