Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—E.D. Pa.: Executive failed to show elimination of her position was due to her long COVID, (Mar 11, 2026)

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.

At the time of the executive’s termination, her employer had just recently been divested from its parent company and was in the process of becoming a standalone business.

A long-tenured executive with a company that provides healthcare payment accuracy and claims editing solutions, who suffered from long COVID, failed to show the elimination of her position following the company’s forced divestment from its parent was the result of disability discrimination, a federal court in Pennsylvania held, granting summary judgment against her ADA and state-law claims. Nor could she show she was fired in retaliation for requesting medical leave, said the court, dismissing, as well, her ADA and FMLA retaliation claims. Her FMLA interference claim likewise failed (Larsson v. Magnum Transaction Sub, LLC, No. 24-5506 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 9, 2026)).

The executive worked at Change Healthcare Technologies LLC from 1994 until 2022. In January 2021, UnitedHealth Group announced its intent to acquire Change but due to various concerns, the decision was made to divest from Change its ClaimsXten business, for which the executive worked. As a result, the executive and her supervisor began preparing ClaimsXten to be a standalone business.

COVID infection. In May 2022, the executive tested positive for COVID-19 after attending a sales conference. She did not return to work full-time for two weeks.

In October, ClaimsXten was purchased by Lyric and the executive’s supervisor was chosen to be the company’s CEO. When the executive expressed interest in being part of Lyric upon its divestment, the supervisor agreed and placed her in a role that included oversight of both solutions design and marketing.

Continued symptoms. Around that same time, the executive, who was still experiencing COVID-19 symptoms, discussed with Lyric’s VP of People Solutions the possibility of going out on disability and was encouraged to take care of herself. The VP subsequently discussed the executive’s health conditions and need for flexibility with the executive’s supervisor. A month or so later, the VP left her role and moved into an administrative position.

Unlimited PTO. In December, the executive told her supervisor she would be seeking treatment through a long COVID program and asked for flexibility to attend doctors’ appointments. In response, the supervisor told her she could use her unlimited discretionary PTO. Also in December, the supervisor stepped down from her CEO role to become the COO. At the same time, the company hired a new senior director of marketing.

Position elimination. During that month’s leadership meeting, the executive stepped out for 90 minutes or so. When she returned, she asked questions about what she had missed, which annoyed the supervisor’s chief of staff. The supervisor also claimed the executive’s tone after her return was negative, which created friction among the team.

Termination. Not long after, the supervisor decided to eliminate the executive’s position, purportedly because it was unnecessary. Ahead of the January leadership meeting, the supervisor’s chief of staff sent an email noting the disruption caused by “folks” who had to step out during the December meeting. The executive was informed in January of the elimination of her position.

Disability discrimination. Moving for summary judgment on the executive’s disability discrimination claim, Lyric argued that she did not suffer an adverse employment decision because of her disability. For her part, the executive relied primarily on the timing surrounding her deteriorating health and the elimination of her position as well as fallout from her absence from the December leadership meeting. Although the chain of inferences connecting each of these events to the executive’s termination was attenuated, because discrimination “could” be a reason for the elimination of her position, the court found she established her prima facie case.

To meet its burden to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the position elimination, Lyric argued that as it evolved its sales and go-to-market approach, the executive’s supervisor determined that her position was an unnecessary layer of supervision and expense.

Pretext. In an attempt to show pretext, the executive essentially argued that a reasonable jury could disbelieve Lyric’s proffered reason because her version of events suggested that discrimination could be the reason for her termination. But while that might be sufficient at the prima facie stage, it was not enough to cast reasonable doubt on Lyric’s legitimate nondiscriminatory reason. Nor was the court persuaded by her contention Lyric was incoherent in its reason for terminating her. Lyric’s reasons were both organizational and fiscal and the mere fact, without more, that it provided other explanations justifying her termination was not enough for a juror to reasonably disbelieve it legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons.

And while the executive also questioned the timing of her termination, the court pointed out that Lyric had just recently been divested from Change and was in the process of becoming a stable, stand-alone business and her supervisor had requested to step down from her CEO position because she believed it was best for the business. Finding insufficient evidence of pretext, the court granted summary judgment against this claim.

Retaliation claims. In support of her ADA, state-law, and FMLA retaliation claims, the executive argued that she requested and was granted medical leave throughout the summer and fall of 2022 and the decision to terminate her was made mere weeks later. Thus, the temporal proximity of the two was unusually suggestive so as to establish causation. Disagreeing, the court cited Third Circuit precedent explaining that “even assuming that timing, without more, is enough, ‘unusually suggestive’ timing has generally been understood to mean no more than a handful of days, which is not the case here.”

Pattern of antagonism. The executive next argued that the negative comments by her supervisor and her chief of staff established a pattern of antagonism in the weeks leading up to her termination. But the supervisor’s comment that the executive’s departure and return to the December 2022 leadership meeting created tension and the chief of staff’s email discouraging leadership team members from stepping out from the January meeting were not antagonistic. Nor did the supervisor or her chief of staff make any negative comments about her long COVID.

Finding further that the company’s stated reasons for terminating the executive were legitimate and nondiscriminatory, and that she was unable to show pretext, the court granted summary judgment against these claims as well.

FMLA interference. Moving finally to the executive’s FMLA interference claim, the court noted that when she asked about leave due to her long COVID symptoms, she was encouraged by the VP to take care of herself. Further, her supervisor later granted her request for flexibility with her schedule and reminded her that she had unlimited PTO, which she had previously used when she was out of work after contracting COVID. Thus, said the court, she failed to show Lyric withheld FMLA leave from her.

The case is No. 24-5506.

Judge: Murphy, J.

Attorneys: Laura Carlin Mattiacci (Console Mattiacci Law) for Amy Larsson. K. Clark Whitney (Ogletree Deakins) for Magnum Transaction Sub, LLC fka ClaimsXten Portfolio dba Lyric.

Companies: Magnum Transaction Sub, LLC; Lyric; ClaimsXten Portfolio

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge Covid19 EmployeeLeave Retaliation PennsylvaniaNews