Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WORTH NOTING—Recent developments involving disability discrimination, (Aug 7, 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. Ill.: Court conforms transit employee’s compensatory damages award to $300K ADA statutory cap. A transit authority employee sued his employer under the ADA after the employer refused to accommodate medical restrictions resulting from a workplace injury and later terminated his employment. A jury found for the employee and awarded “$750,000 in compensatory damages for pain and suffering,” with equitable relief to be determined later by the court. The employer opposed equitable relief and the receipt of back pay, arguing that the employee failed to mitigate his damages. The court reduced the compensatory award to $300,000 under the ADA’s statutory damages cap. The court held that the mitigation defense failed because the employer failed to show that comparable employment was available. The court awarded back pay through the date the employee was reinstated. It denied claimed overtime losses because the request was speculative. The court awarded lost union contract pay because it “relate[d] to hours that [the employee] did in fact work,” and because he was entitled to “the money that he would have received but for the [transit authority’s] failure to accommodate his disability.” The court also awarded prejudgment interest on the compensatory and back pay awards, but it denied injunctive relief because the requested training mandate was “overbroad and not tailored to the evidence presented in th[e] case” (Beal v. Chicago Transit Authority, No. 23 CV 1387 (N.D. Ill. July 29, 2026)).

S.D.N.Y.: Firing after PTSD leave plausibly suggested disability discrimination. An employee who is a veteran with PTSD alleged that his employer knew of his disability when hiring him. He alleged that he requested sick leave for PTSD screening and other medical care. He alleged that a supervisor criticized his medical leave and terminated him when he returned to work. The employee sued for disability discrimination and failure to accommodate under the ADA and the NYSHRL. The employer moved to dismiss the complaint. The court denied the motion. The court held that the allegations plausibly supported an inference that the termination resulted from disability-related leave. The court found that the supervisor's comments and the timing of the discharge supported the claims (Diaz v. The City of Mount Vernon, No. 25-CV-05381 (PMH) (S.D.N.Y. July 27, 2026)).

D.N.D.: Fired employee with traumatic brain injury pleaded plausible ADA discrimination, retaliation claims. An employee who worked in commission sales for a dental supply company for “nearly 20 years” suffered a traumatic brain injury in a work-related automobile accident. The employee alleged that after the accident, his employer denied reasonable accommodations, increased his workload with “worthless” accounts, treated him differently than non-disabled employees, withheld more than $100,000 in commissions and reimbursements, failed to provide promised identity theft protection benefits, and terminated his employment after he questioned commission practices. The employee then filed suit asserting disability discrimination and retaliation under the ADA and North Dakota law, breach of statutory and contractual obligations, fraud and deceit, and unjust enrichment. The employer moved to dismiss the state and federal discrimination claims, the fraud claim, and the unjust enrichment claim. The district court dismissed the state discrimination claim because the employee did not file within the statutory deadline. The court allowed the ADA claim to proceed because the complaint plausibly alleged a timely EEOC filing. The court dismissed the fraud claim because the employee did not plead facts showing an intent to deceive with the specificity required by Rule 9(b). The court also dismissed the unjust enrichment claim because the alleged commission agreement provided an adequate legal remedy (Eiseman v. Patterson Dental Supply, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-00270 (D.N.D. July 27, 2026)).

W.D. Pa.: Record supported jury review of denied COVID vaccine accommodation. A medical representative for a diagnostics company sought a temporary exemption from her company’s COVID vaccination requirement because a physician believed a recent flu vaccine reaction suggested a risk of a life-threatening response to the COVID-19 vaccine and recommended further allergy testing. Her request was denied, and she was told she could become fully vaccinated, apply for another role in the company, or “resign with severance.” When she decided not to sign the severance agreement, she was terminated. She sued the company and its CEO, alleging “disability discrimination, unlawful retaliation, and violations of her rights” under the ADA, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA), and the FMLA. The employer moved for summary judgment. The court held that factual disputes barred summary judgment on the disability accommodation claims, such as whether she had an impairment limiting major life activities, whether the vaccine would have caused an allergic reaction, and weather she was disabled. The court also held that a jury could find the employer failed to “engage[] in the interactive process in good faith.” The court dismissed the ADA and PHRA retaliation claims because the record showed termination resulted from noncompliance with the vaccination policy rather than protected activity. The court also dismissed the FMLA claims because the alleged condition did not qualify as a serious health condition requiring continuing treatment (Sullivan v. Exact Sciences Corp., No. 2:22-cv-00116 (W.D. Pa. July 29, 2026)).

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge Retaliation EmployeeLeave PublicEmployees ContractClaims Covid19 TortClaims StateLawClaims RemediesDamages Procedure