Too Little, Too Late? Third Circuit Clarifies ADA Notice Requirements & Reinforces Employers’ Right to Enforce Workplace Rules

On July 20, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a decision emphasizing: (1) employees must clearly and timely articulate a need for accommodation under the ADA, and (2) employers need not excuse misconduct related to or caused by a disability, particularly where the employee identifies the disability for the first time as part of the disciplinary process. Hileman v. West Penn Allegheny Health System Inc., No. 25-1459 (3d Cir. July 20, 2026). In Hileman, the Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the defendant hospital, emphasizing that disability-discrimination laws are “shields against discrimination, not get-out-of-discipline-free cards.”

Background

The plaintiff worked as a CT technologist for the defendant. About a year into her employment, she was written up for attendance. That disciplinary action included instructions to request accommodations or leaves of absence. Five months later, one of the plaintiff’s coworkers reported to their supervisor that the plaintiff was nodding off and sleeping on duty – a terminable offense under the hospital’s policies. Once questioned by her supervisor, the plaintiff denied sleeping but admitted she may have “shut [her] eyes” because they were dry due to a change in her diabetes medication. This was the first time the plaintiff disclosed that she had diabetes. The plaintiff’s supervisor asked her to write a statement as part of the investigation. Four days later, the plaintiff sent the following written statement: “Recent diagnosis of diabetes, working diligently with md to adjust medication causing severe dry eyes & irritation frequently using lubricated eye drops to help and praying.” The plaintiff’s supervisor provided the information he had gathered to Human Resources, which concluded the plaintiff should be terminated. After the supervisor communicated the plaintiff’s termination, she asked if there was “anything [she] could do” to change the hospital’s decision, but her termination stood. 

The District Court Finds in Favor of Defendant

The plaintiff sued the hospital for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate and retaliation under the ADA and Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, among other claims. The hospital moved for summary judgment on all claims, which the district court granted. 

In its motion for summary judgment, the hospital argued an employer need not excuse misconduct, even if the misconduct is related to or caused by a disability. It also argued that the timing of the plaintiff’s alleged accommodation request was fatal to her discrimination and retaliation claims. With respect to the plaintiff’s failure to accommodate claim, the hospital took the position that the timing was “too little, too late.” In support of its arguments, the hospital pointed to EEOC guidance stating that if an employee cites their disability for the first time in response to discipline for misconduct, the employer may still discipline the employee. 

In her opposition, the plaintiff argued the ADA does not impose a bright-line rule that excuses employers from engaging in the interactive process if the alleged misconduct is caused by a disability. She further argued that her disclosure of diabetes and dry eyes, as well as her statement she was praying for help, were sufficient to trigger the hospital’s obligation to explore accommodations. Finally, she leaned on the temporal proximity between her termination and her disclosure of diabetes and alleged accommodation request to argue in support of her discrimination and retaliation claims. 

The district court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments, finding there was no causal connection between the plaintiff’s termination and her disclosure of a disability or purported accommodation request because the hospital was already investigating the plaintiff for sleeping on the job before she engaged in any allegedly protected activities. It further reasoned that even if she could establish a prime facie case of discrimination or retaliation, the hospital had a legitimate, non-discriminatory and non-retaliatory reason for terminating the plaintiff – its clear rule against sleeping on the job. The district court also found the plaintiff’s failure to accommodate claim failed because an employer has no duty to accommodate if it was unaware of an employee’s disability before the misconduct. 

The Third Circuit Affirms

On appeal, the Third Circuit upheld the district court’s decision, focusing on two factors: (1) the vagueness of the plaintiff’s statements regarding her disability and alleged need for accommodation, and (2) the timing of the plaintiff’s statements to the hospital about her diabetes. 

At the outset, the Third Circuit underscored that to prevail on a failure to accommodate claim, an employee must show the employer knew she needed accommodation and failed to provide it. It concluded that the plaintiff’s statements fell short of a request or reasonable notice of need for accommodation, because the first time she disclosed diabetes or medication-related problems was when she was under investigation for sleeping on the job. The court reasoned: 

Employers’ duty to accommodate is real, but it is not a license to speculate. They must respond to what they know – not what they might imagine. … And they certainly need not go digging for disabilities without a signal that one exists.

In contrast, if an employee’s disability or need for accommodation “is obvious from visible or known facts,” an employer must act accordingly. Here, however, the plaintiff’s comments that she had dry eyes due to a change in her diabetes medication did not constitute notice to the hospital that she had an obvious medical impairment affecting her ability to work. 

The Third Circuit affirmed that, even if the plaintiff’s vague statements were considered accommodation requests, the hospital was justified in terminating the plaintiff based on her conduct, as it was already investigating her before she engaged in any allegedly protected activities. “When an employee is about to be fired for misconduct, she cannot save her job by belatedly telling her employer about a disability or medical need.” 

This decision is a useful example to employers that when an employee fails to provide timely notice of a disability or need for an accommodation, the employer may continue to enforce neutral workplace rules and impose discipline based on misconduct in violation of those rules.

Key Takeaways

This is the first published Third Circuit decision recognizing that employers may enforce neutral workplace rules even if the employee contends her disability contributed to or caused the misconduct. This decision reinforces that an employee may not avoid discipline by disclosing a disability after the misconduct has occurred. 

The Third Circuit’s decision underscores that where an employee’s disability and need for accommodation are not readily apparent or obvious, it is the employee’s responsibility to affirmatively and clearly request accommodation, and do so before facing discipline relating to conditions or conduct the disability might cause. While employers are obligated to respond to an employee’s need for accommodations that are “obvious from visible or known facts,” they are not required to infer disabilities or speculate about unexpressed accommodation needs.