Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—W.D. Pa.: Hospital won’t face trial on ADA claims of employee terminated after disclosing diabetes diagnosis, (Feb 14, 2025)

By Nicholas Kaster, J.D.

The hospital was already investigating the employee for alleged misconduct before she engaged in any of the alleged protected activities.

A federal district court in Pennsylvania granted summary judgment on discrimination, failure-to-accommodate, retaliation, wrongful termination, and FMLA interference claims brought by a hospital employee who was terminated for sleeping on the job. After she was reported sleeping, she disclosed that she had been diagnosed with diabetes. The hospital had no legal obligation to excuse her misconduct just because it was related to her disability, the court stated. The employee did not point to evidence to support that she was terminated because of her diabetes and not her misconduct, which occurred before the hospital was even aware of her diabetes diagnosis. As such, the employee failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact that she was terminated because of her diabetes (Hileman v. West Penn Allegheny Health System, Inc., No. 2:23-CV-01119-MJH (W.D. Pa. Feb. 11, 2025)).

The employee worked for a hospital as a CT Technologist. On February 9, 2022, she received a Disciplinary Action Form, because she had called off from work enough times to violate the hospital’s policies. The Disciplinary Form contained instructions on inquiring about leave of absence under the FMLA or any accommodations under the ADA. Its Standards of Conduct Policy lists examples of behaviors that violate company policies and could lead to termination, including sleeping while on duty, or positioning oneself with the obvious intent of sleeping while on duty.

Nodding off. A coworker observed the employee “nodding off” on several occasions and reported it to her manager. On July 13, 2022, the manager informed the employee that she had been observed sleeping and the employee admitted that she might have shut her eyes because they were dry due to a change in her diabetes medication. This was the first time she disclosed to her employer that she had diabetes. After she made a formal statement of her diagnosis, she was terminated.

She filed suit against the hospital, asserting discrimination claims under the ADA, failure- to-accommodate claims under the ADA and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA); (3) retaliation and wrongful termination claims under the ADA and PHRA; and (4) an interference claim under the FMLA. The hospital moved for summary judgment on all claims.

Discrimination and retaliation claims. The hospital argued that the employee was unable to establish a prima facie case for discrimination or retaliation under the ADA, because she could not establish a causal connection between her diabetes or an alleged protected activity and her termination.

The hospital was not informed that the employee had diabetes until the July 13, 2022 meeting, which was after she was alleged to have been sleeping. The hospital had no legal obligation to excuse her misconduct just because it was related to her disability, the court stated. The employee did not point to any record evidence to support that she was terminated because of her diabetes and not her misconduct, which occurred before the hospital was even aware of her diabetes diagnosis. As such, she failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact that she was terminated because of her diabetes.

As to her retaliation claim, the employee argued that the temporal proximity between the hospital learning about her diabetes and her termination showed that her diabetes was a determinative factor in her termination. Here, the hospital was already investigating the employee for alleged misconduct before she engaged in any of the alleged protected activities. She never disclosed to the hospital that she had diabetes until after she was confronted with allegations of sleeping while working. The timing of these events, in relation her termination, was not unusually suggestive of any retaliatory motive, said the court, because the investigative process had already been initiated prior to the hospital having any indication of her diabetes. As such, she failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact that a causal connection existed between her alleged protected activities and her termination.

Even if she could establish a prima facie case for ADA discrimination or retaliation, which she failed to do, the employee also failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact that the legitimate nonretaliatory reason posited by the hospital for firing her was pretextual—that she was sleeping or positioning herself with the intent of sleeping while at work. The hospital’s Standards of Conduct clearly indicates that “sleeping or positioning oneself with the obvious intent of sleeping” while on duty was possible grounds for termination. The employee contended that there were many employees who slept while at work and who were not terminated, but she did not point to any record evidence to show that any of these other instances were reported to any supervisors. Thus, the court concluded that the employee failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact that the hospital’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating her was pretextual.

Failure to accommodate claim. The hospital next argued that the employee’s failure-to-accommodate claim failed because insofar as she never made a timely request for accommodation, she could not establish a prima facie case for failure to accommodate under the relevant statutes.

The evidence was clear, said the court, that the employee never informed the hospital of her diabetes diagnosis until after she was confronted about allegedly sleeping while at work. The employee testified that she never told her manager, or anyone at the hospital, about her diabetes diagnosis prior to the July 13, 2022 meeting. At her deposition, when asked if she ever inquired into a reasonable accommodation for her diabetes, she testified that she asked if there was “anything [she] could do,” after she was informed of her termination.

Even if the court considered the employee’s statement as a request for a reasonable accommodation based upon her diabetes, it was made after she had already been reported for sleeping while at work. The hospital had no obligation to accommodate her disability if it was not aware of it before her misconduct. As such, the employee failed to establish a genuine issue material fact as to her failure-to-accommodate claim under the ADA and PHRA.

FMLA interference claim. Finally, the hospital argued that the employee’s FMLA interference claim failed because she never provided it with the proper notice required under the statute. The employee testified that she never mentioned or indicated to her manager that she needed any leave because of her diabetes or any side effects of her diabetes medication. She further testified that she never informed the manager that she had any issues performing her job duties because of her diabetes, nor that she needed any time off from work for any reason from after her July 13, 2022 meeting up until her notice of termination.

As discussed above, the manager was not even aware of the employee’s diabetes until she was confronted about sleeping at work during the July 13, 2022 meeting. In short, there was no record evidence that showed the employee ever expressed to the manager or anyone else at the hospital that she had any intention of taking FMLA leave in a way that a reasonable jury could find that she provided adequate notice under the statute. As such, the employee failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact that she provided proper notice to the hospital under the FMLA.

Accordingly, the employer’s motion for summary judgment was granted on all the claims.

The case is No. 2:23-CV-01119-MJH.

Judge: Horan, M.

Attorneys: Joshua P. Ward (J.P. Ward & Associates) for Cheryl Hileman. Brianna Schmid (Reed Smith) for West Penn Allegheny Health System, Inc. dba Forbes Hospital.

Companies: West Penn Allegheny Health System, Inc.; Forbes Hospital

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination EmployeeLeave Retaliation Discharge PennsylvaniaNews