Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WORTH NOTING—Recent developments involving disability discrimination, (Jun 12, 2026)

By WK Editorial Staff

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

N.D. Ind.: Research assistant failed to plausibly allege Rehabilitation Act, Title IX violations. A graduate research assistant with autism, depression, and anxiety alleged disability and sex discrimination after conflicts with coworkers and his advisor’s withdrawal ended his position. His behavior had made some people uncomfortable at work, and after being hospitalized for his mental health condition, and “engaging in a pattern of self-harm due to his anxiety and depression,” he asked his research advisor “to take possession of the keys to his gun safe per the recommendation of his therapist as part of a personal safety plan.” She was not comfortable with this request, and he subsequently sent her a photo of an injury he caused himself. The research advisor withdrew, and after he was unable to find a new research assistant position, his position was terminated. He sued the university and staff under the Rehabilitation Act, Title IX, and Section 1983, alleging failure to accommodate, harassment, discrimination, retaliation, disparate treatment, and constitutional violations. The university and officials moved to dismiss. The failure to accommodate claims failed because no specific accommodation request or denial was plausibly alleged. The court found the hostile work environment allegations to be conclusory. The court also found that research assistant failed to plausibly allege retaliation. The court dismissed the Title IX claims because the facts did not support an inference of sex discrimination. And the court dismissed Section 1983 claims because no clearly established constitutional violation was alleged and qualified immunity applied. The court dismissed all claims without prejudice (Tabango v. Purdue University, No. 4:25-cv-00025-GSL-AZ (N.D. Ind. May 26, 2026)).

D. Kan.: Injured plumber was terminated after post-accident requests for medical attention. A lead plumber for a school district was injured in a motor vehicle accident while driving one of the school district’s vans. The plumber’s supervisor arrived on the scene. The employee reported symptoms and requested medical care, but the supervisor dismissed his complaints and subsequently sent him “to one of the district high schools to move heavy furniture,” despite the plumber’s having reported pain. After the plumber again requested medical care on three consecutive days, the supervisor, again, sent him to move a heavy object, this time, “a cooler weighing several hundred pounds at another district high school.” Shortly thereafter, the HR Director terminated the plumber without an explanation, with the supervisor in attendance. The plumber later found out after seeking medical treatment, post-termination, that, because of the accident, he had suffered “mild traumatic brain injury” and cervical and lumbar spine injuries, which included, among other things, a disc herniation and bulge. The plumber sued the school district, alleging disability discrimination under the ADA, and workers’ compensation retaliation under Kansas law. The school district moved to dismiss. The court denied the motion and held that the employee plausibly alleged a disability based on factual allegations of “a physical impairment that substantially interfered with his daily life activities.” The court also found sufficient allegations that the employer regarded the employee as impaired because the supervisor “was present at the accident site” and knew of the injuries and need for medical attention. The court further held that the “close temporal proximity between his repeated reports of impairment and his suspension and then termination” supported causation (Beadle v. Unified School District No. 204, No. 2:26-cv-02055-JAR-BGS (D. Kan. June 3, 2026)).

D.N.M.: Factual disputes preclude summary judgment in ADA accommodation case. A school social worker filed a complaint with the state public education department regarding the school’s special education compliance. She subsequently requested intermittent remote work during flareups of a medical condition. After engaging in the interactive process, the employer denied that request and offered FMLA leave and other measures. The social worker refused the accommodation and filed a complaint with Equal Opportunity Services. The social worker’s caseload was removed, and she subsequently resigned. She sued the school district and moved for partial summary judgment. The court denied summary judgment because genuine disputes of fact remained regarding the reasonableness of the requested accommodations, the granted accommodations, and the social worker’s retaliation claim (Lipe v. Albuquerque Public Schools, No. 1:23-cv-00899-GBW-JMR (D.N.M. June 3, 2026)).

W.D. Tenn.: Uncertain duration of leave created triable ADA issue. A county employee suffered from degenerative knee conditions and exhausted FMLA leave before receiving additional leave as an ADA accommodation. He did not provide a definite return date but submitted medical notes indicating ongoing treatment and a future evaluation. The county notified the employee that because of “his doctor’s refusal to fill out the requested paperwork along with the employee’s indefinite return to work date,” the employee was separated from work. The employee sued the county under Title VII and the Rehabilitation Act. The county moved for summary judgment. The court denied the motion, because genuine disputes remained about whether the employee’s request that the county “wait to see whether he was cleared to return to work until after his May 25 doctor’s appointment was reasonable under the circumstances.” The court also found factual disputes regarding the interactive process and the employer’s knowledge of the disability. The court granted summary judgment on all other claims that were not pleaded in the amended complaint (Fuller v. Shelby County Government, No. 2:24-cv-02618-SHL-cgc (W.D. Tenn. June 3, 2026).

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge Retaliation EmployeeLeave PublicEmployees Procedure