The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits employers from discriminating against a qualified individual on the basis of disability and requires reasonable accommodations for qualified individuals with disabilities. Once an employee discloses a medical condition, the employer must engage in an interactive process—and terminating that employee soon afterward can raise red flags. As one Arizona employer recently learned, an accreditation survey gone sideways may look like an airtight, nondiscriminatory reason for a manager’s termination, but the U.S District Court for the District of Arizona found the employer’s stated reason needed more than a diagnosis—it needed supporting documentation.
Case History
Dr. Ronald Mogaka served as Director of Nursing (DON) for Physician’s Management Employee Leasing Company (PMPH) from January 2023 until his termination that December. Mogaka, who has colorectal cancer, alleged he informed PMPH of his diagnosis and requested time off for doctor’s appointments, but his requests were twice denied, and he was terminated shortly after.
PMPH countered that Mogaka was terminated because the hospital had received an unfavorable Joint Commission survey and a preliminary denial of accreditation (PDA), along with unspecified “overall poor performance.” PMPH asked the court for judgment in its favor on, among other claims, Mogaka’s ADA claims for wrongful termination and failure to accommodate.
Diagnosing Wrongful Termination Under the ADA
To state a case for wrongful termination under the ADA, Mogaka had to show: (1) he is disabled; (2) he was qualified for the position; and (3) he suffered an adverse employment action because of his disability. This initial bar is low—an employee need only offer evidence giving rise to an inference of discrimination.
PMPH didn’t dispute the first two elements, and the court found termination just two weeks after Mogaka’s leave request satisfied the third. Once that minimal showing is made, the burden shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for termination—and if it does so, the employee must then show the employer’s stated reason is pretextual (a cover for an unlawful reason).
Diagnosis Without a Test
PMPH pointed to the PDA and unspecified performance issues as its reasons. But it never produced evidence tying the accreditation citation to Mogaka’s department—in fact, the Joint Commission’s report didn’t list nursing services among its cited deficiencies. Nor could PMPH point to any documented write-ups or history of progressive discipline consistent with its own personnel policy, despite claiming Mogaka’s termination paperwork reflected performance concerns.
This absence of a “paper trail” was enough to support a claim of pretext, and the court denied PMPH’s request for judgment on the wrongful termination claim.
Failure To Accommodate: Prescription for an Interactive Process
A failure-to-accommodate claim requires an employee to show: (1) he is disabled; (2) he is a qualified individual able to perform the essential job functions; and (3) he suffered an adverse employment action because of his disability. Once an employer learns an employee needs an accommodation, it has a mandatory obligation to engage in an interactive process to identify one—and a leave of absence for medical treatment can itself qualify as a reasonable accommodation, even where success isn’t guaranteed.
No Time Off for Good Behavior
Mogaka alleged PMPH failed to accommodate his cancer by repeatedly denying him leave for doctor’s appointments and never engaging in an interactive process after he disclosed his diagnosis. PMPH argued he never submitted a written request, provided no medical documentation, and could have used paid time off (PTO) instead.
None of this persuaded the court. Accommodation requests need not be in writing, and evidence suggested Mogaka was discouraged from using PTO for a scheduled appointment. That claim proceeds to trial as well.
Rx for Employers
An accreditation citation, standing alone, isn’t a substitute for documentation. Before relying on a compliance failure as grounds for termination, you should be able to produce the underlying report tying the deficiency to the employee and should follow your progressive discipline policies—or document a clear justification for bypassing them. When an employee discloses a serious medical condition, treat any related request, however informal, as a trigger for the interactive process. A well-documented, consistently applied decision is far more likely to survive scrutiny than one built on the assumption the employee should have “known better.”
Jodi R. Bohr is a shareholder with Milligan Lawless, P.C., and a contributor to Arizona Employment Law Letter. She practices employment and labor law, with an emphasis on counseling employers on HR matters, litigation, and workplace investigations. She may be reached at jodi@milliganlawless.com or 602-792-3549.