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.

Can I Fire Someone for That? Common Myths That Get Employers Sued

By The Royal Law Firm • August 19, 2025
Employers regularly wonder: “Can I fire someone for that?” You might assume the answer is simple, especially in an at-will state like Massachusetts. But the reality is more complex. Missteps can land your business in court. Here’s how to avoid them and keep your company focused on growth, not litigation. Myth: “At-Will Means Any Reason Goes” At-will employment allows termination without contractual cause. Yet anti-discrimination laws and retaliation protections still apply. Even a valid reason, like poor performance, becomes risky if the employee recently complained about harassment, requested an accommodation, or reported a safety issue. Terminating soon after a complaint invites legal trouble. For example, consider firing Sarah for repeated tardiness. But what if she reported sexual harassment a few weeks earlier? Timing alone can create exposure. Document performance issues as they arise. Also, check if the employee recently returned from Family and Medical Leave (FMLA) or Paid Family and Medical Leave (PFML). A Springfield auto repair shop faced a claim after firing a worker the day after he returned from PFML to care for his newborn. The company blamed tardiness, but the timing triggered months of legal headaches. Myth: “No Documentation Needed” Some employers assume that no paperwork is necessary under at-will rules. That approach creates unnecessary risk. Without records, even lawful firings appear questionable. Weak evidence damages credibility. Imagine Tom, a low performer who never received formal feedback. If you fire him after years of positive reviews, expect scrutiny. Always provide timely written warnings and accurate performance evaluations. Keep emails, attendance records, and coaching notes. Would your records persuade a jury that the termination was justified? Myth: “We Treated Everyone Fairly” Fair treatment requires consistency. If one employee is fired and another is only warned for the same violation, questions follow. Consider two salespeople, Mike and Jose, both caught inflating sales numbers. Mike receives a warning. Jose gets fired. If Jose claims racial bias, inconsistent discipline strengthens his argument. Review prior disciplinary decisions. Can you show a clear record of equal treatment? Myth: “We Can Share the Reason Widely” Managers sometimes explain a termination too broadly, believing transparency protects the company. In reality, public disclosure creates legal risk. An employee fired for theft sued his employer after leadership announced it to the entire staff. Even truthful statements, shared excessively or with ill will, can spark defamation claims. A local example: a Chicopee retailer emailed all employees naming a worker fired for alleged cash shortages. That email became Exhibit A in court. Limit disclosure to those who truly need to know. Avoiding Retaliation Claims Retaliation is the most common EEOC claim. Firing someone after they complain about discrimination, request leave, or raise pay concerns often leads to lawsuits. Subtle actions can count too—cutting hours, assigning undesirable shifts, or excluding them from meetings. Did Lisa report a wage issue last week? If she now gets the worst shifts, her attorney will call it punishment. Train managers to pause and ask: “Does this look like payback?” In one Springfield restaurant, a server who complained about tips was fired days later for “attitude.” The MCAD viewed the timing as retaliation, and the case settled quickly. Managing the Termination Meeting Professionally How you fire someone matters. Keep the meeting short and calm. Speak plainly. Avoid debate. Bring a neutral witness, usually HR. Disable system access and collect company property immediately. For remote workers, coordinate IT to end access during the call. Have you prepared your team to stay composed when an employee gets angry or upset? A concise, professional exit reduces emotion and litigation risk. Reducing Risks Before They Occur You can prevent most legal problems with proactive steps. Train managers to document consistently. Encourage employees to raise concerns early, and respond appropriately when they do. Also, follow Massachusetts requirements: final wages and accrued vacation must be paid promptly, sometimes the same day. Missing or delaying a payment can trigger penalties. Review whether your managers apply standards uniformly. Track disciplinary trends by department or supervisor. In one Holyoke warehouse, inconsistent discipline across shifts led to multiple claims that could have been avoided with routine audits. Quick Pre-Termination Checklist Document the issue in writing. Confirm whether the employee recently exercised protected rights (complaint, FMLA, PFML, workers’ comp). Ensure similar cases were handled consistently. Complete a fair investigation and allow the employee to respond. Prepare final pay and unused vacation in compliance with Massachusetts law. Bottom Line Employee terminations happen. Legal trouble does not have to. Careful documentation, consistent actions, and thoughtful communication protect your business. Before acting, stop and ask: have we done this right? Taking these steps helps you confidently answer, “Can I fire someone for that?” That answer should never rest on guesswork. Michael P. Lewis, is an attorney who specializes in labor and employment-law matters at the Royal Law Firm LLP , a woman-owned, women-managed corporate law firm that is certified as a women’s business enterprise with the Massachusetts Supplier Diversity Office, the National Assoc. of Minority and Women Owned Law Firms, and the Women’s Business Enterprise National Council. 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. Michael P. Lewis wrote this article which was featured in BusinessWest. Click here to visit their website.

The Royal Law Firm Attorneys Receive Finding of No Reasonable Cause at CHRO.

By The Royal Law Firm • August 18, 2025
Royal attorneys successfully obtained a dismissal at the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities. The Complainant alleged discrimination based on race, color and mental disability. Royal attorneys argued that the Complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and complainant could not prove that they experienced an adverse employment action. The CHRO agreed with our argument and dismissed the case against our client due to a lack of reasonable cause.