Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—D.D.C.: Amtrak faces trial on ADA claims of terminated equipment manager who underwent cancer treatment, (Sep 29, 2025)

By Justin Marcus Smith, J.D.

An Amtrak letter to the terminated employee essentially precluded summary judgment for Amtrak because it made return to work contingent on a medical clearance.

Amtrak was not entitled to summary judgment on a former employee’s ADA disability discrimination claim, a federal court in the District of Columbia held, noting that Amtrak explicitly stated that its decision to terminate the employee was at least partly based on disability. The retaliation claim survived, however, based on inferences a jury could draw about retaliatory pretext from temporal proximity and the positive testimony of two witnesses. His failure-to-accommodate claim also survived summary judgment because the employee never conceded he was medically incapable of working in-person; there was a possibility he might have been able to do so; Amtrak did not engage in the required give-and-take the ADA requires; and it did not appear the requested accommodation would have caused Amtrak much hardship (Smith v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., No. 1:22-cv-00322-TSC (D.D.C. Sept. 23, 2025)).

Remote work. A former Amtrak manager under treatment for cancer obtained his supervisor’s permission to work from home temporarily. He worked remotely from November 2020 to January 2021, at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. During that time, a colleague assisted with on-site tasks, like critical lifts and injuries, that the employee could not perform remotely.

Medical leave. On January 21, 2021, Amtrak revoked the remote work arrangement on the basis that the colleague would be working off-site and could no longer take care of the employee’s on-site tasks. The employee requested unpaid medical leave to complete his cancer treatment.

On February 19, Amtrak responded to the request by letter informing that the employee had exhausted his leave under the FMLA. Amtrak would only extend his leave if it did not pose undue hardship to the company. In the meantime, Amtrak said it was seeking to fill his position due to the “critical safety oversight and management” required as a managerial employee in the maintenance-of-way work equipment shop.

Three options. In the same letter, Amtrak provided three options. They all required a medical clearance to return to work. First, Amtrak would rehire the employee if he received a medical clearance before Amtrak would extend an offer to his replacement as long as he could perform essential functions. Second, if he were cleared, but could not perform essential functions, Amtrak would consider him for reassignment. Third, if he did not have a medical clearance by the time Amtrak extended an offer to his replacement, Amtrak would fire him.

Job filled. On April 3, Amtrak sent a letter giving the employee until April 22 to submit a medical clearance to keep his job. The employee responded that he anticipated returning to work on June 1, without a medical clearance. However, on May 25, before he could return, Amtrak filled his job.

On June 1, the employee filed a complaint with Amtrak alleging disability discrimination. On June 3, Amtrak internally designated him as “ineligible for rehire.” The employee completed his last cancer treatment in June 2021.

Lawsuit. In February 2022, the employee filed the instant lawsuit under the ADA claiming disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation.

Disability discrimination. The court denied Amtrak summary judgment on the disability discrimination claim because Amtrak explicitly stated in its June 3 termination letter that disability played a role in its termination decision.

Amtrak argued the June 3 letter, which reiterated the medical clearance requirement, was not direct evidence of disability discrimination. The letter announced Amtrak had found a suitable candidate to fill the employee’s position, noted the employee did not have a medical clearance, and therefore terminated the employee effective immediately. The employee argued Amtrak’s avowed rationale at least partly rested on his disability.

The court agreed that the letter showed, at a minimum, that Amtrak did not support the employee’s medical leave or possible transition back to work. The court acknowledged that while the D.C. Circuit has not yet addressed this precise scenario, the Second Circuit, in Porter v. Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, held that an employer’s explicit statement that it is firing an employee for being on medical leave is direct evidence of disability discrimination.

Amtrak argued the employee’s focus on the medical clearance language of the June 3 letter was misguided because the letter also invoked Amtrak’s equipment maintenance and safety concerns. However, the court explained that it need only find disability was a factor that motivated the termination decision to deny Amtrak summary judgment. The court found enough evidence that disability was a factor insofar as Amtrak “clearly stated” that it terminated the employee for lack of a medical clearance to return to work. A clearance was beyond the employee’s control.

Moreover, even though the June 3 termination letter gave another reason for termination, i.e., “critical business needs,” Porter explains that when an employer reveals that a termination decision rests in any way on a disability, that virtually precludes a matter-of-law ruling for the employer that disability did not play a role.

