Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—M.D. Pa.: UPMC imaging manager fired after positive drug test advances ADA claims, (Oct 28, 2025)

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.

The employee purportedly sat down at a staff meeting, put his feet up on a counter, and mentioned that he had eaten some kind of gummy.

An imaging manager of nuclear medicine, who suffered from spondylolisthesis and who was fired after he tested positive for marijuana metabolites following a meeting in which he purportedly appeared lethargic and overmedicated, can proceed to trial on his ADA and state-law discrimination and retaliation and FMLA retaliation claims, a federal court in Pennsylvania ruled, finding inconsistencies in the reasons given for his termination, including evidence that he did not actually appear lethargic and overmedicated at the meeting. The court, however, granted summary judgment against his remaining ADA, state-law, and FMLA interference claims (Rheem v. UPMC Pinnacle Hospitals, No. 1:23-CV-00075 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 27, 2025)).

After a stint with UPMC Pinnacle Hospitals as a staff nuclear medicine technologist from 2000 to 2005, the employee was rehired in 2008 as a system supervisor of nuclear medicine and promoted in 2018 to imaging manager. Sometime in 2016, he disclosed that he suffers from spondylolisthesis, a spinal condition, which required surgery in 2017. Throughout his tenure, he requested and was granted multiple leaves of absence and a modified work schedule.

Staff meeting. In January 2021, the employee held a staff meeting during which he allegedly sat down, put his feet up on a counter, mentioned that he had eaten some kind of gummy, stated that he needed to take smaller doses of the gummy in the future, and drew a picture to illustrate how much he should eat.

Complaint. After the meeting, one of the attendees reported his conduct to UPMC’s director, who in turn contacted HR. Several days later, the senior HR director and senior director of imaging met with the employee who admitted to using CBD but denied ever having used marijuana. He agreed to a drug test, which reflected a disputed level of marijuana metabolites in his system. As a result, he was terminated. He then sued for disability discrimination and retaliation in violation of the ADA and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA), as well as retaliation and interference in violation of the FMLA.

Disability discrimination. Moving for summary judgment on the employee’s ADA and PHRA disability discrimination claims, UPMC argued that there was no evidence discrimination caused his termination. Disagreeing, the court cited evidence from which a reasonable jury could infer UPMC treated the employee unusually harshly after management noticed his disability worsening and after he began to miss work to attend full-day physical therapy sessions. In addition, the senior director of imagining, who had participated in the termination decision, admitted that in the months leading up to his termination, she was aware his condition was getting worse. The employee also presented evidence he missed work several times during that time-period to attend full-day physical therapy sessions as well as evidence his supervisor was aware he was attending physical therapy immediately prior to his termination.

The employee also presented messages from caseworkers at LifeSolutions, an entity that aids UPMC in its fitness for duty inquiries and was familiar with its fitness for duty policy, expressing disbelief that the employee had been fired without first being offered the opportunity to return under a Last Chance Agreement (LCA). Indeed, not only did the HR senior director testify that she was unaware of any other non-probationary employees being terminated for a first-time marijuana offense, but also there was evidence UPMC regularly offered individuals who committed drug and alcohol offenses more serious than the employee’s alleged offense the opportunity to return to work under an LCA. Accordingly, the court found the employee presented sufficient evidence to infer disability was a determinative factor in his termination.

Retaliation. The employee also established fact issues precluding summary judgment on his prima facie ADA, FMLA, and PHRA retaliation claims, said the court, noting evidence the employee required accommodations to attend full-day physical therapy sessions a month before he was fired. There was also evidence he was discriminated against and terminated shortly after he requested these accommodations.

Pretext evidence. While UPMC argued that it fired the employee because of his conduct at the staff meeting, his positive marijuana test, and his dishonesty about marijuana use, the court found a material fact dispute as to the credibility of these stated reasons. As to its claim he was terminated in part because he appeared lethargic and overmedicated at the staff meeting and discussed obtaining medical-grade THC gummies, the court noted an attendee’s testimony that the employee did not appear lethargic and overmedicated and did not discuss obtaining medical-grade THC gummies.

Further, the senior director of imaging testified that while she was making her decision to terminate the employee, she considered a picture of a gummy he allegedly drew. But the senior HR director testified that nobody in management or HR saw this picture until after the employee was terminated. Moreover, the HR and imaging directors testified that the employee was not terminated due to his drug test results but his termination letter and UPMC’s response to interrogatories stated that his drug test was a reason for his termination.

And while the senior imaging director testified that the employee admitted to his supervisor that he used marijuana and wrote in a memo that he discussed using THC with a coworker, the supervisor and coworker denied he ever told them he used marijuana or THC. Accordingly, the court denied summary judgment on the employee’s ADA and PHRA disability discrimination and retaliation claims and his FMLA retaliation claim.

ADA and PHRA interference claims. As to his claims UPMC interfered with the exercise of his rights under the ADA and the PHRA, the court found that while the employee was terminated a month after requesting accommodations to attend a physical therapy session, the undisputed record showed that these accommodations were approved and there was no evidence UPMC ever made requesting accommodations difficult or disincentivized requests. Thus, the court granted summary judgment to UPMC on these claims.

FMLA interference claim. Nor was there any evidence UPMC interfered with the employee’s exercise of his FMLA rights, said the court, noting that he conceded that UPMC granted him FMLA leave in 2020 and granted his most recent requests for a modified schedule. Accordingly, UPMC was entitled to summary judgment on this claim as well.

Status as qualified person. Finally, UPMC argued that even if the employee’s ADA and PHRA claims were to survive summary judgment, “his damages related to his ADA/PHRA claims must end in February 2021” because there was no evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that he was qualified to perform the essential functions of his position after February 2021. In support, UPMC pointed to his deposition testimony that he could not work at the time of his termination due to his worsening disability.

The employee, however, also testified in that same deposition that he could have continued working with reasonable accommodations such as limited periods of medical leave and remote work. Further, his supervisor at the time of his termination testified that the employee was an “excellent employee” the entire time he supervised him and there was evidence the employee continued to apply for jobs after February 2021, said the court. Finding a genuine issue of material fact on the issue of whether he was a qualified individual, the court denied UPMC’s motion for summary judgment on this basis.

The case is No. 1:23-CV-00075.

Judge: Mehalchick, K.

Attorneys: Bruce K. Anders (Anders Law Offices) for David Rheem. Conner H. Porterfield (McNees Wallace & Nurick) for UPMC Pinnacle Hospitals.

Companies: UPMC Pinnacle Hospital

MainStory: TopStory DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination EmployeeLeave Retaliation Discharge Cannabis PennsylvaniaNews GCNNews