Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WORTH NOTING—Recent developments involving disability discrimination, (Jan 23, 2026)

By WK Editorial Staff

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

D. Conn.: Context free, stray remark insufficient to support discrimination claims. A university employee alleged that she was terminated by the university “due to her age and her... disabilities (brain and liver).” She also alleged that an unidentified employee stated that she was “not as sharp as she used to be,” and that the university failed to rehire her after she applied for multiple internal positions. She sued the university, alleging disability discrimination under the ADA and the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (CFEPA), and age discrimination under the ADEA and CFEPA. The university moved to dismiss the complaint. The court held that the employee “failed to allege facts that could show that any adverse action was imposed because of her disability,” and failed to provide facts to support her age discrimination claims, noting that, as to the alleged statement, the employee failed to “provide any information about either the employee who made the remark or the context in which the remark was made.” The court granted the motion to dismiss (Shuby v. Yale University, No. 3:25-cv-645 (AWT) (D. Conn. Jan. 8, 2026)).

N.D. Ill.: Damages awarded for employee who was required to undergo fitness for duty exam after altercations. After a corrections officer was placed on paid leave in 2016 following several workplace altercations and was required by his employer, Cook County, Illinois, to undergo a fitness for duty examination before returning to work, the officer sued the county. The officer alleged that the county’s actions “violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits an employer from requiring a medical examination unless it is ‘job-related and consistent with business necessity.’” A jury later found the employer liable but awarded no damages, prompting the officer to seek equitable relief, including back pay, pension contributions, and restoration of seniority and leave time. Following a partial reversal by the Seventh Circuit and the Supreme Court’s denial of further review, the officer moved for entry of judgment. Regarding back pay, the court awarded lost wages reduced by interim earnings and county paid insurance premiums; granted prejudgment interest in the amount of $16,101.56; ordered that pension contributions be processed; required restoration of accrued vacation, holiday, compensatory, sick, and seniority days; and directed the parties to follow the local rules for determining attorney fees petitions and cross-petitions. The court ultimately entered judgment in favor of the officer in the amount of $41,535.86 and retained limited jurisdiction to ensure restoration of pension contributions (Nawara v. County of Cook, No. 1:17 C 2393 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 15, 2026)).

D. Md.: Disability discrimination suit proceeds after police department’s timeliness, immunity arguments fail. A police academy trainee performed well in training until a supervisor raised concerns about his “perceived disability”—a slight limp that the trainee alleged “‘does not impair’ his ‘ability to walk, run, or perform any of the essential duties required of him as a police officer.’” He was subjected to repeated medical evaluations; placed on permanent light duty status “with no hope of ever returning to the police academy and becoming a certified police officer”; removed from the academy; and left to work at a front desk for 127 days where he was “subject to ‘continuous ridicule, mockery, and demeaning comments,’” prompting his resignation on July 1, 2024. He filed an EEOC charge, received a right-to sue-letter, and sued the police department, alleging disability discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive termination under the ADA and the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act (MFEPA). The department moved to dismiss, arguing the trainee filed his ADA and MFEPA claims too late, failed to satisfy the Local Government Tort Claims Act’s (LGTCA) notice requirement, and could not sue because the department was protected by State sovereign immunity. The court held the suit was timely because it was filed within 90 days of the EEOC right to sue notice; found that the trainee’s April 2025 written notice met the LGTCA’s one year limitations period; and ruled that the police department no longer qualifies as a state agency and therefore cannot invoke state sovereign immunity. The motion was denied (Corrigan v. Baltimore Police Department, No. ELH-24-03497 (D. Md. Jan. 9, 2026)).

D. Vt.: Software engineer failed to state plausible Rehabilitation Act, unlawful termination claims. A software engineer with a developmental disability alleged that his employer abruptly moved him from software engineering to sales in 2023 without training, denied his later accommodation request for reassignment to a software engineer position, and ended his employment in early 2024. The software engineer sued the company, alleging violations of Vermont's Fair Employment Practices Act (VFEPA), the ADA, and the Rehabilitation Act, as well as unlawful termination in violation of public policy. The employer filed a partial motion to dismiss, targeting the Rehabilitation Act and unlawful termination claims. The court dismissed the Rehabilitation Act claim because the complaint asserted federal funding only in a conclusory manner and did not plead facts showing the employer received federal financial assistance, which is required under Section 504. The court also dismissed the unlawful termination claim because it was preempted by the VFEPA, and the remaining allegations “describe[d] purely private concerns” that did not implicate a clear and compelling public policy under Vermont law. The employee was granted leave to amend (Leute v. International Business Machines Corporation, No. 2:25-cv-00656-cr (D. Vt. Jan. 8, 2026)).

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination AgeDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge EmployeeLeave PublicEmployees Procedure RemediesDamages