The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a lower court's ruling in favor of Emory Health, Inc., regarding a retaliation claim filed by former employee Dr. Melissa Smith. The court's decision, issued on November 12, 2026, addressed allegations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) that Emory Health retaliated against Smith for requesting accommodations related to her medical condition.

This case matters because it highlights the complexities surrounding workplace accommodations and retaliation claims under the ADA. It also underscores the importance of clear communication and performance expectations in employment settings, especially for those with disabilities.

Background

Dr. Melissa Smith began her employment with Emory University School of Medicine in July 2014 as a non-tenured assistant professor in psychiatry. She worked full-time as an attending physician at Grady Memorial Hospital, where she was the only full-time physician on the psychiatric consulting service. Smith's annual contract was renewed each year from 2015 to 2019, with performance evaluations generally rating her as meeting or exceeding expectations.

In the spring of 2019, Smith underwent surgeries for a knee injury, which required her to take medical leave. After her return, she was able to perform her job duties but needed accommodations, such as breaks for physical therapy. However, her supervisor and colleagues expressed concerns about her communication and attendance, leading to a performance improvement plan (PIP) in January 2020. Smith believed these actions were retaliatory due to her medical leave and requests for accommodations.

Following a series of disputes regarding her performance and communication, Smith filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and later sued Emory Health, claiming retaliation under the ADA. She argued that her negative performance evaluations, the PIP, her suspension, and the non-renewal of her contract were all retaliatory actions.

The Ruling

The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and upheld the lower court's summary judgment in favor of Emory Health. The court found that Smith did not establish that her performance evaluation and PIP constituted materially adverse actions that would deter a reasonable worker from making discrimination complaints. The court noted that negative performance evaluations typically do not qualify as materially adverse actions unless they cause significant harm.

The court ruled, "Smith failed to establish that her 2019 performance evaluation and 2020 performance improvement plan, together or separately, were actions that 'well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.'"

Additionally, while the court acknowledged that Smith's suspension and contract non-renewal were materially adverse actions, it concluded that she did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that these actions were causally related to her complaints about discrimination. The court emphasized that Smith's failure to cooperate with an investigation into her alleged unauthorized moonlighting at non-Emory facilities was a legitimate reason for her suspension and non-renewal.

Impact

This ruling has important implications for employees and employers alike. For employees, it reinforces the necessity of clear communication and documentation when requesting accommodations or filing complaints related to discrimination. It also emphasizes that not all negative evaluations or performance plans will be viewed as retaliatory actions under the ADA.

For employers, the ruling underscores the importance of maintaining thorough documentation and clear performance expectations. It demonstrates that employers can take legitimate actions based on performance issues, even when an employee has made complaints about discrimination or requested accommodations.

What's Next

Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Smith plans to appeal the decision. There are no related cases pending at this time.