Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—D. Colo.: Hospital prevails in disability discrimination suit of physician with work-related burnout, (Sep 22, 2026)

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

The hospital articulated legitimate reasons for withdrawing an employment offer, and the physician failed to produce sufficient evidence that those reasons were pretextual.

A physician who claimed that a hospital system withdrew an offer of employment because of his work-related burnout could not proceed with disability discrimination claims, because the evidence did not establish that his condition substantially limited a major life activity, a federal district court found. The court also rejected the physician’s retaliation claims, concluding that the hospital system articulated legitimate reasons for withdrawing the employment offer and that the physician failed to produce sufficient evidence that those reasons were pretextual (Peddada v. Catholic Health Initiatives Colorado, No. 23-cv-01921-NYW-MDB (D. Colo. Sept. 16, 2026)).

Radiation oncologist. The plaintiff, aboard-certified radiation oncologist and partner in a two-physician practice, contracted exclusively with the defendant hospital to provide radiation oncology services for more than two decades. By late 2021, however, the relationship between the plaintiff and his practice partner had deteriorated, and the hospital subsequently decided not to renew the practice’s exclusive services agreement when it expired in June 2022, instead offering to employ both physicians directly, with the two working at separate hospitals. The plaintiff was initially uncertain whether he wanted to become a hospital employee, but negotiations continued, and the hospital sent him a draft employment agreement in April 2022.

Burnout. During the same period, the physician began experiencing significant work-related burnout and sought medical care. He told members of the hospital’s cancer team that he wanted time away from work before beginning employment and consulted with his attorney about taking disability leave. His treating physician did not identify problems with his physical health, memory, or cognition and did not believe his condition restricted normal activities such as sleeping, thinking, communicating, or working, but the plaintiff informed his practice partner that he intended to take approximately three months of leave beginning May 1.

Proposed employment agreement. On April 26, the hospital sent the plaintiff a proposed employment agreement, along with materials necessary to begin the credentialing process, but the plaintiff did not respond to a request to speak and told another hospital official that he was unwilling to discuss the employment agreement during his leave, which he anticipated would continue until August 1. This presented a timing problem for the hospital, because credentialing physicians with insurers generally took 90 to 100 days and could not begin without a signed employment agreement. On May 2, the plaintiff formally requested medical leave from the hospital’s medical staff president, and a week later, the hospital notified him that it was treating his failure to execute the agreement as a rejection of its employment offer and would not extend another offer.

Lawsuit. The plaintiff filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, alleging that the hospital had discriminated against him because of an actual or perceived disability, failed to accommodate his disability, and retaliated against him for requesting an accommodation, in violation of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. He also asserted state law claims for wrongful discharge, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy. The hospital filed a motion for summary judgment.

One defendant eliminated. The court first concluded that one corporate defendant, CommonSpirit Health, could not be held liable merely because of its relationship with the entity operating the hospitals, as it had essentially no involvement in the hospitals’ day-to-day operations or direct oversight of the physician’s employment negotiations.

Disability discrimination. Turning to disability discrimination, the court reviewed the familiar McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, explaining that an ADA plaintiff must demonstrate an impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. The physician identified sleeping, thinking, concentrating, and communicating as affected activities, but the record did not establish the required substantial limitation. His treating physician believed he remained capable of normal life activities, while his litigation expert described the burnout as entirely work-related. The physician also failed to identify evidence that his thinking, concentration, or communication was impaired outside the performance of his particular professional duties or limited him from working across a class or broad range of jobs.

The physician argued that hospital officials viewed his burnout as a condition likely to affect his professional future, but the evidence he cited consisted largely of general testimony about physician burnout rather than evidence of what the relevant decisionmakers believed about his particular condition. Nothing demonstrated that the hospital perceived his impairment as extending beyond six months when it withdrew the offer, the court held.

Retaliation. The physician’s retaliation claim did not require him to establish a disability; rather, a reasonable, good-faith belief that he was disabled could support protected activity. The court therefore assumed the physician could establish a prima facie retaliation case, particularly given the temporal proximity between his leave request and withdrawal of the offer. The hospital nevertheless offered legitimate reasons for its decision, including the physician’s failure to communicate about the employment and loan agreements, the need to begin credentialing, questions concerning his commitment to the practice, and concerns about professionalism. The physician failed to show that those reasons were pretextual, the court ultimately held. It was undisputed that he had not signed the employment agreement and had either declined or failed to respond to efforts to discuss it. The hospital also presented undisputed evidence that credentialing could take 90 to 100 days and could not begin without a signed agreement. The relevant question was not whether the hospital’s decision was wise or fair, the court noted, but whether its decision-makers honestly believed the stated reasons and acted upon them in good faith. The plaintiff produced insufficient evidence for a reasonable factfinder to conclude otherwise.

The case is No. 23-cv-01921-NYW-MDB.

Judge: Wang, N.

Attorneys: Crist Anthony Smith Whitney (Rathod Mohamedbhai) for Anuj Peddada. Lindsay Kathleen McManus (Hall Render Killian Heath & Lyman) for Catholic Health Initiatives Colorado d/b/a Centura Health-Penrose-St.Francis Health Services.

Companies: Catholic Health Initiatives Colorado; Centura Health-Penrose-St.Francis Health Services

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Retaliation ColoradoNews