Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—M.D. Pa.: Casino surveillance agent, fired after disclosing mental health issues, stated ADA claims, (Jan 8, 2026)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

In November 2023, he transitioned to working as a surveillance agent on the overnight or “grave” shift.

A surveillance agent for Mount Airy Casino Resort in Pennsylvania, fired after he disclosed his mental health conditions to a shift manager, who allegedly mocked him, and then reported the shift manager to the casino’s director of surveillance, stated plausible ADA discrimination and retaliation claims, a federal district court found. The former employee sufficiently alleged an actual mental health disability under the ADA, and that the casino fired him after he was candid about both his conditions and how the stressors of the manager’s supervision on the “grave” shift amplified them. The former employee also sufficiently alleged that he engaged in two forms of protected activity before he was fired (Munroe v. Mount Airy #1, LLC, No. 3:25cv990 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 7, 2026)).

Mental health conditions. The plaintiff, according to the court, suffers from bipolar disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and general anxiety disorder. He alleged that he was diagnosed with these conditions after he encountered two individuals who committed suicide when he was an employee of a different casino. Those events and subsequent mental health episodes resulted in the plaintiff resigning from that employment, according to his complaint.

New job. Thereafter, he sought employment at Mount Airy Casino Resort, in Mount Pocono, Pennsylvania. In August 2023, he interviewed for the position of surveillance agent, and during his interview, he alleged, he informed the casino’s director of surveillance that he had resigned from his prior job due to mental health issues. He did not, however, tell the surveillance director about his specific diagnoses at that time.

The “grave” shift. Mount Airy hired him and he began work in September 2023. In November 2023, however, he transitioned to working as a surveillance agent on the overnight or “grave” shift.

Mounting problems. As alleged, “[b]y early December [2023], the nighttime working hours, stressful work environment, and a pending divorce began taking a mental toll on” the plaintiff, and he confided in his trainer at Mount Airy who worked as a manager on a different shift. The trainer advised him to talk to the director of surveillance, to whom he later disclosed his mental health diagnoses.

Disclosure of diagnoses to shift manager. The director of surveillance, in turn, directed him to speak with his shift manager about his mental health. And the next day, the employee allegedly met with the shift manager and disclosed “everything about his mental health struggles” including his difficulties working with the shift manager on the “grave” shift.

Shift manager’s alleged harassment. Rather than empathize, however, the shift manager allegedly “went off on a tirade” about the director of surveillance. The shift manager also allegedly started harassing the employee about his mental health, mocking him and other employees who suffered from mental health conditions.

Complaint to surveillance department manager. The employee then met with the surveillance department manager, whom he told about the shift manager’s harassment. The director of surveillance walked in on the meeting and subsequently referred the employee’s complaints about the shift manager to the casino’s HR manager, who initiated an investigation.

Discharge. In the course of the investigation, the employee met with the director of surveillance and the HR manager, who took extensive notes of their meeting, in which he was directed to recount all the information he previously shared with the director of surveillance, including his personal mental health issues and diagnoses, the shift manager’s harassment of him and other employees, and the employee's traumatic experiences at his prior job.

Less than 10 days later, on February 9, 2024, the employee met with the two again, and the HR manager told him that she “discovered some undisclosed ‘unethical misconduct’ and ‘unsubstantiated allegations’” against him. She then fired the employee, and he was escorted out of the building by the director of surveillance.

Lawsuit. The employee sued under the ADA, alleging that: (1) he was fired because of his disabilities and replaced by two non-disabled surveillance agents; and (2) his firing was in retaliation for complaining about disability-related harassment and for requesting accommodations. The casino moved to dismiss.

Actual disability. The court first found that the former employee sufficiently alleged an actual disability under the ADA. Per the allegations, in December 2023, “the nighttime working hours, stressful work environment, and a pending divorce” were aggravating his bipolar disorder and anxiety. He alleged that he was having difficulty sleeping and concentrating and “struggling with a deterioration in his mental health[.]” Sleeping and concentrating, the court noted here, are included in the statutory list of major life activities under the ADA.

Regarded as disabled. And the complaint also plausibly alleged that he was “regarded as” having a disability as an employee of Mount Airy Casino Resort. Specifically, he alleged that he experienced discrimination after he disclosed his mental health conditions to supervisors and managers. According to the complaint, his shift manager began a “weeks-long campaign of harassment” based upon the employee’s mental health once learning about those details.

He also plausibly alleged that he was terminated after being regarded as disabled, according to the court. As alleged, the casino fired him after he was candid about his own mental health conditions and how the stressors of the shift manager’s supervision on the “grave” shift amplified those conditions. These allegations supported an inference that the employee was fired because of his employer's perceptions about his mental health condition, concluded the court.

Retaliation. Finally, the former employee’s allegations provided the casino with fair notice of a multi-faceted retaliation claim and sufficed to “nudge that claim over the line to plausibility,” according to the court. Mount Airy moved to dismiss the portion of his retaliation claim premised on his alleged request for a reasonable accommodation, arguing that he failed to allege that he made an appropriate reasonable accommodation request. Unpersuaded, the court declined to “foreclose [his] retaliation claim based upon ostensible requests to [the director of surveillance] and [the shift manager] for reasonable accommodations.” A complaint, the court noted, merely has to “nudge” claims “across the line from conceivable to plausible[.]” And the former employee’s complaint managed that. He maintained that he had numerous conversations with supervisors, directors, and managers about his mental health. Though the details of these conversations were important and are not currently before the court, discovery into them “may reveal retaliation after a reasonable accommodation request by plaintiff,” the court concluded.

The case is No. 3:25cv990.

Judge: Munley, J.

Attorneys: William P. Mansour (Mansour Law) for Michael Munroe. Matthew G. Boyd (Ufberg & Associates) for Mount Airy #1, LLC dba Mount Airy Casino Resort.

Companies: Mount Airy #1, LLC; Mount Airy Casino Resort

MainStory: TopStory DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Retaliation Discharge PennsylvaniaNews GCNNews