Employee’s leave protected by ADA

In October 2023, Stephen received a call from his doctor telling him that he tested positive for colon cancer. Stephen told his boss and HR that he needed to take 3 days off because of his cancer diagnosis, and he presented a medical note from his doctor.

His boss said to Stephen, “Are you f** kidding me? Your obligations are here.” HR reminded Stephen that the company is in “peak workload season.”

Four days after requesting leave, and on Stephen’s first day back to work, the employer fired him. Afterward, Stephen’s follow-up tests showed that he didn’t have colon cancer and that the test produced a false positive.

Stephen sued his former employer, arguing that the employer violated both the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

The employer argued in court that, because Stephen didn’t actually have cancer, he didn’t have ADA job protections.

The court disagreed. It said that there was evidence that the employer regarded or perceived Stephen as being impaired by cancer. It didn’t matter whether the impairment limited or was perceived to limit a major life activity; it was enough that the perceived impairment would be expected to last longer than 6 months and wasn’t otherwise minor. Colon cancer is neither minor nor would an employer expect colon cancer to only last a few months.

The court considered that the employer fired Stephen only 4 days after he announced his medical issue. The employer claimed it had a legitimate reason for firing Stephen: He performed poorly at his job, and sales records supported that claim.

But a jury could find this as pretext for the termination. The supervisor’s and HR’s response to Stephen’s announcement didn’t help the employer’s argument.

The court did, however, rule in the employer’s favor, saying that it didn’t violate the FMLA. Stephen didn’t have a serious medical condition as defined under the FMLA because he didn’t actually have cancer, so his FMLA claims failed.

Lishego v. Tri Star Motors, Inc., Western District of Pennsylvania, No. 2:24-CV-1458, August 5, 2026.

Court decisions are based on the specific facts presented and each court’s interpretation of the law. Because courts may reach different conclusions, similar situations can lead to different outcomes. Employers should avoid relying on a single case as definitive guidance and instead assess each situation carefully, considering applicable laws and seeking advice when needed.