Shifting Explanations and Delays in ADA Accommodations Keep Summary Judgement at Bay

May 22, 2025

Background

April 22, 2025, the United States District Court for the District of Pennsylvania denied Defendants, Jabil, Inc. and Jabil Brandywine, Inc’s Motion for Summary Judgment. In their Motion, Defendants sought dismissal of the case in its entirety.


Plaintiff, Maurice Young, began his employment with the Defendants in June 2019. Young had taken two extended leaves of absence during his employment because of the osteoarthritis in his hips; this limits his ability to stand, sit, and walk. Plaintiff’s disability insurance was exhausted in June 2022. On June 27, 2022, the Plaintiff texted Jabil’s Senior Regional Human Resources Manager, Jennifer Guie, and asked to return to work part-time and on light duty. On either June 28 or 29, 2022, Guie responded that the Plaintiff needed to complete medical paperwork so that the Defendants could determine an accommodation for his return to work. The following day, Guie sent a follow-up letter to the Plaintiff which included the required paperwork.  On July 18, 2022, the Plaintiff submitted the paperwork to Guie, almost two weeks past the due date. Guie did not communicate with Plaintiff further until September 12, 2022, when she requested additional documentation to support the part-time work request.


The Plaintiff continued to see no movement in his accommodation requests, so he reached out to Guie on October 26, 2022 to inquire as to the status of his request. On October 28, 2022, Guie sent out a letter informing the Plaintiff that Jabil, Inc. could not accommodate the requests and that they could not identify a vacant position to transfer him to that he was qualified for; the letter included a termination date of November 1, 2022. On October 29, 2022, the Plaintiff applied for an internal opening at Jabil, Inc. for an Engineering Technician I. This was a role of similar pay and requiring similar experience as the Plaintiff’s current role. The Plaintiff emailed Guie and requested he be placed in the open job as his accommodation. In response, Guie messaged the recruiter responsible for filling the position to ask that they not reject Plaintiff’s application until the position was filled because it was an internal candidate. Guie emailed the Plaintiff on November 1, 2022 that Jabil, Inc. could not accommodate that request, and that the Plaintiff’s employment was officially terminated. Guie did not explain to the Plaintiff why they had diverged from company policy to either hold an official interview for internal applications or have a conversation on record about their application.


The Case


The Plaintiff is seeking remedy under two counts of the ADA: Count I - Failure to Accommodate and Count II – Retaliation. The Defendants argued that their employment actions were lawful and non-discriminatory. The Defendants claimed that the Plaintiff would be unable to do the repetitive hand movements required in his previous role as well as in the new position he had applied for. The Defendants also claimed that when reviewing Plaintiff’s medical paperwork, they had come to the conclusion that having Plaintiff on-site would be a safety hazard to himself and others. The Defendants sought dismissal of the case via their Motion for Summary Judgment, and were denied with several issues cited. The court found issue with the repetitive hand movements that the Defendants claimed were a factor in refusing to return the employee to his role or moving him to a new role. The Defendants could not clearly define the job requirements, how often the hand movements referred to were required, and if they were necessary.


The judge found issue with the Defendants claims that it was a safety hazard to bring the Plaintiff back because of his disability. The employer did not conduct an individualized assessment as required under the ADA, and could not accurately explain how they came to their conclusion. The judge found that the inconsistency in process and treatment regarding the Plaintiff’s internal application could support the finding of bad faith in handling the accommodation request. Finally, the judge found that the existing evidence could lead a jury to find a casual connection to a retaliation finding. The company’s communication with the Plaintiff had been inconsistent, and testimony from HR and the employee’s direct supervisor contradicted each other on what the job requirements were.


Takeaway

·       The processes used for employees to seek accommodation(s) need to be transparent and timely. Uncommunicated delays could be a poor process but could give credence to discrimination claims.

·       Job functions should be documented and kept up to date.

·       Rejection of accommodation(s) should be explained fully and documented extensively. Changing reasons and/or unsubstantiated decisions can be the difference between a dismissal or an expensive jury trial.

 

If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

The Royal Law Firm recently welcomed Michael P. Lewis to its team!

July 14, 2025
Welcome Michael!

Remote Workers and the WARN Act

July 9, 2025
Background: The e-commerce website Zulily liquidated in May 2023 and laid off its entire workforce by the end of 2023. While in-person workers at Zulily’s Seattle headquarters and fulfillment centers in Ohio and Nevada received 60 days’ notice or pay under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, remote employees were not given any notice or pay. Four remote workers—two based in Washington and two based in Ohio—filed a class action lawsuit claiming that this was a violation of the WARN Act and state wage laws. The workers argued that because their roles were assigned to corporate offices or fulfillment centers, they should have been considered “affected employees” under the WARN Act when those sites closed. In a decision that could signal a significant shift in how the WARN Act applies to remote workers, the federal judge refused to dismiss the workers’ claims.  Key Legal Questions 1. Do Remote Workers Qualify for WARN Act Protections? The core of the dispute centers on whether remote workers can be considered part of a “single site of employment” that closed or experienced a mass layoff—terms that define whether the WARN Act’s notice requirements kick in. 2. Are WARN Act Damages Considered “Wages”? The Plaintiffs also brought state wage claims, arguing that the pay they would have received with proper WARN Act notice should be considered unpaid “wages” under Washington law and Ohio law. What the Court Decided: Judge Kymberly K. Evanson rejected the company’s motion to dismiss the case. Finding that Zulily’s argument that remote employees do not work at a single site with 50 or more workers and thus aren’t covered, was a factual question not suitable for early dismissal. Prior cases support the idea that even home-based employees may be “affected employees” if tied to a central worksite that shuts down. The court also found that if the WARN Act applies, then the Plaintiffs could plausibly claim that Zulily withheld “wages” owed under Washington and Ohio laws —opening the door to potential double damages and attorney fees. The Plaintiffs haven’t won their case; the court’s refusal to dismiss the claims allows them to move forward to discovery and potentially class certification. If they succeed, the case could set a precedent requiring companies to treat remote employees as part of larger employment sites for WARN Act purposes. With remote work here to stay, courts—and employers—will need to grapple with what "site of employment" really means in the 21st-century workforce. For employers, the message is clear: remote doesn't mean exempt. As the legal framework catches up with modern work arrangements, companies must tread carefully when making large-scale employment decisions. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.