Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—N.D. Ala.: Blind physical therapist whose job offer was rescinded stated ADA discrimination claim, (Jan 20, 2026)

By Robert Margolis, J.D.

The court denied summary judgment as to his ADA discrimination claim but granted it against his failure to accommodate claim.

A physical therapist who is legally blind provided sufficient circumstantial evidence to survive summary judgment against his claim that a nursing center rescinded an offer of employment because of his disability, even though he did not provide evidence directly proving the employer’s reason for its decision was pretextual, a federal district court held. The court found a reasonable jury could infer, from the fact that the nursing center rescinded its offer to him on the day after he told it he is legally blind, that the decision was discriminatory. However, because the employer never hired him and the accommodations he requested would not have been needed until he began to see patients, the court granted summary judgment against his ADA failure-to-accommodate claim (Scheidies v. Mount Royal Operations, LLC, No. 2:24-cv-01530-AMM (N.D. Ala. Jan. 14, 2026)).

Legally blind. The applicant has a progressive eye condition, Juvenile Macular Degeneration, which has rendered him legally blind and unable to read without screen reading software. Despite this, he has a doctorate in physical therapy and had worked as a physical therapist for 14 years in rehabilitation and senior living facilities before the events at issue in this case. His prior employers had granted accommodations for his blindness, including the reading software, a laptop to run it, an external mouse and keyboard, Microsoft Word access, and a table or desk on which to place his equipment.

Nursing home. The employer is a nursing home serving both skilled care and long-term care patients. There are fact disputes over whether the employer had an underserved population of long-term care patients and whether it needed a full-time physical therapist in the fall of 2023 when the events at issue took place. At that time, the company that the employer used to recruit physical therapists opened a position for a full-time physical therapist, and the applicant applied. He was given a phone interview, then two days later toured the facility with the employer’s Assistant Rehabilitation Director, who wrote he would be “a great fit.” Three days later, the recruiter sent him a text message that the employer would like to make him an offer, and later extended him a verbal offer for a position as a full-time physical therapist.

Offer and acceptance. After another onsite meeting, this time with the Director of Rehabilitation, who concluded the applicant was qualified for the position, he accepted the offer for the position, was sent a welcome email, and given a date to attend an orientation session for new hires.

Email to HR. Despite that, there is a fact dispute whether he was hired. That is because two days after the welcome text, and four days before orientation, he emailed the employer’s HR Director and explained he is legally blind and needed the same accommodations that he had been given by other employers to perform his duties. He also noted that those accommodations would not be needed for the orientation, since he would not be seeing patients that day.

Offer rescinded. The next day, however, before he could attend the orientation, an employee of the recruiter called the applicant to rescind the offer. The employer’s Administrator testified she made the decision after determining she did not believe there was a need for a full-time physical therapist. However, one of the recruiter’s employees wrote in the recruiter’s database, “offer[] rescinded due to disability.”

The applicant sued the employer, alleging two ADA claims: (1) discrimination based on the failure to hire, and (2) failure to accommodate. The employer moved for summary judgment on both claims.

Discrimination. The court evaluated the discrimination claim under the McDonnell Douglas framework. First, it rejected the employer’s argument that the applicant could not establish his prima facie case because the employer ultimately did not hire a full-time physical therapist, but only several part-timers. The employer cited cases involving claims brought under Title VII, where failure-to-hire claims require a plaintiff to show that the position remained open or was filled by a person outside his protected class. But unlike Title VII, the ADA has no such requirement for a prima facie case.

The court then turned to the employer’s proffer of a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its decision to rescind the offer to the applicant, that it determined it did not need a full-time physical therapist at that time. While the applicant could not show that reason was pretextual, he did proffer sufficient circumstantial evidence of discrimination to survive summary judgment. In the Eleventh Circuit, after a plaintiff has established a prima facie case and the defendant has come forth with sufficient evidence of a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its action, the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework “is no longer relevant” and “simply drops out of the picture.” Ismael v. Roundtree, 161 F.4th 752, 764 (11th Cir. 2025). Instead, a plaintiff can survive summary judgment by presenting “a convincing mosaic of circumstantial evidence that would allow a jury to infer intentional discrimination.” Id.

The applicant did just that, principally that the employer rescinded its offer just one day after he disclosed his disability and the accommodations he would need to see patients. The Administrator who made the decision to rescind the offer had been copied on all emails regarding the applicant’s hire and did not object until he had made that disclosure. Other employees had reacted positively to his candidacy and the offer of employment, until he disclosed his disability. This sufficed to defeat summary judgment.

Accommodation claim. The court granted summary judgment on the applicant’s failure-to-accommodate claim. Because his claim was based on the failure to hire him, and he required no accommodation during the hiring process, his claim failed, the court held. The court was aware of no authority holding the failure to hire an applicant can serve as the basis for an ADA failure-to-accommodate claim. A district court decision the applicant cited to support such a theory, did not involve a summary judgment motion, and the court found it both distinguishable and not binding authority.

The case is No. 2:24-cv-01530-AMM.

Judge: Manasco, A.

Attorneys: Eve L. Hill (Brown, Goldstein & Levy) for Aaron Scheidies. R. Scott Hetrick (Adams & Reese) for Mount Royal Operations LLC d/b/a Elite Nursing and Rehabilitation Center.

Companies: Mount Royal Operations LLC; Elite Nursing and Rehabilitation Center

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge AlabamaNews