Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—D. Ariz.: Revenue manager, fired during medical leave, gets trial on ADA claims, (Aug 21, 2026)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

His understanding was that, after 30 to 60 days, his body would adapt to a newly prescribed medication and he would be able to return to work.

A revenue manager with Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome, depression, sleep apnea, and Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome (POTS), fired by Good Night Stay LLC, during leave he requested for “medical treatment expected 6 weeks - TBD,” may proceed to trial with his ADA discrimination and retaliation claims, ruled a federal district court in Arizona. The employer argued that the employee’s condition and medication prevented him from exercising the judgment required for the position, and that his requested leave was indefinite in length, but the revenue manager’s understanding was that, after 30 to 60 days, his body would adapt to a newly prescribed medication. And although a letter he submitted from his doctor shortly after his firing indicated that he was “not stable,” the letter nonetheless suggested that he was undergoing treatment and would be able to return to work in the future (Petroff v. Good Night Stay LLC, No. CV-25-01940-PHX-DMF (D. Ariz. Aug. 20, 2026)).

Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome. Before he began working for Good Night Stay LLC (GNS) in March 2022 as revenue manager, the employee was diagnosed with Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome. GNS was aware of his diagnosis.

Real-time pricing adjustment. The revenue manager position required the employee to provide day-to-day market analysis of rental pricing and adjust the pricing of each GNS property in real-time in response to day-to-day market conditions.

Required scheduling flexibility. Throughout the rest of 2022, the employee worked in his role as revenue manager but required some flexibility with his work schedule due to family obligations or medical issues. He needed, for example, to be absent from work because his hot water heater broke. He needed to take care of an ill family member, and on occasion, he needed to take a sick day or arrive late to work due to an emergency room visit.

CEO’s frustration. On January 30, 2023, GNS’s CEO emailed the employee expressing frustration about his absence that day. The CEO separately emailed him expressing concerns about his performance.

Medical leave. In early February 2023, the employee contacted GNS’s outside HR vendor seeking a form to request an unpaid medical leave of absence. The form he received, however, advised, “This form should not be used to request leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act or to request leave as an accommodation under the ADA.”

Submitted form. In any event, he filled out the form requesting unpaid leave for “medical treatment expected 6 weeks – TBD,” and he submitted it to the CEO for approval on February 13, 2023.

Expected return-to-work date. In its reply, according to the court, GNS acknowledged that “the leave request form [the revenue manager] used identified March 31, 2023, as an expected return-to-work date.” And the form itself reflected that the revenue manager identified express leave dates as February 13, 2023, to March 31, 2023, and entered in the reason for leave as a medical treatment.

Absence and termination. The employee was absent from February 2, 2023, through his termination, which was effective on February 27, 2023. Shortly after his firing, he also provided a February 28, 2023, medical note from his doctor explaining that he “needs to be excused from work due to his mental health issues prohibiting him from appropriately fulfilling his job responsibilities. The patient is being treated with medications to address his symptoms but is not stable at this time.” Around the time of his firing, he was diagnosed with depression, sleep apnea, and POTS.

Lawsuit. The employee sued, alleging discrimination and retaliation under the ADA, and GNS moved for summary judgment.

Qualified individual. In its motion, GNS argued that it is entitled to summary judgment based upon one issue: whether the revenue manager was a qualified individual under the ADA. The employer argued that his condition and medication prevented him from exercising the judgment required for the position, and that his requested leave was indefinite in length, making it unreasonable as a matter of law.

Unpersuaded, the court observed that the revenue manager’s understanding was that, after 30 to 60 days, his body would adapt to a newly prescribed medication. Although the letter he submitted from his doctor shortly after his firing indicated that he was “not stable,” noted the court, the letter also suggested that he was undergoing treatment and would be able to return to work in the future.

Genuine issues of material fact thus existed regarding his status as a qualified individual under the ADA, and his claims could proceed to trial.

The case is No. CV-25-01940-PHX-DMF.

Judge: Fine, D.

Attorneys: Kelsey Whalen (Weiler Law) for Mark Petroff. Erin Anderson (Fennemore Craig) for Good Night Stay LLC.

Companies: Good Night Stay LLC

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge Retaliation EmployeeLeave ArizonaNews