Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—N.D. Ala.: Quality manager, fired 10 days before scheduled surgery, advances claims, (Mar 23, 2026)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

A former coworker stated that during a discussion with upper management and executives, one executive stated the company needed to fire the employee before he died.

Denying an automotive parts manufacturer’s motion for summary judgment against the ADA discrimination and retaliation and FMLA interference and retaliation claims asserted by a former quality manager, a federal district court in Alabama found that the company’s asserted reason for terminating the employee—poor performance or discipline—despite the employee having a clean disciplinary record, when taken together with other pieces of evidence could lead a reasonable factfinder to conclude that this reason was pretextual. For similar reasons, the court found with regard to the FMLA interference claim that the record undermined the employer’s argument that the company would have terminated the employee based on performance regardless of his leave request. Further, the 10-day gap between the leave request and his termination could be retaliatory (Dyson v. Matsu Alabama, Inc., No. 5:22-cv-01383-MHH (N.D. Ala. Mar. 20, 2026)).

In 2015, the employee was hired as a quality engineer, eventually receiving a promotion to quality manager. Throughout his employment, he received “good” performance reviews and had no disciplinary history.

Termination. On August 6, 2021, the employee was informed he was being terminated. No reason was given for the termination, but his termination letter mentioned “poor performance or discipline.” The HR manager told the employee that his personnel file showed no disciplinary history, and purportedly said something to the effect of “[i]t was not because of disciplinary action that you were let go.”

Health issues. At the time of his termination, the employee suffered from several medical conditions, including type 2 diabetes, high cholesterol, a pituitary tumor, and hypothyroidism. He had undergone two hip replacement surgeries and back surgery during his time at the company, taking FMLA leave for each procedure. Two weeks before he was terminated, the employee submitted FMLA paperwork for an upcoming knee replacement surgery.

Medical costs. In February or March 2020, the general manager of one of the company’s plants told the employee that “one more than one occasion” his “name had been discussed with regards to the cost of [his] medical—the cost of [his] surgeries to the company.”

One month after the employee’s termination, a former coworker told the employee that either the company’s automotive president or its CEO had stated that the company needed to fire the employee before he died. The CEO also allegedly stated that the company needed to “get rid of” of the employee because he had another upcoming surgery. Subsequently, the employee filed this lawsuit.

Convincing mosaic. First, the court addressed the employee’s ADA discrimination claim. Neither party suggested that the employee had proffered direct evidence of discrimination. Although the CEO allegedly expressed a desire to terminate the employee ahead of his scheduled surgery, there was no evidence to suggest that he participated in the termination decision. Nonetheless, the court found this statement qualified as powerful circumstantial evidence of discrimination.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the employee, a factfinder could infer that the company’s CEO wanted the employee gone because his healthcare expenses were substantial and that management understood his wishes. This was supported by other conversations where management and executives discussed the employee’s healthcare costs.

Further, although the employee was purportedly let go for disciplinary and performance reasons, his record indicated no issues and the HR manager allegedly told him that he was not being let go for disciplinary actions. These pieces of evidence, woven together, could lead a reasonable factfinder to conclude that the company’s proffered reason for terminating the employee was not the real reason, said the court.

Suspicious timing. As for suspicious timing, the court noted that although the company had employed and paid for the employee’s healthcare costs for years, it nevertheless chose to terminate the employee 10 days before his scheduled knee surgery, one week after he had notified the company of the operation, and two weeks after submitting FMLA paperwork related to the procedure.

Taken together with the evidence of pretext, a reasonable factfinder could conclude that the company discriminated against the employee because of the cost of his healthcare, said the court. Accordingly, the company was not entitled to summary judgment on the ADA discrimination claim.

ADA retaliation. For similar reasons, the court denied the motion for summary judgment on the ADA retaliation claim. Although the employee’s EEOC charge focused on his ADA discrimination claim, he had stated sufficient facts from which a reasonable investigator could have concluded that he was also complaining about retaliation. Thus, the company’s argument that he had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies fell flat. Further, the same convincing mosaic of evidence that applied to his discrimination claim applied here as well.

Taken together, the close temporal proximity between the employee’s request for leave and his termination, his clear performance record, and repeated leadership remarks concerning the financial impact of his healthcare expenses and his upcoming surgery created a disputed fact issue as to whether the company’s stated reason for terminating the employee was pretextual.

FMLA interference. Turning to the employee’s claim for FMLA interference, the company argued that this claim failed because the employee did not follow company procedures regarding certification of his knee surgery and thus was not entitled to a benefit under the FMLA. Even if the employee were entitled to FMLA leave, the employer argued that summary judgment was still appropriate because it would have terminated the employee for performance issues regardless of the request, and the decisionmaker was unaware of the request. The court was not moved.

In this instance, the employee informed his supervisors that he had an upcoming knee surgery and had submitted FMLA paperwork regarding the surgery. “This suffices as adequate notice of FMLA leave,” said the court. In addition, the employee had followed the process he had followed to request FMLA leave for his previous surgeries.

Further, the record undermined the company’s argument that it would have terminated the employee based on performance, regardless of his leave request. As previously discussed, the employee had no disciplinary history or any formal performance issues. This evidence supported a reasonable inference that the company’s decision was not based on performance but was instead motivated by the employee’s request for another period of FMLA leave, said the court, denying the employer’s motion for summary judgment against this claim.

FMLA retaliation. Finally, the court addressed the employee’s claim for FMLA retaliation. The court again found the employee had presented sufficient evidence to establish a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the connection between his request for FMLA leave and his termination. Contrary to the company’s assertion that the decisionmaker was unaware of the request, the employee said that he had discussed his upcoming surgery with the decisionmaker two weeks prior to his termination. This testimony supports an inference of retaliatory intent, said the court. Further, the 10-day gap between the FMLA request and the termination also supported a finding of retaliatory intent and causation. Accordingly, the court also allowed this claim to proceed to trial.

The case is No. 5:22-cv-01383-MHH.

Judge: Haikala, M.

Attorneys: Eric J. Artrip (Mastando & Artrip) for Stephen Dyson. Gabriell Masterson Jeffreys (Burr & Forman) for Matsu Alabama, Inc.

Companies: Matsu Alabama, Inc.

MainStory: TopStory Discrimination DisabilityDiscrimination Discharge EmployeeLeave Retaliation AlabamaNews GCNNews