“The disability-discrimination and medical leave laws are shields against discrimination, not get-out-of-discipline-free cards.” These were the first words spoken by a federal appeals court rejecting the discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful discharge claims of an employee fired for misconduct.
Sleeping on the Job and Claimed Disability
Cheryl Hileman worked the night shift as a CT scan technician at Forbes Hospital outside of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Roughly a year into her job, she was reprimanded for too many absences. Included in the reprimand were instructions on how she could request a disability accommodation or medical leave, if necessary. She never made a request.
Five months later, Hileman’s coworker reported that she was “sleeping on duty, texting during work, and failing to stock rooms.” Hospital policy prohibited sleeping on the job or positioning oneself to sleep and warned employees that they were subject to discharge for violating the policy.
When investigating the report, Hileman’s supervisor met with her to explain the accusations and ask for her side of the story. Hileman denied sleeping but admitted she may have shut her eyes because of dry eye pain and fatigue caused by a change in diabetes medication. Importantly, this was the first time she had ever mentioned anything to her employer about diabetes, diabetes medication, dry eyes, or fatigue. Later, she emailed her supervisor and told him she was “praying for improvement and adjusting the medication.” When Forbes Hospital fired her for violating its no sleeping policy, she sued her former employer for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Claimed Disability Doesn’t Save Fired Employee
According to the federal appeals court, at least two factors doomed Hileman’s allegation that her discharge was retaliatory, wrongful, and violative of the ADA.
First, Hileman didn’t raise anything about her alleged disability until after her misconduct. To prove her ADA claim, she was required to establish that the hospital knew she needed an accommodation and improperly failed to provide it. When an employer knows of the potential need for accommodation because the disability is obvious or because of an employee’s comments, then the employer has a greater responsibility to consider and discuss possible accommodation.
That isn’t the case if there are no observable impairments or disclosures by the employee that would put the employer on notice of a possible disability. Here, Hileman never mentioned her diabetic condition, treatment, or associated limitations. More importantly, she waited until she was on the brink of discharge to raise any disability-related issues.
Second, Hileman violated the hospital’s no sleeping rule. Even if her statements to her supervisor were treated as an accommodation request, or if her employer considered her truly disabled under the ADA, the hospital was entitled to enforce its no sleeping rule and wasn’t required to excuse her misconduct. According to the court, “Except in narrow circumstances, employers may enforce neutral workplace rules even when misconduct stems from a disability.” Hileman v. West Penn Allegheny Health Systems Inc., d/b/a Forbes Hospital, 25-1459 (3rd Cir., 7/20/26).
Considerations
Invariably, employment issues turn on the facts of a particular situation, and Hileman trying to play the ADA disability card at the eleventh hour certainly called into question the credibility of her claims.
Timing can be key. When faced with performance or misconduct issues with an employee who raises a health condition as an explanation for their shortcomings, it’s important to keep in mind when you knew or should have known of a possible disability. Also, even if an employee has a known health condition, you must determine whether the employee clearly violated a work rule that had been consistently enforced for other employees.
Charlie Plumb is an attorney in the Tulsa office of McAfee & Taft and can be reached at charlie.plumb@mcafeetaft.com.