Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—E.D. Pa.: Fired youth services caseworker with anxiety failed to show disability discrimination, (May 1, 2026)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

She experienced a panic attack at work in her new supervisor’s cubicle.

A youth services caseworker with anxiety who experienced a panic attack at work, fired for later drafting a subsidy request letter that disclosed extensive confidential child-welfare information to third parties, failed to establish disability discrimination under the ADA or Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, a federal district court found. Credible evidence showed that she prepared the letter and included confidential information in it, she admitted to the disclosure, and she was aware that it was a violation of county policies. Her termination also occurred six years after she first informed the county of her anxiety condition, and there was no reliable evidence that her termination was linked in any way to her perceived disability (Osmun v. County of Lehigh, No. 25-1955 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 28, 2026)).

Caseworker II with anxiety. The plaintiff, according to the court, was hired by the County of Lehigh and began working as a Caseworker II in the Office of Children and Youth Services (CYS) on December 18, 2018. Shortly after beginning her employment with the county, she informed the employer that she suffered from an anxiety condition.

Adoption and Independent Living Unit. She began working in the General Protection Services—Intake and Assessment Unit within CYS. Then, sometime in 2021, she transferred within CYS to the Adoption and Independent Living Unit. In that unit, she assisted with the finalization of adoptions for children whose natural parental rights had been terminated.

Privileged information and confidential data policy. When she began her employment with the county, she received a copy of its Personnel Policies & Procedures Manual, acknowledged that she received it, and assumed responsibility for reading, understanding, and following the policies and procedures it contained. The manual provides, in relevant part, that “[e]mployees of the County... shall not... [m]isuse privileged information or reveal confidential data to others.” The manual also addresses employee discipline and lists offenses that subject an employee to immediate dismissal, including “[d]iscussing or disclosing confidential information to a third party.”

“Confidentiality Statement.” She also received and executed a “Confidentiality Statement,” which stated that she understood that “all confidential client-related information disclosed to or acquired by [her] during the course of [her] employment with DHS must be kept in the strictest of confidences,” and that “any employee who... releases... confidential client-related information... is subject to discipline up to and including termination.”

Passed over for promotion. Her employment with the county was uneventful, according to the court, until February of 2024 when she was passed over for promotion to a supervisor position. In a meeting with her manager, who informed her that she had not received the promotion, the manager allegedly asked the employee for feedback but only wanted to discuss her mental health and confidence, not her professional development.

Cried, hyperventilated. She became upset while in the manager’s office and began crying and hyperventilating. The manager, in turn, asked if the employee needed her to call crisis intervention to assist her.

Meeting with three managers. Then, on March 1, 2024, she had a meeting with the manager, the Director of the Office of Children and Youth Services, and the Crisis Intervention Director to discuss concerns over her reaction to her manager’s recent denial of her request for overtime and whether the employee could keep up with her workload. The employee was again upset and displaying signs of stress and she ultimately took a few days off work.

Written discipline regarding overtime, unprofessional emails. On August 23, 2024, the employee received a written disciplinary notice after a hearing was held on August 13, 2024, at which she was found to have violated county policies by working overtime without supervisory approval and sending emails to third-party providers that the county considered unprofessional and inappropriate.

Panic attack in new supervisor’s cubicle. A week later, on August 30, 2024, her new supervisor informed her during a meeting with him that she would be required to copy him on all email correspondence going forward. She experienced a panic attack during the meeting, began to hyperventilate, was having trouble breathing, was crying, and was rocking back and forth in her chair and hitting her head on the wall of the new supervisor’s cubicle. A representative of crisis intervention responded to her panic attack, although the new supervisor testified that he did not call crisis intervention.

Suspension. She then received a letter from the county on September 3, 2024, informing her that she would be suspended beginning September 4 to allow the county to conduct an investigation.

Subsidy request letter. Meanwhile, four days prior to her panic attack, on August 26, the employee had drafted a subsidy request letter on behalf of prospective adoptive parents seeking to adopt a child on her CYS caseload. A subsidy request letter is a letter from an adoptive family to the county requesting ongoing subsidies for a child the family intends to adopt based on the child’s needs.

The new supervisor and two other managers testified that CYS caseworkers should not draft subsidy request letters because it would be a conflict of interest for them to do so. They testified that CYS caseworkers in fact are trained that they are to have no involvement in the drafting of the subsidy request letters.

Confidential information, including identity of biological parents. The employee did not dispute that she drafted the subsidy request letter at issue, and the letter was “problematic,” according to the court, because it contained specific confidential information including the identity of the child’s biological parents, Child Protective Services referrals that were determined to be unfounded, information regarding the biological mother’s drug use, outcomes of CYS investigations, and references to and dates of Child Protective Services and General Protective Services referrals and reports.

Discharge. Through the Director of the Office of Children and Youth Services, the county became aware of this problematic letter on September 3—the same day as her unrelated suspension letter—and proceeded to investigate to determine who had prepared the letter. After learning it was the employee, the county sent her a letter informing her of her infractions, held a hearing on the matter, and then chose to terminate her. According to the county, the confidential disclosures she made in the subsidy request letter were the sole reason for her termination.

Lawsuit. The former employee sued, alleging disability discrimination under the ADA and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA). Specifically, she alleged that she was erroneously regarded by the county as having a disability in the form of severe mental illness and that she was terminated due to this alleged misperception.

The county ultimately moved for summary judgment, which the court granted.

Failure to show causation. Treating her ADA and PHRA disparate treatment claims under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, the court found that she did not make out a prima facie case because she failed to create genuine issues of triable fact that her perceived mental disability was the cause of her termination.

Here, the court noted, all the credible evidence of record showed that the employee prepared the subsidy request letter at issue and included confidential information in it, thereby disclosing that information to third parties. She admitted to this disclosure, was aware that disclosure of confidential information was a violation of county policies, and was terminated on that basis. “There is absolutely no reliable evidence that her termination was linked in any way to her perceived disability,” the court concluded.

She also admitted that she first informed the county of her anxiety condition in 2018, shortly after she began working there, but the county fired her six years later, in 2024. “The passage of six years between the two relevant events does not permit me to infer that the County terminated [her] because of her perceived disability and she cannot satisfy the third prong of the prima facie test for disability discrimination under the ADA,” concluded the court.

The case is No. 25-1955.

Judge: Henry, C.

Attorneys: Marc E. Weinstein (Law Offices of Marc E. Weinstein) for Amanda Osmun. Samuel Ezra Cohen (Gross McGinley) for County of Lehigh.

Companies: County of Lehigh, Pennsylvania

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge PublicEmployees PennsylvaniaNews