Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—M.D. Tenn.: EEOC advances ADA claim on behalf of blind employee fired after two workplace falls, (May 7, 2026)

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.

His employer, a company that contracts with healthcare facilities to provide food, janitorial, and maintenance services, argued that the employee posed a direct threat to himself and others.

Hospital Housekeeping Systems, Inc. (HHS) failed to convince a federal court in Tennessee that it was entitled to summary judgment on the ADA discriminatory discharge claim asserted by the EEOC on behalf of a blind employee, whom HHS had fired after his second workplace fall, purportedly because he posed a direct threat of harm to himself and others. Nor was the EEOC entitled to summary judgment on liability, said the court, finding that an email chain discussing the employee’s termination, which was relied on by both parties in support of their positions, established a triable fact issue best left for a jury to decide (EEOC v. Hospital Housekeeping Systems, LLC, No. 3:24-cv-01086 (M.D. Tenn. May 6, 2026)).

The employee, who was totally blind and used a cane to safely walk and avoid obstacles, also suffered from intellectual and developmental disabilities that left him unable to read or write. In March 2021, he applied for employment with HHS, a privately owned company that contracts with healthcare facilities to provide food, janitorial, and maintenance services.

Prior experience. The employee’s application and resume listed his graduation from the Tennessee School for the Blind and his prior experience through an unpaid internship program as a Dining Room Attendant and Sneeze Station Technician at Vanderbilt University Medical Centers. In those positions, he cleaned tables and chairs, removed trash from tables, and stocked soap and sanitizer dispensers throughout the hospital. He also stated in his application that he could perform the essential functions of a position with HHS with or without reasonable accommodation.

Hired. After passing a required Essential Functions Test, which measures whether employees are physically able to meet the essential functions of various positions and requires them to perform movements demonstrating abilities such as grip strength, dexterity, mobility, and balance, the employee was hired in May 2021 as a part-time Police Tech/Non-Patient Room Cleaner at Vanderbilt Wilson County Hospital. In that position, he was expected to replace soap and sanitizer dispensers at the hospital.

During his 15-month tenure with HHS, he received two merit pay increases and never received any documented disciplinary action. Nor did he ever injure himself or anyone else.

Falls. In August 2024, the employee fell at work after he caught his foot on a door. He was not injured, did not receive medical treatment, and did not miss work. Nonetheless, that same day, a senior VP of healthcare sent an email regarding the employee’s fall, noting that he had also fallen two weeks earlier, also without any injury. The VP stated that she was “concerned about the potential liability if he falls again and it is more severe.” She also asked about the “safety concerns presented” and noted that she was unsure if the employee was within a protected class.

Several people responded to the email chain, including the president of risk and compliance, who stated that the employee “could not pass several of our job requirements so, in my opinion, we should not be employing this team member.” The president of human capital management also replied, asserting that the employee, although covered under the ADA, “can’t complete on the essential functions and he has now put himself at risk.”

Fired. Ultimately, HHS decided to terminate the employee two days after his second fall because he could not complete the essential functions of his job and he posed a safety threat. Neither of his direct supervisors recommended his termination.

Disability discrimination. Contending that HHS discharged the employee because of his disability in violation of the ADA, the EEOC sued on his behalf. In response, HHS argued that it was entitled to summary judgment because the EEOC could not establish the employee was a qualified individual with a disability. According to the company, because “his condition poses a direct threat to the health and safety of himself and others, HHS has no ADA liability.”

Because HHS did not provide any other argument as to why the employee was not a qualified individual, beyond its proffered reason for terminating him—safety concerns—the court found it failed to carry its burden to show the EEOC could not establish that he was a quailed individual under the ADA.

Direct threat. Pointing to the email chain discussing the employee’s falls as evidence of its individualized assessment in determining that he posed a direct threat to himself and others, HHS argued that his falls demonstrated his inability to safely perform his job. But it failed to explain anywhere in its filings which part or parts of the lengthy email chain showed an individualized assessment of the employee’s blindness and the impact his blindness might have on his ability to safely perform his job’s essential functions, said the court, explaining that “in the absence of any such analysis, HHS fails to show summary judgment should be granted on this basis as a matter of law or fact.”

Damages. HHS next argued that summary judgment was inappropriate on any claim by the employee for back or front pay because there was no evidence he mitigated damages. In response, the EEOC argued that HHS had the burden to show that similar positions were available and that the employee did not use reasonable care and diligence in seeking such positions. Where, as here, the EEOC continued, a defendant has offered no evidence indicating that substantially equivalent positions were available or that the claimant failed to use reasonable care and diligence in seeking such positions, the Sixth Circuit has held that “a plaintiff has no legal obligation to demonstrate that he sought or obtained comparable employment after his unlawful termination.”

Noting that HHS did not argue the EEOC’s opposition on this point was incorrect or that it had not met its burden of proof to contest the employee’s entitlement to backpay and front pay, the court found HHS failed to show the absence of material disputes of fact or that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the affirmative defense of failure to mitigate.

As to HHS’ assertion that the employee’s claims for compensatory and punitive damages failed as a matter of law because there was no evidence it did not act in good faith or of emotional injury, it cited to out-of-circuit authority, which the court found unpersuasive. Nor did it attempt to articulate a developed legal analysis in support of its challenge to the availability of punitive damages, said the court, finding summary judgment inappropriate as to the claims for compensatory and punitive damages.

Liability. Finally, the EEOC moved for summary judgment on liability, arguing that there were no material facts in dispute that the employee was disabled within the meaning of the ADA, was qualified for his job, and was terminated because of his disability. Rather than disputing that the EEOC produced evidence that satisfies each element of its disability discrimination claim or that its employees relied on the employee’s blindness in making the decision to terminate his employment, HHS argued that he was not qualified for his job based on its determination he posed a direct threat to the safety of himself and others. However, the court observed, it already explained that it could not consider HHS’s asserted basis for termination in determining whether the EEOC has proof of the prima facie case.

“Ultimately,” the court explained, “the parties argue the same piece of evidence—the email chain—warrants summary judgment in their favor.” While HHS argued that the email chain showed it conducted the requisite individualized assessment to reach its determination that the employee should be terminated for safety reasons, the EEOC asserted that the chain was direct evidence HHS fired the employee because it assumed he could not perform the essential functions of his job with or without reasonable accommodation of his blindness. Concluding that this was a material fact dispute best left for a jury to decide, the court denied the EEOC’s motion.

The case is No. 3:24-cv-01086.

Judge: Campbell, W., Jr.

Attorneys: Faye A. Williams for the EEOC. Luther Wright, Jr. (Smoak & Stewart) for Hospital Housing Systems, LLC.

Companies: Hospital Housekeeping Systems, LLC

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge RemediesDamages TennesseeNews