Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, EMPLOYEE LEAVE—D. Colo.: Employee lacks sufficient evidence to show financial corporation wrongfully denied leave, (Jan 9, 2026)

By Molly Platnick

The former employee could not show an adverse employment action necessary for an ADA claim.

A federal district court in Colorado granted a financial corporation’s motion for summary judgment in a case brought by a former employee who gave up her position after nine months of medical leave. The employee alleged the corporation was liable for discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation under the ADA and Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CODA) because she suffered adverse employment action after requesting a leave extension. The employee disputed many facts introduced by the corporation but did not offer sufficient evidence to support her claims. In response to the failure to accommodate charge, the corporation raised an undue burden affirmative defense, which the court extended to its retaliation analysis. The court ruled the employee did not establish any genuine issue of material fact suggesting she was subject to adverse action, and no reasonable jury could find she was denied leave or fired in retaliation for exercising her ADA rights (Schmitt v. UMB Financial Corp., No. 1:24-cv-01900-SKC-SBP (D. Colo. Jan. 7, 2026)).

Undisputed facts. The former employee started working for the financial services corporation as a Relationship Manager and Vice President of Institutional Banking and Corporate Trust Services in 2021. In November 2022, she was diagnosed with cancer and was approved for FMLA leave from December 6, 2022, to February 27, 2023. The employee requested non-FMLA leave through May 28, 2023, then received an extension until August 6, 2023. In June 2023, executives at the financial corporation denied the employee’s fourth leave request, citing “undue hardship” to the corporation’s business in Colorado.

After being denied more leave, the employee contacted her supervisor’s supervisor and assured him she would be able to return to work by September 10, 2023. The supervisor persuaded the other executives the employee’s leave and the corporation’s third-party administrator reversed the previous denial. The corporation’s counsel contacted the employee’s attorney on August 29 for an update and the employee responded she would not be returning to work as scheduled. The financial corporation processed the employee’s termination on September 8.

Disputed facts. The court only accepted the facts above, which the financial corporation introduced and “appropriately supported by competent evidence.” The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require parties to support disputed facts with “citations to specific parts of the record.” Standing Orders for the District of Colorado stipulates “general references to record materials are insufficient” and parties must reference page numbers, line numbers, or paragraph numbers. Here, the former employee disputed facts based on deposition testimony, but did not point to specific statements. The court refused to act like “pigs hunting for truffles” and ignored factual assertions supported only by “broad-swath record citations.” The court also criticized the employee’s “strawman arguments,” which raised “immaterial factual disputes” that did not establish a genuine dispute for the jury.

Discrimination. The court granted the financial corporation’s motion for summary judgment on the employee’s discrimination claim because she did not establish any genuine issue of material fact as to whether she was subject to adverse action.

Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, a plaintiff makes a prima facie discrimination case if she shows by a preponderance of evidence she (1) was disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (2) qualified for her job; (3) discriminated against because of her disability. Discrimination, the third prong, requires an adverse employment action, “harm…[to] an identifiable term or condition of employment.”

In this case, the former employee claimed after she disclosed her cancer diagnosis, she was treated less favorably, given an increased workload, and subjected to a hostile work environment where she was berated/yelled at for taking time off. The court recognized these would be adverse employment actions but found no evidence for any of these claims. The court called the first allegation a “nonstarter,” as the employee did not mention any other employees who were treated better. The employee introduced two emails, both from November 2022, sent by her supervisor as evidence she was given an increased workload. The court found the email’s content did not support the employee’s “characterizations” and were only inquiries into the employee’s progress on certain assignments. The employee relied on deposition testimony to show her supervisor created a hostile work environment, but the record reflects the supervisor only yelled at her on a single occasion. The court rejected “a single incidence of discourteous behavior” as enough to constitute an adverse employment action, noting the ADA is not a “general civility code.”

Failure to accommodate. The court granted the financial corporation’s motion for summary judgment on the former employee’s failure to accommodate claim because the corporation successfully raised an undue burden affirmative defense.

The ADA bars employers from discriminating by “not making reasonable accommodations” for qualified individuals with a disability. The 10th Circuit applies a “modified” McDonnell Douglas framework for failure to accommodate claims: An employee must demonstrate she (1) is disabled; (2) otherwise qualified; (3) requested a plausibly reasonable accommodation. If the employee meets this initial showing, the burden shifts to the employer to rebut the plaintiff’s case or establish an affirmative defense, such as undue hardship. If the employer meets their burden, the employee can rehabilitate her initial claim or establish a genuine dispute of material fact as to the employer’s affirmative defense.

The employee asserts she was denied a reasonable accommodation when the financial corporation denied her fourth leave request. The court put aside that the denial was later reversed and the employee’s leave extended. Even if the corporation failed to accommodate the employee by denying her leave, it was protected under an undue hardship defense. As described above, in June 2023, executives from the financial corporation met to discuss the employee’s leave and decided the likelihood of her making a fifth request was too big a risk for their Colorado business needs. The executives determined if the employee’s position remained vacant through August, they would not have time to train a new employee to meet their business in the fourth fiscal quarter.

The employee responded it her leave request could not be an undue burden because she was only asking for 33 days, with a September 10 return date. However, the 10th Circuit “considers leave time in the aggregate when considering whether a request for additional leave is reasonable.” The employee here took over nine months of leave in the aggregate, which the court concluded was unreasonable. The court was not convinced September 10 was a “definite” return date, as all the employee’s previous extension requests included a return date which she did not meet.

Retaliation. The court granted the corporation’s motion for summary judgment on he the employee’s retaliation claim because no reasonable jury could find the corporation’s reasons for denying her fourth leave request or dismissing her were pretextual.

The necessary elements of an ADA retaliation claim are (1) plaintiff was engaged in a protected activity; (2) she was subjected to an adverse employment action; (3) a causal connection between the protected activity and adverse employment action. The ADA defines requesting a reasonable accommodation as a protected activity.

The former employee claimed she engaged in two protected activities: (1) reporting her supervisor’s “hostile behavior”; (2) requesting a fourth leave extension. She argued the financial corporation retaliated against her for these actions by denying her accommodation and then terminating her employment.

The court repeated the failure to accommodate analysis above, reiterating the undue burden defense permitted the corporation to deny the employee further leave extension. The employee responded the corporation did not “follow normal procedures” when it denied her fourth extension request. However, she only cited “irregularities” in how the corporation handled reversing the denial. The court declined to “guess the connections” between this evidence and the employee’s retaliation claim.

The court concluded the employee was not fired in retaliation but voluntarily resigned. In response to initially being denied accommodation, the employee told the corporation her employment would end on August 7, 2023, if she had returned by that date. After the denial was reversed, an executive attempted to contact the employee several times, and when that failed, sent a letter to her attorney. The attorney notified the corporation the employee would not be returning to work. Although the letter and phone calls are undisputed, the employee claimed she was never notified her leave request was granted. The court clarified the relevant issue was whether the corporation communicated the reversal employee, not whether the employee received that communication.

Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. The court concluded the financial corporation was also entitled to judgment on the employee’s state law claims because the ADA and CADA use the same legal standards.

The case is No. 1:24-cv-01900-SKC-SBP.

Judge: Kato Crews, S.

Attorneys: Ruth A. McLeod (The Litigation Boutique) for Sara Schmitt. Emely Yessiel Garcia (Jackson Lewis) for UMB Financial Corp.

Companies: UMB Financial Corp.

Cases: EmployeeLeave DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge Retaliation StateLawClaims ColoradoNews