Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WORTH NOTING—Recent developments involving disability discrimination, (Jul 17, 2026)

By WK Editorial Staff

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

S.D. Fla.: Job applicant alleged job offer was revoked after disclosing bipolar disorder. A Black Haitian job applicant alleged that a hotel rescinded a job offer shortly after he disclosed participation in a mental health rehabilitation program for bipolar disorder. He sued the hotel alleging disability discrimination under the ADA and unlawful background check practices under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The hotel moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. The court granted the motion and dismissed the action with prejudice. The court held that the ADA claim failed because the complaint did not allege timely exhaustion of administrative remedies through an EEOC charge. The court also found that the applicant abandoned the issue by not responding to the exhaustion argument. The court held that the FCRA claim failed because the complaint alleged only that the hotel referenced court records. The court also found no facts showing that a consumer reporting agency furnished a report for employment purposes, and it held that the applicant “failed to plead a plausible FCRA claim.” The court denied further leave to amend because the applicant had already received multiple opportunities to cure the pleading defects (Gabriel v. SLS Lux Brickell Hotel, No. 24-cv-23572-ALTMAN (S.D. Fla. July 8, 2026)).

D. Idaho: Injured employee caught ‘engaging in farming activity’ while under medical restrictions. A truck driver employed by a county in Idaho injured his back and received workers’ compensation benefits. Medical providers imposed work restrictions. Surveillance later showed him cutting hay and performing farm tasks. After reviewing the surveillance footage, his treating physician stated that “if he could do those things, it appeared he could return to work.” The employee was released to sedentary duty and offered the light duty assignment to answer phones. The employee declined the assignment. He was offered another assignment and a written offer stating that “the [c]ounty could accommodate [his] restrictions and instructed him to work within them.” After a hearing regarding “his willful and intentional” violations of the Employee Handbook, as found in the surveillance, the employee was terminated. The employee sued the county alleging disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation under the ADA and Idaho Human Rights Act (IHRA); FMLA violations; whistleblower retaliation; wrongful termination; and denial of procedural due process after his termination. The county moved for summary judgment, and the employee moved for partial summary judgment. The court granted the county's motion and denied the employee's motion. The court held the county had a legitimate reason for termination because it believed the employee violated medical restrictions and misrepresented his condition. The court also held that the county provided reasonable accommodations and did not deny any FMLA benefit. The court further held the employee received the requisite due process (Hatfield v. Bonneville County, No. 4:23-cv-00213-AKB-CWD (D. Idaho July 9, 2026)).

N.D. Ill.: Employee fired while on leave for surgery failed to prove disability. An employee who suffered from chronic back and neck pain took approved leave for breast reduction surgery. She alleged the condition limited major life activities. While she was out on leave, the company’s owners fired her, citing poor performance, and referenced her surgery during the termination call. The employee sued the company, alleging disparate treatment, failure to accommodate, and retaliation under the ADA and Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA); and FMLA interference. The employer moved to dismiss the ADA and IHRA claims. The court granted the motion. The court held the employee failed to “ma[ke] out that she is disabled under the ADA.” The court held the disparate treatment claims also failed because she did not show she was “qualified to perform essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation.” The accommodation claims failed because the employer granted the requested leave. The court further held the retaliation allegations failed because the complaint did not plausibly allege a disability (Nelin v. Zante of Orland, Inc., No. 26 C 353 (N.D. Ill. July 9, 2026)).

S.D.N.Y.: Estate was bound by arbitration agreement signed before employment. An employee took disability leave for anxiety and depression caused by alleged work stress. Her mental health provider later recommended leave through September 2024. The employer instead required her return by August 8 or face termination. She requested extended unpaid leave for scheduled treatment and proposed discussing other reasonable accommodations. The employer terminated her on August 8 after receiving medical documentation that she could not return. The employee attempted suicide that evening. She subsequently died by suicide on September 13, 2024, after being released from inpatient treatment. Before she commenced her employment, she had signed an agreement requiring arbitration of employment and termination claims. The estate sued the employer, alleging failure to accommodate and wrongful termination under the ADA; failure to accommodate, disability discrimination, and wrongful termination under the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) and New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL); and wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering under New York Estates, Powers and Trusts Law. The employee’s mother also separately alleged negligent infliction of emotional distress. The employer moved to compel arbitration of the employment claims and dismiss the tort claims. The court compelled arbitration because the agreement’s assignment clause bound the employee’s estate. The arbitration clause covered the statutory claims and was not unconscionable. The court stayed the federal action pending arbitration, and it declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state tort claims because they predominated after the federal claims went to arbitration (Surman v. MongoDB, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-00166 (JLR) (S.D.N.Y. July 9, 2026)).

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge Arbitration Retaliation EmployeeLeave PublicEmployees IndividualRights TortClaims StateLawClaims Whistleblowers Procedure