Sometimes it is not the big-ticket accommodations that land an employer in court. It is the small ones, like a few stretch breaks, that can become costly mistakes.
TL;DR: A federal judge in Illinois refused to dismiss an ADA lawsuit after an employee alleged that her employer denied requests for FMLA leave and short hourly stretch breaks to relieve pain from a foot injury, then terminated her the very next day. The court held that the allegations, if true, plausibly state claims for disability discrimination, retaliation, and failure to accommodate. Employers should take note: denying seemingly minor accommodations can set the stage for potential legal exposure.
An Employee Walks 15,000 Steps a Day
According to the complaint, the employee worked in a physically demanding role, walking about 15,000 steps per shift while lifting, stacking, and jumping off platforms. She alleged that after tearing a ligament in her foot, she developed cartilage loss, balance issues, and a painful limp. She further alleged that she repeatedly warned her manager but kept working and often exceeded expectations.
The complaint also alleged that she requested FMLA leave and asked HR to allow short hourly stretch breaks recommended by her doctor. Both requests were denied. The next day, she claimed, she was fired.
Allegations of a Limp and Cartilage Loss Were Enough
The judge refused to dismiss the complaint at the pleading stage. He explained that the ADA’s definition of disability is intentionally broad and covers substantial limits on major life activities such as standing, walking, lifting, or bending. The employee alleged that she limped slowly and stiffly on a bruised and swollen foot through eleven hour shifts, three days a week. Taking those allegations as true, the court found they were enough to plausibly state a qualifying disability.
The company argued that her condition was only intermittent or episodic. The judge disagreed. He pointed out that injuries like a sprained ankle or a fractured bone often heal and may not amount to disabilities absent surgical complications. By contrast, the complaint alleged cartilage loss, which is generally permanent. Drawing that reasonable inference in the employee’s favor was sufficient to keep the ADA claims alive at this early stage.
The judge also addressed the accommodation allegations. According to the complaint, the employee could perform essential job functions if she were allowed short hourly stretch breaks. That request, the court reasoned, could plausibly qualify as a reasonable accommodation.
The company’s insistence on more detail about when the injury began, how long it would last, or how her mobility compared to an average person was premature. Those specifics, the court said, belong in discovery, not in a motion to dismiss — even if the complaint itself seems short on substance. To underline the point, he even dropped a movie reference, quoting from The Return of the Pink Panther: “This is not the time, Cato.” That line will resonate with precisely zero Gen Zers, but the lesson is that investigative skills are for discovery, not attacking the pleading.
Four Takeaways for Employers
⚖️ Short breaks may be reasonable accommodations if they allow an employee to perform essential job functions. Employers should take these requests seriously and address them through the interactive process rather than dismissing them as trivial.
đź“„ Denials should be justified, not reflexive. If you deny an accommodation, be ready with a documented, defensible reason grounded in job duties and undue-hardship analysis.
⏳ Timing matters. Allegations that an employee was denied protected requests and then terminated the next day are classic fodder for retaliation claims.
đź“ť Pleading is not a high bar. Courts apply a broad standard at the motion-to-dismiss stage, meaning a plaintiff can survive early challenges with relatively general allegations. Employers may win later, but defending the case becomes more expensive once discovery begins.
One Last Thing
Courts continue to remind employers that the ADA’s protections are meant to be read broadly. Brushing off minor adjustments can create potential legal exposure and lead to costly litigation.