Blogs

Third Circuit reinforces that ADA and FMLA protections are not a safe harbor from workplace misconduct

7/28/26

By: Sunshine Fellows

In a significant decision for employers, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently reaffirmed that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) protect employees from discrimination, not from legitimate discipline for workplace misconduct. In Hileman v. West Penn Allegheny Health System Inc., the court held that an employee who first disclosed her disability only after being confronted about misconduct, and who never requested a reasonable accommodation or medical leave, could not transform a disciplinary termination into a viable disability discrimination or leave interference claim. As Judge Bibas succinctly stated at the outset of the opinion, ”[t]he disability discrimination and medical leave laws are shields against discrimination, not get-out-of-discipline-free cards.”

Background of the case

The plaintiff, a CT technologist employed by a hospital, was investigated after a coworker reported that she had been sleeping while on duty, texting during work, and neglecting required job responsibilities. During the employer’s investigation, the employee denied sleeping but explained that a recent change in her diabetes medication had caused fatigue and dry eyes. Notably, this was the first time she disclosed that she had diabetes, despite having been diagnosed before beginning her employment. She never requested a reasonable accommodation or medical leave before or after the investigation, and the employer terminated her employment for violating its neutral policy prohibiting employees from sleeping on duty. The employee subsequently brought claims under the ADA, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA), and the FMLA, alleging disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, retaliation, wrongful termination, and interference with medical leave.

The Third Circuit’s decision

The Third Circuit unanimously affirmed summary judgment for the employer. The court emphasized that an employer’s duty to provide a reasonable accommodation arises only after the employer has sufficient notice that an employee both has a disability and needs an accommodation. Likewise, employees seeking foreseeable FMLA leave must provide appropriate notice of their intent to take leave. Here, the employee did neither. Simply mentioning a medical condition while responding to allegations of misconduct did not amount to a request for an accommodation or leave, nor did it obligate the employer to infer that one was needed. The court further explained that employers are not required to speculate about potential disabilities or search for accommodations that have never been requested. Finally, the court held that the ADA does not require employers to excuse violations of neutral workplace rules merely because the misconduct may have been related to a disability. Because the employer had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the termination (sleeping on the job), and the employee presented no evidence of pretext, all of her claims failed.

Employer takeaways and practical implications

The Hileman decision provides welcome guidance for employers navigating the intersection of disability accommodations, medical leave, and employee discipline. First, while employers must respond appropriately when employees request accommodations or provide sufficient notice of the need for leave, they are generally not required to infer such requests from vague references to medical conditions. Second, employers remain entitled to enforce consistently applied, neutral workplace policies, even when an employee later contends that misconduct was related to a disability. Finally, the case underscores the importance of maintaining well-documented disciplinary processes, clearly communicating accommodation and leave procedures to employees, and applying workplace rules consistently across the workforce.

Although employers should continue engaging in the interactive process whenever an employee clearly communicates a need for assistance, Hileman confirms that disability laws do not shield employees from legitimate disciplinary action simply because a medical condition is disclosed after misconduct has already occurred.

For more information on this topic, please contact Sunshine Fellows or your local FMG relationship partner.

Information conveyed herein should not be construed as legal advice or represent any specific or binding policy or procedure of any organization. Information provided is for educational purposes only. These materials are written in a general format and not intended to be advice applicable to any specific circumstance. Legal opinions may vary when based on subtle factual distinctions. All rights reserved. No part of this presentation may be reproduced, published or posted without the written permission of Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP.