Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—M.D. Ga.: Office assistant’s ADA retaliation claim survives dismissal of underlying disability claims, (Feb 11, 2026)

By George Basharis, J.D.

An employee’s disability discrimination and leave claims failed at summary judgment, but a narrow ADA retaliation claim survived based on the timing of her termination following a leave-related request.

A federal court in Georgia substantially narrowed an employment suit brought by a staffing agency employee, holding that her termination after extended medical absences did not support claims for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, or interference with FMLA rights, while allowing an ADA retaliation claim to proceed based on close temporal proximity. The court concluded that the employee sought an unreasonable accommodation in the form of effectively indefinite leave and failed to complete the medical certification required for statutory FMLA protection. At the same time, the court found that a reasonable jury could infer retaliatory intent from the employer’s decision to terminate her employment one day after she requested additional time related to her medical condition (Gossett v. Jiudicy, Inc., No. 7:24-CV-00067 (WLS) (M.D. Ga. Feb. 6, 2026)).

Extended absences and leave requests. The employee worked for the staffing company as an office assistant and was promoted and transferred to a different office in early May 2023. Within days of the transfer, she stopped reporting to work and began submitting a series of doctor’s excuses excusing her from work for multiple, consecutive periods extending into mid-June.

None of the excuses included a formal diagnosis or amounted to a medical certification under the FMLA. After approximately two weeks of absence, the employee asked HR to provide FMLA paperwork, which the employer sent the same day. The paperwork advised that certification generally must be returned within at least 15 calendar days but did not specify a particular deadline.

Over the following weeks, the employee remained out of work. She later told the employer she had been diagnosed with eosinophilic asthma and indicated she was aiming to return by mid-June. HR responded that the company could not continue to hold her position without either her return or completed FMLA paperwork.

Termination. The employee did not return to work on the anticipated date and again requested additional time, stating she would see a new pulmonologist who could complete the certification. The employer terminated her employment the following day. She never submitted a completed FMLA certification.

Failure-to-accommodate. The court first addressed the employee’s ADA failure-to-accommodate claim. It assumed, for summary judgment purposes, that a jury could find she had a disability based on her testimony regarding chronic medical conditions and breathing difficulties that interfered with her ability to work.

The claim nonetheless failed at the reasonable accommodation stage. The court held that the accommodation the employee identified was additional leave to complete FMLA paperwork and obtain treatment. While short-term leave can qualify as a reasonable accommodation, the court concluded that the leave requested by the employee was effectively indefinite when viewed in context.

By the time the employee asked for “just one additional week,” she had already been absent for several weeks under a series of successive excuses, each extending the anticipated return date. The court reasoned that allowing employees to repeatedly request short extensions would undermine circuit authority holding that indefinite leave is not required as an accommodation.

Because the accommodation sought would not have enabled the employee to perform the essential functions of her job within a reasonably definite period, the court granted summary judgment on the failure-to-accommodate claim.

Disability discrimination. The court also rejected the employee’s ADA discrimination claim. Even assuming she could establish a prima facie case, the employer articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for termination: her prolonged absence from work without completed leave documentation.

Attendance, the court noted, is an essential function of most jobs, and employers may lawfully terminate employees who fail to report to work or comply with leave requirements. The employee did not present evidence that the stated reason was false or that disability bias was the real motive behind the decision. Arguments that she would have taken no more leave than allowed under the FMLA were unavailing, the court said, because she never completed the certification required to trigger statutory entitlement.

Retaliation. The court reached a different conclusion on the employee’s ADA retaliation claim. To establish retaliation, an employee must show protected activity, an adverse action, and a causal connection between the two.

Although the court had already determined that the requested accommodation was unreasonable as a matter of law, it found the employee could still satisfy the protected-activity element. An employee need only have a good-faith, objectively reasonable belief that her request is protected by the ADA. Given that leave is often a reasonable accommodation and that the issue required detailed legal analysis, the court concluded a lay employee could reasonably believe her request was protected.

Termination plainly qualified as an adverse employment action. As to causation, the court emphasized the timing. The employee was terminated one day after requesting additional leave tied to her medical condition. Such close temporal proximity is sufficient at the prima facie stage to permit an inference that the events were not wholly unrelated.

Because the employer’s motion focused on whether the employee could establish the elements of retaliation, and not on whether a nonretaliatory reason defeated the claim at the pretext stage, the court denied summary judgment on retaliation.

FMLA interference. The employee also asserted that the employer interfered with her FMLA rights by terminating her before she could complete certification. The court held that termination necessarily denies FMLA benefits, but entitlement to those benefits remained disputed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the employee, the court found a genuine factual issue as to whether she provided sufficient notice of a qualifying medical condition when she initially called out sick. The court further concluded that her illness was unforeseeable and that she notified the employer as soon as practical.

At the same time, the court emphasized that medical certification is a statutory prerequisite to FMLA leave. Although the employer did not initially set a specific return date and later allowed additional time, the employee never submitted the required certification by the deadline ultimately conveyed by HR. Consequently, the court found no genuine dispute that the certification requirement was unmet.

The case is No. 7:24-CV-00067 (WLS).

Judge: Sands, W.L., Sr.

Attorneys: Amanda A. Farahany (Barrett & Farahany) for Susan Gossett. Amy P. Holbrook (Langdale Vallotton) for Juidicy, Inc. dba Labor Finders.

Companies: Jiudicy, Inc.; Labor Finders

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Retaliation Discharge EmployeeLeave GeorgiaNews