Background
Cheryl Hileman worked the midnight shift performing CAT scans at Forbes Hospital. After previously being reprimanded for excessive absences and advised how to request disability accommodation or medical leave, she was reported for nodding off on duty, texting during work, and failing to stock rooms. Hospital policy prohibited sleeping or positioning oneself to sleep while on duty.
During the ensuing investigation, Hileman denied sleeping but said she might have closed her eyes because a change in her diabetes medication caused dry eye and fatigue. This was her first disclosure of diabetes to the hospital. She did not request an accommodation or medical leave, and West Penn fired her for misconduct. She sued under the ADA, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, and the Family and Medical Leave Act, but the District Court granted West Penn summary judgment.
On appeal, Hileman also moved to supplement the record with materials available to her but not submitted at summary judgment. The Third Circuit denied that request and found that the motion contained misquotations. After giving her attorney, Joshua P. Ward, an opportunity to respond, the court ordered him personally to reimburse West Penn $14,636.50 in attorney’s fees and barred him from passing that cost to Hileman.
The Court’s Holding
The Third Circuit affirmed. It held that an employee must give the employer adequate notice of a disability-related need and communicate a desire for assistance before the employer must provide an accommodation. Although no formal procedure or “magic words” are required, Hileman’s disclosure of diabetes while responding to a misconduct investigation did not make clear that she wanted an accommodation. Her need was not otherwise obvious, and West Penn was not required to search for an unexpressed request.
Her FMLA interference claim likewise failed because she never requested medical leave or supplied reasonable notice of an intent to take it. Her comments about adjusting medication and hoping her condition would improve did not communicate an intent to take leave.
The court further held that the ADA did not require West Penn to excuse misconduct under its neutral rule against sleeping on duty. West Penn supplied a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the termination, and Hileman offered no evidence of pretext or of comparable employees who were reported and investigated but treated more favorably. That conclusion also defeated her discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful-termination claims.
Key Takeaways
- An accommodation request requires no special wording, but the employee must make clear that disability-related assistance is wanted unless the need is already obvious from known facts.
- Merely disclosing a medical condition during a disciplinary investigation does not automatically notify an employer of a request for accommodation or FMLA leave.
- Employers generally may enforce neutral workplace rules against disability-related misconduct, and a last-minute disability disclosure does not erase an otherwise legitimate basis for discipline.
- Appellate counsel must verify quotations and citations; failure to do so can result in sanctions payable personally by counsel.
Why It Matters
The decision draws a practical boundary around an employer’s duty to accommodate: employers must respond to disability-related needs that employees communicate or that are evident from known circumstances, but they need not speculate that ordinary workplace problems conceal a disability.
It also reinforces that disability and medical-leave statutes do not immunize employees from neutral discipline already underway. Separately, the sanctions ruling underscores that counsel remains responsible for checking court filings even when research or drafting is delegated to a clerk, non-attorney, or technological tool.