- within Employment and HR topic(s)
- with Senior Company Executives, HR and Inhouse Counsel
- in United States
- with readers working within the Business & Consumer Services, Technology and Media & Information industries
In a helpful decision for employers, the Third Circuit provided important guidance on how employers should handle leave and accommodation requests, particularly where employee misconduct is involved. In Hileman v. West Penn Allegheny Health System, Inc., the Court rejected an employee’s attempt to frame her termination as discrimination or retaliation where the employee disclosed her disability only after the employer had already begun investigating her misconduct. In doing so, the Third Circuit emphasized that “[t]he disability-discrimination and medical-leave laws are shields against discrimination, not get-out-of-discipline free cards. An employee must notify her employer of her disability and clearly communicate her desire for an accommodation or intent to take leave before her employer must accommodate her.” 182 F.4th 283 (3d Cir. 2026).
Background
The employee worked the midnight shift at a hospital and was reprimanded for excessive callouts. The written reprimand also provided information on how to ask for a disability accommodation or medical leave. Nevertheless, the employee did not request any such accommodation or leave.
In July 2022, approximately five months later, a coworker reported that the employee was sleeping on duty, conduct expressly prohibited by company policy. The employer conducted an investigation. During that investigation, the employee stated that she might have closed her eyes to relieve dry eyes caused by her diabetes medication and that the medication also caused fatigue. This was the first time the employee disclosed her diabetes diagnosis to the employer. Even then, however, the employee still did not request any kind of disability accommodation or medical leave. At the conclusion of the investigation, the employer terminated the employee for misconduct.
Procedural History
The employee sued the employer, asserting claims of disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, retaliation and wrongful termination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), as well as interference with medical leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The District Court granted summary judgment to the employer. The employee appealed to the Third Circuit.
Third Circuit Decision
The Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the employer. In affirming the District Court’s decision, the Third Circuit focused on both the timing of the employee’s statements and the content of those statements.
Specifically, the court explained that the employee “waited until the last possible moment, on the brink of being fired, to raise any work-related concerns.” As a result, the employee did not provide fair notice of any disability-related need.
In addition to timing, the court also emphasized that the employee’s statements were too vague and did not put the employer on notice. The Third Circuit distinguished this case from those in which the employee’s need for an accommodation may be more readily apparent. Where the need for an accommodation is more obvious, an employee’s vague remark may require the employer to ask follow-up questions of the employee. Here, by contrast, dry eyes and fatigue are common symptoms and there were not circumstances that would have put the employer on notice that there was a need for an accommodation.
Key Takeaways
- The ADA and FMLA do not require employers to forgive or excuse misconduct. “Except in narrow circumstances, employers may enforce neutral workplace rules even when misconduct stems from a disability.”
- No duty to speculate. Employers are “not required to hunt for a possible accommodation request that was never made” where the need for an accommodation was not obvious from visible or known facts.
- Employees must provide timely notice. The employee “never asked for an accommodation or leave or gave reasonable notice.” Notice was not reasonable where it was first raised only after the employee was confronted about misconduct.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]
