Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WORTH NOTING—Recent developments involving disability discrimination, (Mar 28, 2025)

By WK Editorial Staff

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

S.D. Ill.: Former employee’s IHRA disability, religious discrimination claims failed for lack of specificity. A technical services specialist for a chemical company sued the company alleging he was terminated in violation of the Illinois Whistleblower Act, and that the company discriminated against him based on disability and religion, in violation of the Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA). The employee had reported safety concerns regarding company trucks to government officials and management, leading to alleged retaliatory conduct, including harassment and termination. The company moved to dismiss the IHRA claims, arguing that the claims “fail[ed] to allege essential elements of disability and religious discrimination under the IHRA.” The court found that the former employee failed to “sufficiently identif[y] his disability” and failed to “allege any of his religious observances or practices,” and it dismissed the claims (Parrent v. Solvay Fluorides, LLC, No. 3:24-cv-01370-GCS (S.D. Ill. Mar. 14, 2025)).

D. Kan.: Former judge failed to timely amend complaint after receiving right-to-sue notice. A former city municipal judge who suffers from primary immune deficiency sued the city alleging that it denied her accommodation requests and retaliated against her, culminating in her employment termination. She filed an EEOC charge, and after receiving a right to sue letter on January 17, 2023, she filed her complaint on February 2, 2023, within the 90-day time period. On July 2, 2024, the former judge filed an amended complaint, alleging disability discrimination and retaliation under the ADA and ADA Amendments Act of 2008, alleging that the city retaliated against her by failing to rehire her for an open municipal judge position, for complaining about discrimination, and for requesting reasonable accommodations. Included in the documents attached to her complaint was a second right-to-sue notice issued by the DOJ on August 17, 2023. The city moved to dismiss the new claims, arguing they were time-barred because the judge waited almost 10 months until she filed her amended complaint. The judge argued that she did not receive the right-to-sue notice until June 2024. The court presumed that the notice was received in August 2023, based on the email’s proper addressing and dispatch, and found that the judge failed to demonstrate equitable tolling was warranted, as she did not show diligence in following up on her charge. The court granted the motion to dismiss the additional claims (Kandt v. City of Garden City, Kansas, No. 2:23-cv-02043-DDC-TJJ (D. Kan. Mar. 19, 2025)).

D.N.H.: Former employee failed to exhaust administrative remedies. A former employee of a medical center claimed that colleagues harassed her due to her sensitivity to noise, and that her employer failed to accommodate her requests for a quieter workspace or transfer. The employee resigned in June 2021 after the employer allegedly refused to hire her for a dispatcher position, which she believed was retaliation for her complaints about harassment. She filed a charge of discrimination with both the New Hampshire Commission for Human Rights and the EEOC marking “disability” and “other” on the New Hampshire Commission cover sheet, and “disability” and “retaliation” on the EEOC cover sheet. She received a right-to-sue letter and sued the employer, alleging failure to accommodate, hostile work environment, retaliation, and wrongful termination under the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The employer moved to dismiss the ADA retaliation claim, arguing that the employee failed to exhaust administrative remedies because her charge did not adequately allege that “[the employer] refused to hire her in retaliation for her protected conduct.” The court agreed, finding the administrative filings lacked sufficient allegations that would prompt an investigation into the retaliation claim. The court granted the motion to dismiss the ADA retaliation claim (Fisher v. Southern New Hampshire Medical Center, No. 1:23-cv-00470-SE-TSM (D.N.H. Mar. 18, 2025)).

W.D. Pa.: Employee was berated by supervisor, subsequently terminated after revealing cancer diagnosis. An employee at an automotive dealership was diagnosed with colon cancer on October 10, 2023, prompting his doctor to prescribe time off from work. Despite informing his supervisor and providing the medical script, the employee was denied immediate leave and was berated by his supervisor. After notifying the company’s VP about the conversation with the supervisor, the employee was subsequently terminated on October 16, 2023, for purported performance issues, without having received prior negative reviews. The employee sued the company, alleging FMLA interference and retaliation, and ADA discrimination and failure-to-accommodate. The dealership moved to dismiss, arguing insufficient pleading. The court found the employee’s allegations adequately demonstrated interference with FMLA rights, given the supervisor’s refusal to honor his medical leave and subsequent termination upon returning to work. The court also recognized plausible claims of FMLA retaliation due to the “unusually suggestive temporal proximity” between the leave request and termination. Regarding the ADA claims, the court held that the employee sufficiently alleged an actual disability and that he requested a reasonable accommodation by seeking medical leave, which was denied. The court further rejected the argument that the ADA retaliation claim was “nothing more than a restatement of his discrimination claim.” The motion to dismiss was denied (Lishego v. Tri Star Motors, Inc., No. 2:24-cv-01458-NR (W.D. Pa. Mar. 10, 2025)).

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge Retaliation StateLawClaims Procedure