Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—D. Ariz.: Former employee with spinal disc herniations advances ADA reasonable accommodation, retaliation claims, (Feb 23, 2026)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

“[[S]]itting in a chair compresses Plaintiff’s spine and triggers Plaintiff’s back pain, which gets progressive[ly] worse.”

BSI America Professional Services, Inc., is not entitled to summary judgment against the ADA reasonable accommodation and retaliation claims of a former employee with several impairments, including spinal disc herniations, that cause pain and make sitting in a chair difficult, a federal district court found. There were genuine disputes of fact regarding the employer’s response to one accommodation request, for either a hybrid work schedule or an ergonomic chair, and then the reasonableness of a second request for eight additional weeks of leave after she exhausted her 12 weeks of FMLA leave. There was also a factual dispute whether the employee’s discharge, after she exhausted her FMLA leave and declined a new position, was pretextual (Knoll v. BSI America Professional Services Inc., No. CV-23-02448-PHX-SPL (D. Ariz. Feb. 20, 2026)).

Several impairments. The plaintiff, according to the court, was an employee of BSI America Professional Services, Inc., beginning on March 17, 2014. She suffers from several impairments, including Hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome, Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome, and spinal disc herniations. These conditions cause her substantial limitations in activities and result in pain. Specifically, “[s]itting in a chair compresses Plaintiff’s spine and triggers Plaintiff’s back pain, which gets progressive[ly] worse.”

Hybrid work? In December 2014, she made a verbal request to her manager for a hybrid work schedule that would include part-time telework. The manager denied the request.

Ergonomic chair? The employee made a second accommodations request in March 2015, asking for “part-time telework and an ergonomic chair for the periods of time that she would be in the office, or in the alternative, a zero-gravity chair for her office.”

Chair but no lumbar support. In response to the request, BSI provided her with a form that could be used for FMLA leave requests, but she submitted a different form that she found on the internet. In April 2015, BSI purchased her an ergonomic chair for her office that she selected, but it arrived without the lumbar support component. BSI also reached out to her medical provider to request more information about her conditions.

FMLA leave. On May 11, 2015, she requested leave under the FMLA due to complications from a medical procedure, and she was approved for two weeks of leave. Her provider then requested an extension of FMLA leave until June 22, 2015, which was also approved. The employee requested two more extensions, and her FMLA leave was extended until July 31, 2015, totaling 12 weeks of leave.

Position eliminated. While she was on leave, her position was eliminated due to a “financially-driven restructure” within BSI. The company created a new position “specifically for Plaintiff to fill upon her return to work.”

Exhaustion of FMLA leave and discharge. On July 29, 2015, she was informed that her FMLA leave had been exhausted, and she was expected to return to work on August 3, 2015. She questioned if she would be terminated if she did not return to work, and an HR business partner told her she would have to see “what options we will have.”

On July 31, 2015, her medical provider requested that her leave be extended until October 1, 2015, and when the employee did not return to work, she was terminated effective August 4, 2015.

EEOC charge and lawsuit. She filed a charge with the EEOC, which issues a notice of right to sue. She then sued, alleging two violations of the ADA: (1) “Denial of Reasonable Accommodations and Discriminatory Termination,” and (2) “Coercion, Intimidation[,] Threats and Interference.”

The employer moved for summary judgment against both claims, and she cross-moved for summary judgment.

First accommodation request. The court first found that there were genuine disputes of fact regarding the employer’s response to her first accommodation request, for either a hybrid work schedule or an ergonomic chair. At issue was when, if ever, her requests were denied and if the employer properly engaged in the interactive process. When her chair arrived, missing a lumbar support component that she requested, the HR manager emailed her and her supervisor about the accommodation request, stating that HR had “reached out to the vendor to obtain the status of this lumbar support.” And the email also stated: “Since we do not have all of the necessary information from her doctor, we are unable to make a formal determination on the home based requirement.” Here, though the employer asserted that “BSI never abandoned the interactive process” and “BSI and Plaintiff never reached an impasse where the company denied any accommodation request,” the former employee asserted that, when she later used her FMLA leave, she believed that she “had not yet been granted any of her requested accommodations.”

Second accommodation request. There were also genuine disputes of fact as to the reasonableness of her second accommodation request, for eight additional weeks of leave after she exhausted her 12 weeks of FMLA leave, and whether BSI was required to engage in the interactive process in response. The company argued that an indefinite period of leave is, as a matter of law, unreasonable, but here, although the former employee extended her FMLA leave requests multiple times, her July 31, 2015, request was limited to a specific period of time: until October 1, 2015. The employer also failed to argue that the extended period of leave she requested would have created an undue burden.

Retaliation. Finally, there was also a factual dispute whether the employee’s discharge, after she exhausted her FMLA leave and declined the new position, was pretextual. The employer asserted that, while the former employee was on leave, her role was eliminated “as part of a company-wide restructuring,” but BSI created a new role for her and offered it to her “before her expected return on August 3, 2015.” It argued that she did not accept the new position, so she was terminated when she did not return to work on August 3, 2015.

The burden thus shifted to the former employee to show pretext, and here she raised a triable dispute of fact. While she was on leave, she was in communication with HR throughout May, June, and July of 2015. After BSI’s HR employee contacted her on July 29, 2015, to offer her the new position and confirm her return to work, the employee asked whether she would be fired if she did not return. The HR employee then told her that they “would have to see what options ‘we will have.’” The employee also argued that, after she was terminated, she “did not receive any explanation why she was terminated, even after [she] promptly repeated her requests for reinstatement and accommodation.” This was enough, concluded the court, to create a genuine dispute of material fact about the reasons for her termination.

The case is No. CV-23-02448-PHX-SPL.

Judge: Logan, S.

Attorneys: Andrew C. Kendall (Martin & Bonnett) for Katherine L. Knoll. Chad Kaffer (Practus) for BSI America Professional Services Inc.

Companies: BSI America Professional Services Inc.

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Retaliation Discharge Procedure ArizonaNews