Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—D. Mass.: EEOC’s claims advance where job offer was terminated after breast cancer diagnosis, (Aug 10, 2026)

By Nicholas Kaster, J.D.

The employers failed to establish as a matter of law that scheduling or remote modifications would have constituted an undue hardship, the court concluded.

Unlawful termination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation claims brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for an employee whose job offer was rescinded following her breast cancer diagnosis, survived summary judgment and can proceed to trial, a federal district court in Massachusetts has ruled (EEOC v. Atlantic Property Management Corp., No. 24-CV-10370-AK (D. Mass. Aug. 7, 2026)).

The EEOC brought an action against two joint employers, alleging they unlawfully terminated and failed to provide reasonable accommodations to an employee in violation of the ADA.

Job offer. In August 2021, the employee interviewed with the employers for the position of Executive Administrative Assistant (EAA). During the interview process and prior to receiving an offer, she disclosed to the interviewer that she was experiencing medical issues and seeing a doctor. At or around the same time, she began part-time employment as an executive assistant with another employer. The next month, the employee found a lump in her breast, and, on September 13, 2021, underwent a mammogram, followed by a biopsy three days later. On September 22, 2021, the employers extended a written offer of employment to the employee for the position, and she accepted. The offer provided for five days of paid sick leave and five days of paid vacation annually, with a start date “as soon as practical.”

Cancer diagnosis. The next day, the employee received the results of her biopsy and learned for the first time that she had been diagnosed with Stage 3 breast cancer. Her medical providers advised that her anticipated course of treatment would last approximately one year.

Offer rescinded. Shortly thereafter, the interviewer contacted the employee to inquire if she could begin work on October 4, 2021. The employee confirmed her availability for that date and, during the same communication, disclosed her cancer diagnosis. Soon thereafter, the employers advised her that her start date would be delayed by approximately one week.

The employee informed the employers that she would be able to work during her treatment and perform duties as an EAA but would need time off for treatment and intermittently for recovery as needed. On October 13, 2021, the employers followed up, requesting more detailed information regarding her anticipated treatment. In the interim, the employers contacted at least seven additional candidates regarding the position. After hearing more details about her anticipated treatments, the employers rescinded the employee’s offer of employment.

Subsequently, the EEOC asserted three claims under the ADA: (1) unlawful termination; (2) failure to accommodate; and (3) retaliation. The EEOC sought injunctive relief, back pay, reinstatement or front pay, compensatory and punitive damages, and costs. The joint employers moved for summary judgment on all counts.

Unlawful termination. First addressing the claim for unlawful termination, the court noted that the only disputed element here was whether the employee was a “qualified individual.”

The undisputed record reflected that the employee possessed relevant experience for the EAA role, and the decision to extend her an offer of employment supported the conclusion that she met the position’s baseline requirements.

In response, the employers focused on the employee’s ability to perform the essential functions of the EAA position in light of her medical condition and anticipated treatment. The court found that a genuine dispute as to material fact existed on three bases: (1) whether eviction-related work constituted an essential function of the EAA role; (2) whether the employee was able to perform evictions with accommodations; and (3) whether the proposed accommodations would have imposed an undue hardship on the employers.

The court concluded that the EEOC provided evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that eviction-related work was not an essential function. The EEOC alleged that prior EAAs devoted only a portion of their time (approximately five hours per week) on eviction-related tasks, that temporary EAAs did not perform such work at all, and that when the position was filled by temporary workers, eviction responsibilities were performed by other employees.

Reasonable accommodation. In addition, the EEOC presented evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the employee could perform evictions-related duties with reasonable accommodation. The EEOC provided evidence that she could adequately perform evictions tasks with scheduling and/or remote work accommodations.

With respect to potential accommodations, the EEOC provided evidence that the employee’s treatment schedule was predictable and limited to one day per week or per month, allowing for advance scheduling or scheduling during weekends or afternoons. The EEOC also presented evidence that eviction-related training was individualized, scheduled flexibly, and in some instances could be completed remotely, and that the training itself was limited to several hours at a time, up to five to seven hours monthly.

Undue hardship. Finally, the court found that there was a genuine dispute as to whether schedule modifications or remote work would have imposed an undue hardship on the employers. The employers failed to establish as a matter of law that scheduling or remote modifications would have constituted an undue hardship, the court concluded.

In support of their position, the employers relied on the employee’s second medical note, which indicated that she would require approximately one day per week for treatment for an undetermined period, followed by additional leave for surgery and recovery of uncertain duration. They contended that accommodating such absences would require reallocation of duties among other employees, which would be unreasonably burdensome.

Further, they argued that the EAA position is unique, as it is the only Boston-based role with access to senior executives’ administrative and logistical needs, including handling sensitive credit card and passport information, limiting flexibility in coverage. Finally, they argued that scheduling accommodations were per se unreasonable because the employee’s treatment-related absences were “indefinite.” These assertions, however, were largely general in nature and did not establish undue hardship as a matter of law, the court held. The employers did not provide evidence quantifying the economic cost of the proposed accommodation, identifying specific operational disruptions, or demonstrating that coverage during certain hours would be infeasible.

Failure to accommodate. Next, the court considered the failure-to-accommodate claim. At issue here was whether the employers failed to provide a reasonable accommodation despite knowledge of the employee’s disability and her request for accommodations. The court concluded that this element presented disputed issues of material fact sufficient to preclude summary judgment.

According to the record, the employee made a request for accommodation in connection with her breast cancer diagnosis, thereby triggering the employers’ obligation to engage in an interactive process to determine whether a reasonable accommodation was feasible. While they took some steps toward that obligation, including by twice requesting information from the employee’s medical provider about her condition and anticipated limitations, the EEOC presented evidence that the employers thereafter reviewed the resulting medical notes unilaterally and did not engage in further dialogue with the employee or her medical provider to clarify the timing, duration, or flexibility of her treatment and recovery needs. The EEOC similarly provided evidence that there was no meaningful discussion between the parties regarding potential accommodations, such as modified scheduling or remote or hybrid work arrangements.

Retaliation. Turning to the retaliation claim, the disputed issue turned on the third element of causality. The EEOC was required to show that the employers terminated the employee’s job offer because she requested an accommodation, not merely because of uncertainty regarding her ability to work.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the EEOC, a reasonable jury could conclude that the employers acted in response to the employee’s accommodation request. The record reflected close temporal proximity between the employee’s second medical note and the rescission of her offer, separated by only two days. The EEOC further pointed to evidence that the employers began contacting other candidates shortly after receiving the employee’s first medical note and continued recruiting and interviewing candidates between her first and second medical note.

A reasonable jury could infer from this sequence that the employers began seeking an alternative hire as soon as the employee indicated she would require accommodations, even before the full scope of those accommodations was clarified, supporting an inference that the rescission was prompted by the request itself. These facts were sufficient to satisfy the EEOC’s initial prima facie burden, the court concluded.

Accordingly, the employers’ motion for summary judgment was denied.

The case is No. 24-CV-10370-AK.

Judge: Kelley, A.

Attorneys: Justin Mulaire for the EEOC. Joseph L. Sulman (Law Office of Joseph L. Sulman) for Atlantic Property Management Corp. and Diversified Funding, Inc.

Companies: Atlantic Property Management Corp.; Diversified Funding, Inc.

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge Retaliation MassachusettsNews