Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—3d Cir.: Healthcare worker’s allegedly unprofessional behavior, not back injury, led to firing, (Aug 21, 2025)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

Two witnesses testified that she shouted, pointed, and swore at a coworker during a staff meeting, after she received a final warning based on reports she used profanity toward a patient.

A dialysis center terminated an employee because she engaged in unprofessional conduct during a staff meeting after having been issued a final disciplinary warning, not because she recently suffered a back injury and requested an accommodation, the Third Circuit ruled in a nonprecedential opinion affirming dismissal of her ADA claims on summary judgment. Even if pretext could be inferred from a close temporal proximity between her injury and termination, her engagement in a loud, heated exchange after the injury broke any causal link. Moreover, management’s decision not to follow the incremental steps outlined in the employer’s progressive discipline policy did not suggest animus under the circumstances (Grasty v. DaVita, Inc., No. 24-2584 (3d Cir. Aug. 18, 2025, nonprecedential)).

Final warning. The employee worked for the dialysis center for nearly seven years before she was fired. During her tenure, she incurred many documented disciplinary infractions, including unprofessional behavior toward patients and coworkers. In 2019, she was given oral and written warnings about her behavior. That October, she received a final written warning following reports that she had spoken disrespectfully to and used profane language toward a patient.

Back injury. In January 2020, she injured her back while lifting a patient from a wheelchair. Her physicians determined that she had “injured her axial spine and extremities,” and provided her a doctor’s note recommending that she avoid “lifting, pushing/pulling patients.”

Job modifications. When she returned to work, she was unable to perform these physical requirements of her job. Though the parties contested whether she communicated any specific job restrictions to her supervisor, she admitted she was aided in tasks she was incapable of performing or was otherwise allowed to opt out of those tasks and swap patients.

Termination. Less than two weeks after her injury, the employee attended a staff meeting where she allegedly screamed, swore at, and directed threatening body language toward a coworker. Her supervisor witnessed and documented the confrontation, and the coworker also submitted an email complaint about the incident. After taking a statement from the coworker, the supervisor reprimanded the employee and submitted a formal disciplinary write-up. The employer then terminated her—23 days after her injury and 11 days after the staff meeting.

Progressive discipline policy. The employer’s progressive discipline policy provided for incremental steps in the disciplinary process, including a suspension period before termination. The policy also stated that the company “may initiate or impose discipline at the level it believes, in its sole discretion, is most appropriate,” and may “terminate any teammate... without following any particular series of steps.” The employer did not follow the incremental steps outlined in the policy when it terminated the employee and instead determined that her behavior at the staff meeting warranted immediate termination.

Lawsuit. The employee brought the instant action asserting ADA claims of discrimination, retaliation, and failure to accommodate. The district court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment on all claims, and she appealed.

Employee’s testimony didn’t show pretext. Summary judgment was warranted as to the employee’s discrimination and retaliation claims since she failed to cast doubt on the employer’s explanation for terminating her; namely, her repeated unprofessional behavior. Though she attempted to show pretext by pointing her testimony denying that she behaved poorly at the staff meeting, the record demonstrated otherwise. For instance, two witnesses testified that she had shouted, pointed, and swore at a coworker during the meeting. The employer also highlighted her history of unprofessional behavior and prior disciplinary notices.

Nor did lack of interview. The employee also argued that the employer conducted an inadequate investigation into the allegations about her behavior at the staff meeting since her supervisor did not provide her an opportunity to explain her side of the story. “[A] mere challenge to the sufficiency of an employer’s internal investigation does not establish pretext,” and here, the employee could not overcome “the wealth of evidence” that the employer terminated her because of her unprofessional behavior.

The Third Circuit also rejected her argument that pretext could be inferred from the employer’s decision to depart from its usual progressive disciplinary policy. Significantly, the employer “pointed to evidence it would have terminated her absent her injury and request for accommodation and had considered doing so prior to her injury.” Without any evidence to the contrary, its decision to immediately move to termination did not suggest pretext.

Intervening event. Finally, even if pretext could be inferred from a close temporal proximity, the employer’s intervening legitimate reason to terminate her quashed any inference of bias or retaliation. “Her engagement in a loud, heated exchange at work breaks any causal link between her physical injury and the request for accommodation on the one hand, and her termination on the other,” explained the Third Circuit.

No failure to accommodate. The district court also properly granted summary judgment as to her failure to-accommodate claim since her own testimony confirmed that she was accommodated. She admitted she was given assistance to lift, pull and push if it was available. If not, she was otherwise allowed to opt out of those tasks and swap patients.

The case is No. 24-2584.

Judge: Ambro, T.

Attorneys: Mark R. Natale (Malamut & Associates) for Christina Grasty. Christina M. Michael (Fisher Phillips) for DaVita Inc. d/b/a DaVita South Broad Street Dialysis.

Companies: DaVita Inc.; DaVita South Broad Street Dialysis

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge Retaliation DelawareNews NewJerseyNews PennsylvaniaNews