Search
The Employer Handbook Blog
This ADA Case Is a Checklist of What Not to Do
A machine operator with osteoarthritis tried to return to work with restrictions. Instead, he got terminated. Now his ADA case is headed for trial.
TL;DR: A federal court just denied summary judgment in an ADA case involving a machine operator who asked to return from disability leave with light-duty restrictions. The employer delayed acting on his paperwork, denied the accommodation, ignored his internal job application, and gave inconsistent explanations for both his termination and the rejection. Now the entire case—including punitive damages—is going to trial.
From Leave to Let Go: A Timeline of Missteps
The employee had worked as a machine operator for several years. His osteoarthritis limited his ability to stand and walk, and he took two extended medical leaves. When his disability benefits ran out, he requested to return on a light-duty, part-time basis.
The company responded with paperwork for the employee to complete. After he returned the forms, two months passed before HR asked for more information. Just days after he followed up on the status of his request, the company denied the accommodation and terminated him, claiming no suitable position was available.
Except there was. He had applied for an open Engineering Technician role just days earlier and asked to be transferred into it as an accommodation. Still, no interview. No transfer. Just a termination letter.
Inconsistencies, Omissions, and a Possible Pretext
In denying the company’s motion for summary judgment, the judge flagged several issues:
- HR had not determined essential job functions.
The employer emphasized the need for repetitive hand motion and traceability in the machine operator role. But the employee challenged whether these tasks were truly essential, and HR couldn’t clearly define the job’s requirements—creating a factual dispute for trial. - No real evidence of a direct threat.
The company argued that the employee posed a safety risk if he returned to work, but the court found no concrete evidence that his disability created a direct threat to himself or others. The judge noted that the employer failed to conduct an individualized assessment as required under the ADA. - Internal transfer rejection raised red flags.
Despite being an internal candidate for a posted job, the employee received no interview. He had proactively applied for the role and was, by the company’s own practice, supposed to be interviewed or at least engaged in a conversation. But instead of consulting the recruiter or hiring manager, HR conferred only with in-house counsel and then messaged the recruiter with instructions to delay rejecting his application until the role was filled. That inconsistency—not just in process but in treatment—suggested pretext and could support a finding of bad faith in handling the accommodation request. - Inconsistencies could support a retaliation finding.
The court found that while timing alone wasn’t suggestive of retaliation, other evidence could lead a jury to find a causal connection. Notably, the company gave inconsistent explanations for both the termination and the denial of a transfer. The HR manager couldn’t explain why two additional job functions—used to justify the termination—were added only in the final termination letter, and one of those tasks directly contradicted the testimony of the employee’s supervisor. The company also claimed the employee was unqualified for the Engineering Technician position, yet delayed rejecting his application and failed to offer the standard interview typically afforded to internal candidates. Taken together, this pattern of shifting justifications could support a finding of pretext and retaliation.
Takeaways for employers and HR pros:
✅ Revisit and document essential job functions. Don’t just rely on a dusty job description.
✅ The interactive process should be timely and transparent. Silence or delay can look like indifference—or worse.
✅ Don’t dismiss internal candidates who seek reassignment as a form of accommodation. If you turn them down, be able to explain why.
✅ In ADA cases, inconsistent documentation or shifting explanations can be the difference between dismissal and a jury trial.
Bottom line: This case shows how a jury could view delays, unclear job expectations, and inconsistent explanations as evidence of bad faith under the ADA. Employers don’t have to create new jobs or accept every proposed accommodation—but they do need to respond promptly, document clearly, and treat internal candidates fairly. When they don’t, they risk defending those decisions in court.