Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—D.D.C.: Yelp executive, fired after lung cancer recurrence, denied rehire, advances most claims, (Aug 31, 2026)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

When his lung cancer, which caused significant breathing difficulties, recurred, HR allegedly instructed him to stop making sales calls, and then Yelp fired him.

A senior accountant executive for Yelp Inc., fired after his lung cancer recurred and HR instructed him to stop making sales calls, and then not rehired when he applied for an account manager position nearly three years later, stated claims of disability discrimination and retaliation based on Yelp’s refusal to rehire him, though his discharge-related DCHRA disability discrimination claim was time-barred, a U.S. magistrate judge for the federal district court in the District of Columbia found. Yelp argued that, in October 2022, the account executive had trouble breathing during telephone calls while employed, but he alleged that he sought reemployment after recovering from his cancer treatment. He also alleged that his interviewer for the new position focused extensively on his lung cancer and treatment history rather than his qualifications and sales experience, and that, when the plaintiff asked about accommodations, the interviewer expressed unfamiliarity and instead continued discussing his medical history (McCoy v. Yelp Inc., No. 25-cv-3531-ZMF (D.D.C. Aug. 28, 2026)).

Account executive. The plaintiff, according to the court, began working for Yelp in January 2019 as a trainee before receiving a series of promotions to account executive, junior account executive, and senior account executive. Throughout his employment, he generally met or exceeded his sales quotas and was selected for Yelp’s Management Training Program, which he alleges was reserved for high-performing employees.

Lung cancer diagnosis, treatment. In late 2021, he was diagnosed with lung cancer and underwent chemotherapy treatment. During his treatment, he remained in contact with Yelp’s leave specialists concerning medical documentation, fitness-for-duty requirements, requests for accommodation, and his anticipated return to work.

Return to work during treatment? He alleges that Yelp management and HR repeatedly encouraged him to return to work while he was still undergoing chemotherapy and rehabilitation.

Cancer recurred, breathing difficulties during calls. His cancer recurred in 2022. It caused significant breathing difficulties for him while conducting sales calls. HR, in turn, instructed him to stop making sales calls.

Fired. Then, on October 22, 2022, Yelp fired him. The company allegedly informed him that he could not perform his job because of his cancer.

Contact HR for reemployment. The employee alleged that Yelp advised him at the time of his termination that he could contact HR to seek reemployment once he was able to return to work.

Reapplication. On May 7, 2025, the employee applied for an account manager position with Yelp. He completed both a telephone screening interview and a video interview.

Interviewer’s alleged focus on diagnosis and treatment. He alleges that his interviewer focused extensively on his cancer diagnosis and treatment history rather than his qualifications.

Not selected, position remained posted. Two days later, Yelp informed him that it had selected another candidate whose qualifications it said more closely matched the position’s needs. The employee, in turn, alleged that the position remained posted after his rejection.

Lawsuit. In September 2025, he sued in D.C. Superior Court, and in October, Yelp removed the action to federal district court. The employee alleged wrongful termination under the District of Columbia Human Rights Act (DCHRA); disability discrimination in violation of the ADA and DCHRA based on Yelp’s refusal to hire him for the account manager position; and retaliation for his requests for medical leave and accommodations. Yelp moved to dismiss.

DCHRA wrongful termination claim. The court first found that the DCHRA’s statute of limitations barred the employee’s wrongful termination claim. The DCHRA requires a private civil action to be filed within two years of the alleged unlawful discriminatory practice, and the employee conceded that he filed the claim outside the limitations period.

Lulling? Among other things, he argued that Yelp’s continued communications with him after his termination lulled him into delaying the filing of this action. Specifically, he argued that Yelp informed post-termination that he could “contact HR to initiate reemployment” once he was able to return to work. He further alleged that he remained in contact with Yelp’s HR and leave personnel regarding medical leave, return-to-work documentation, and his anticipated recovery. Finally, he alleged that, after recovering, he applied for the new account manager position in May 2025 and interviewed for it before Yelp ultimately declined to hire him.

Unpersuaded, the court found that these allegations only reflected that Yelp informed him he could seek reemployment once he recovered. He has made no allegations, however, nor could the court infer, that Yelp implied it would rescind the earlier termination or otherwise remedy the alleged employment law violation without litigation. Under these circumstances, concluded the court, “a reasonable employee should believe both that he might be rehired in the future and that he remained obligated to timely pursue any legal challenge to his prior termination.”

Disability discrimination and failure to rehire. The employee’s disability discrimination claims based on Yelp’s failure to rehire him survived, however. Yelp argued that, in October 2022, he had trouble breathing during telephone calls while employed, but he alleged that he sought reemployment after recovering from his cancer treatment. He thus adequately pleaded that he was a “qualified individual” at the time of his reapplication and denial of rehire.

Retaliation. The employee’s retaliation claims likewise survived the motion to dismiss. Yelp argued that he “provides no dates, context, or other detail that would allow the Court to plausibly infer any causal connection between the alleged protected activity and adverse action,” but the court did not agree. The employee did “more than simply allege that Yelp retaliated against him.” His complaint alleged that Yelp was aware of his medical condition because of his requested accommodations, and that he reapplied for employment after his recovery and interviewed for an account manager position. During the ensuing job interview, he further alleged, his interviewer for the new position focused extensively on his lung cancer and treatment history rather than his qualifications and sales experience. Finally, when the employee asked about accommodations, the interviewer allegedly expressed unfamiliarity and instead continued discussing his medical history. Two days later, Yelp declined to hire him. These allegations, the court concluded, provided sufficient factual context for his retaliation theory.

The case is No. 25-cv-3531-ZMF.

Judge: Faruqui, Z.

Attorneys: Vanessa-Nola Pratt (The V-Law Group) for David McCoy. Serine Consolino (Aegis Law Group) for Yelp Inc.

Companies: Yelp Inc.

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge EmployeeLeave Procedure DistrictofColumbiaNews