Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WORTH NOTING—Recent developments involving disability discrimination, (May 2, 2025)

By WK Editorial Staff

A roundup of recent decisions involving disability discrimination claims of interest to the labor and employment law community.

D. Conn.: Female police officer trainee alleged discrimination, retaliation after injury. A former police officer trainee alleged that, after she injured her knee during mandatory training, the state training council misrepresented her attendance at training sessions, leading to her dismissal from the academy and subsequent termination by her employer, the town. She claimed that male trainees were allowed to retake training sessions, unlike her, and that the employer failed to accommodate her disability. She sued the town and council alleging discrimination under the ADA, Title VII, and the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (CFEPA), and retaliation under the Connecticut Workers’ Compensation Retaliation Act (CWCRA). She also alleged that the town, the council, its director, and the police chief violated her Fourteenth Amendment rights under Section 1983. The town, police chief, council, and director moved to dismiss. The court found that the ADA Title I, CFEPA, and CWCRA claims against the council were barred due to immunity, but it allowed the trainee’s ADA Title II claim to proceed, finding she plausibly stated a claim. The court dismissed her Title VII claim against the council for insufficient allegations of discriminatory intent. Against the town, the court allowed the ADA disability discrimination and CFEPA sex discrimination claims to proceed, finding plausible allegations of disability and timely filing of the sex discrimination claim. The court also found plausible support for a workers’ compensation retaliation claim against the town, given the temporal proximity of her filing and termination. Regarding the Section 1983 claims, the court dismissed the procedural due process claims against the town and police chief but allowed the claim against the council director, finding plausible allegations of stigmatizing statements leading to her termination. The court dismissed the equal protection claim against the town, but it allowed the claim against the police chief, finding plausible allegations of disparate treatment. The court denied qualified immunity for the council director and police chief (Therault v. Town of Madison, No. 3:23-cv-01301-MPS (D. Conn. Apr. 22, 2025)).

D. Mass.: Employee seeking COVID-19 vaccine exemption was not ‘qualified individual.’ After the Governor of Massachusetts issued an executive order in August 2021 “order[ing] all executive department employees to verify their vaccination status,” in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, an employee of the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families (DCF) sought a medical exemption due to her mitral valve regurgitation. The department denied her request, citing undue hardship and “increase[d] workplace safety risks.” The employee sued the department, which moved for summary judgment. The court found that the employee was not a “qualified individual,” capable of performing the essential job functions. The court emphasized that the employee’s requested accommodation—masking and testing—did not sufficiently mitigate the risk of virus transmission, as vaccination was deemed more effective based on prevailing medical consensus. Furthermore, the court noted the “absence of any CDC-recognized medical contraindication” linking the employee's heart condition to vaccine risks. The court granted summary judgment (McCarthy v. Massachusetts Department of Children and Families, No. 1:23-cv-11258-RGS (D. Mass. Apr. 23, 2025)).

N.D. Miss.: Surgical technician with mental health disorders was terminated after FMLA leave. A surgical technician developed mental health disorders shortly after beginning her second stint at a medical center in April 2018, and she sought and was approved for intermittent FMLA leave. In April 2022, she purposely cut her wrist with hospital needles, and she took extended FMLA leave for approximately two months. While scheduled for further FMLA leave for a hernia surgery, she was terminated, reportedly for inappropriate workplace conversations—conversations with coworkers, on two separate occasions, about an affair she had in 2018. She sued the medical center, alleging discrimination and retaliation due to her mental health disorders, and that her termination violated the FMLA and ADA. The medical center moved for summary judgment. The court found that the employee established a prima facie case of discrimination and retaliation, and identified genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether the medical center’s stated reason for termination was pretextual, citing evidence of disparate treatment and potential deviation from its corrective action policy. However, the court granted partial summary judgment on the failure to accommodate claim related to the April 2022 incident, as the employee did not sufficiently prove she requested immediate leave. The court denied summary judgment on the remaining claims (Lindley v. North Mississippi Medical Center, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-00151-SA-DAS (N.D. Miss. Apr. 9, 2025)).

E.D. Pa.: Fact issues regarding essentiality of repetitive motions, traceability requirements precluded summary judgment. A machine operator working at a manufacturing company took a series of medical leaves due to osteoarthritis that limited his mobility. After exhausting his disability benefits, the employee requested to return to work part-time with accommodations, but he faced delays and ultimate rejection from the employer regarding his requests. He subsequently applied for an engineering technician position, which was also denied, leading to his termination. The employee sued the employer, alleging disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation under the ADA. The employer moved for summary judgment, arguing that the employee was not a qualified individual capable of performing essential job functions. However, the court found that material facts were in dispute, particularly regarding whether repetitive motions and traceability requirements were indeed essential functions of the role, and whether the employee could perform them with reasonable accommodations. The court also found that a question of material fact existed as to whether the reasons for the employee’s termination were pretextual. The motion was denied (Young v. Jabil, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-04992-MMB (E.D. Pa. Apr. 22, 2025)).

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge Retaliation EmployeeLeave StateLawClaims PublicEmployees Procedure