Below is a review of the posts on Facebook and LinkedIn from the past week. You can check out the full posts by clicking on the links.
NOTE: remember that we now post every other day.
The posts on Monday 3/2/2026, here and here, noted federal appeals court finds driver’s heart condition not a disability under the ADA. While the law is broad, it is not all-encompassing.
The recent ruling came out of the 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals. The plaintiff in Stephens v. U.S. Environmental Services LLC claimed refusal to perform work that could aggravate his atrial fibrillation, which limited breathing as well as respiratory, circulatory and cardiovascular function. But a nurse who examined Stephens at the employer’s request determined he was medically and physically fit to perform the work. And then Stephens’ cardiologist agreed.
During the exam period, Stephens’s commercial driver’s license was placed on hold and he asked to perform other work. The employer denied his request, and he resigned for the reason noted in the post. Then he alleged disability discrimination and retaliation including failure-to-accommodate. The district court granted summary judgment to the employer and the 8th Circuit affirmed. Let’s go deeper.
And start with the ADA’s disability definition. Per EEOC guidance, disability is defined as noted in the post. The ADA protects individuals who have a record of such an impairment as well as those who are regarded as having such an impairment.
And the definition of major life activity is also broad – see the link in the post. The ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) provides a non-exhaustive list of activities as well as a list of major bodily functions that meet the law’s criteria.
But even under the broad definition Stephens did not qualify. While he had an “abnormal” electrocardiogram, or EKG, performed by the nurse that resulted in a hold being placed on his CDL, both the nurse and cardiologist determined that Stephens was fit to perform other work (and more as noted in the post). That was not the end. The nurse asked Stephens to perform a stress test supervised by the cardiologist. How that turned out is in the post. The cardiologist cleared Stephens to resume his commercial driver duties. The court pointed to all of this in determining that Stephens did not have a disability.
Stephens’ failure-to-accommodate claim also failed. He alleged that he requested a respirator prior to cleaning a pair of underground tanks — work that would have normally fallen outside his job as a driver — but was required by safety workers on the scene to perform the task without a respirator, which he did. The court gave a different story: see the post. Ultimately the court determined that the respirator request was a request for general safety equipment available to all employees and not a reasonable accommodation request. Why did that make a difference? See the post.
So what can employers do with this holding? Remember their obligations under the ADA and what they can and cannot do or say or request.
TAKEAWAY: If a worker who is disabled under the ADA requests accommodation, a covered employer must start the interactive accommodation process, but it can ask for certain information. Get an employment lawyer involved to stay within legal bounds.
The posts on Wednesday 3/4/2026, here and here, told us about healthcare worker dispute with HOA over snow removal and parking access. As in any community association, the starting point may be the governing documents’ provisions on who has responsibility to remove the snow (and also what the contractor did).
Amanda Williamson, a healthcare worker, was unable to park in front of her home because her reserved parking spot was buried under a large pile of compacted snow and ice. She works nights and so it is hard for her to communicate about the issue other than how she did (see the post).
Williamson’s homeowner’s association hired a snow removal company that pushed snow in front of her house, completely covering her reserved parking spot. Without that spot, she often came home from work to find no spots available. She reached out to the snow removal company, the HOA, and management company to try to figure out what to do next. She was told snow removal from her parking space is her responsibility. Williamson’s comments about what was done, and the potential cost to remove the snow, are in the post. The HOA responded, saying (in part), “Property Management has been in contact with this homeowner. The snow removal contractor did the best it could in the tightly spaced area to minimize impact on parking during snow removal. … Our snow removal policy … responsibility of cleaning individual parking spots on the residents … other residents had cleaned their individual spots but hers still had the accumulated snow … Parking spots are available in front of the unit in question and have been in use by the resident during this time as well as neighbors sharing their available extra spots….” For the entire comment, see the post.
The management company also responded, basically just deflecting. That comment is also in the post.
While some parking spots were still snow-covered when this came to a head, none faced such large amounts of snow piled and plowed into parking spots like Williamson’s. Her comment about that (which is probably true) is in the post.
After interviewing with the media, Williamson received an email from the management company noting that the vendor had plans to revisit the community in a day or two.
TAKEAWAY: Snow and ice removal in community associations is often chaotic, even where winter weather is the norm. Boards are at the mercy of the contracted vendors, so residents need to be understanding if there is a delay (or lack) in performance. Contact a community association lawyer for assistance.
The posts on Friday 3/6/2026, here and here, explained that manager’s repeated dining invites were not harassment, federal court holds. Facts matter. Yep, we gotta take a closer look at this.
The plaintiff in Wargo v. MJR Patridge Creek Digital Cinema 14 cited numerous invites, which she declined, as evidence of hostile work environment harassment. The invites included text messages to her private phone number in which the manager allegedly said, in part, that he would teach her “all that I know” and “[y]ou just have to trust me, and my methods.” Wargo claimed that the messages contained sexual undertones, but the federal appeals court disagreed. It found that that the messages came immediately after a routine work discussion. How that and other facts played into the finding of lack of evidence of severe or pervasive harassment or failure of a reasonable person to believe that the workplace was hostile or abusive is in the post and key to this roadmap.
In its analysis, the Court noted the theater’s response to Wargo’s internal complaint. The complaint followed the alleged altercation between the two in which Wargo claimed the manager slammed a piece of paper and, in an effort to prevent her from leaving the room in which they were arguing, blocked the door and briefly touched her arm. After investigating, the theater found both parties acted inappropriately and issued written warnings to both of them. Other action taken by the theater against the manager is in the post. The theater offered Wargo an opportunity to transfer to a different theater, which she did. The theater’s ultimate determination on the complaint (as to sexual harassment) is in the post.
The theater also directed Wargo to bring any future complaints from other employees directly to HR and prohibited her from speaking about those complaints with co-workers. The theater later fired Wargo in part because she allegedly violated this directive.
The appeals court found that Wargo’s claims did not establish the theater’s liability for a hostile work environment despite her belief that the manager’s behavior constituted sex-based harassment. The Court’s summary statement is in the post.
This case does not stand alone. Other courts have also rejected claims based on subjective interpretations of workplace behavior. In September, for example, a Pennsylvania federal judge held that a reasonable person could not interpret a supervisor’s whispered comments about the uniqueness of the plaintiff’s voice to be derogatory or harassing. See our post of Monday 10/13/2025 for details.
According to EEOC guidance, harassment is actionable under federal anti-discrimination laws if it is so sever or frequent that a reasonable person would find the decision to be abusive. The types of things not generally covered are noted in the guidance and in the post.
It is suggested that employers should conclude a harassment investigation by issuing a formal written conclusion and, if necessary, taking corrective action. How such investigations can also be used by employers is noted in the post.
TAKEAWAY: Employers have a duty to investigate all complaints, but the result must follow the facts and applicable law. Not every disliked behavior is legally actionable. An employment lawyer can help discern the difference.