Retaliation. The court denied Amtrak’s motion for summary judgment on the retaliation claim because it found a reasonable jury might discern retaliatory pretext. The employee argued that Amtrak retaliated after he filed his internal disability complaint by not trying to reassign him, failing to rehire, declaring him ineligible for rehire, and then firing him; however, the complaint only mentioned the firing.

Amtrak responded first that the employee failed to make a prima facie case because it contemplated hiring a replacement before the employee filed his disability complaint. The court said whether the employee raised a prima facie case was no longer relevant because the employer had already asserted a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for termination.

Next, Amtrak argued it had legitimate safety reasons for termination, but the employee met his burden of raising an inference of retaliatory pretext. Specifically, he pointed out that Amtrak orally inquired about interviewing him for other positions before he filed his internal disability complaint. Amtrak did not dispute this. That oral inquiry contradicted Amtrak’s February 19 letter stating it required a medical clearance to consider the employee for other positions. The firing followed the internal disability complaint, and Amtrak went even further by designating him ineligible for rehire.

Amtrak countered that the retaliation argument turned on temporal proximity, but the court said it indeed showed the employee had a strong causation argument. The alleged retaliation was well within the usual three-month rule supporting an inference of pretextual retaliation.

Beyond temporal proximity, the employee also offered additional evidence to rebut Amtrak’s legitimate, nonretaliatory explanations for its adverse action—the testimony of two Amtrak employees who confirmed the only reason Amtrak filled the employee’s position was the lack of a medical clearance. One also confirmed the ineligible for hire decision was discretionary.

Failure to accommodate. Finally, the court denied Amtrak summary judgment on the failure-to-accommodate claim because Amtrak appeared to have acted unreasonably. Amtrak challenged whether the employee sufficiently established that he was a “qualified individual” who could perform essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodation. Amtrak said the employee was not qualified because the job required on-site physical presence.

The court observed the employee never conceded he was medically incapable of working in person. Among other details, his response to Amtrak’s April 7 later stated he anticipated returning to work in June. The court found it conceivable the employee could have worked in July and August 2021, remotely or on-site and thus the employee was a qualified individual.

Reasonableness. Amtrak also challenged whether the employee’s accommodation requests were reasonable and whether they would have caused Amtrak undue hardship. The court disagreed that the remote arrangement was unreasonable because the supervisor had permitted remote work for three months, apparently without disruption to Amtrak. The employee coordinated on-site coverage, and his tasks were mainly administrative anyway. The court acknowledged that the colleague providing on-site coverage was called off-site, but when an employer initially approves accommodation and then revokes it, the revocation may be unreasonable.

In addition, the supervisor testified that having one employee cover another is not “all that big an inconvenience” for Amtrak. The court concluded here that a jury might find the accommodation request was reasonable and would not have caused Amtrak much hardship.

As for the nearly six months of medical leave requested for completion of chemotherapy, Amtrak approved only about four months and warned of replacement. Amtrak argued six months was unreasonable without medical documentation, but it was on notice of cancer treatment until at least July 15. The employee accelerated his cancer treatment to try to fit within the four months Amtrak granted.

Although the employee did not provide a medical clearance by the April 22 deadline, Amtrak did not engage in the give-and-take the ADA requires. Amtrak did not contend it required a medical clearance from all employees seeking return from medical leave, but even if it did, there was no sign of an iterative process. Amtrak did not meet with the employee or request medical documentation before denying the six months requested. Amtrak also left its “critical safety oversight and management reasons” unexplained. The ADA does not support such a take-it-or-leave it employer posture, and again, granting medical leave until July 15 did not appear to involve undue hardship. For all of the above reasons, the court denied Amtrak summary judgment in all respects.

The case is No. 1:22-cv-00322-TSC.

Judge: Chutkan, T.

Attorneys: Nicholas Thompson (Casey Jones Law Firm) for Todd Smith. Alison N. Davis (Littler Mendelson) for National Railroad Passenger Corp. dba Amtrak.

Companies: National Railroad Passenger Corporation; Amtrak

Cases: Discrimination DisabilityDiscrimination Retaliation Discharge DistrictofColumbiaNews