The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has upheld the firing of Cheryl Hileman from West Penn Allegheny Health System, affirming that her claims of disability discrimination and wrongful termination were without merit. The court ruled that Hileman did not properly inform her employer of her disability or request accommodations before her dismissal. This decision, filed on July 20, 2026, impacts not only Hileman but also sets a precedent for how employees must communicate their needs regarding disabilities in the workplace.
Cheryl Hileman worked as a CAT scan technician at Forbes Hospital, part of the West Penn Allegheny Health System. Her employment came under scrutiny after she was reprimanded for excessive absenteeism and later for allegedly sleeping on the job. Hileman claimed that her fatigue was due to diabetes and a change in medication. However, she did not formally request any accommodations or medical leave, which led to her termination for misconduct. This case, docket number 25-1459, reached the Third Circuit after Hileman filed a lawsuit claiming discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and other related laws.
The dispute began when Hileman was reported by a coworker for sleeping during her midnight shift. Hospital policy strictly prohibits sleeping on duty, and following an investigation, Hileman was fired. She subsequently filed a lawsuit against her employer, alleging that her termination was a result of disability discrimination and retaliation. The District Court granted summary judgment to West Penn, stating that Hileman had not properly communicated her need for accommodation prior to her firing. This ruling was appealed to the Third Circuit.
The Third Circuit, led by Judge Bibas, ruled against Hileman, stating, "An employee must notify her employer of her disability and clearly communicate her desire for an accommodation or intent to take leave before her employer must accommodate her." The court emphasized that Hileman never formally requested accommodations or medical leave, nor did she inform her employer of her diabetes until it was too late. The ruling highlighted that employers are not required to speculate about an employee's needs if those needs are not clearly communicated.
The court further explained that Hileman's failure to ask for accommodations meant that West Penn could not be held liable for not providing them. The ruling stated, "There was nothing for West Penn to accommodate," reinforcing the idea that employees must take initiative in communicating their needs. The judges noted that Hileman’s timing in raising her medical issues—just before her dismissal—was significant and undermined her claims.
This ruling has implications for both employees and employers. It clarifies that employees must proactively communicate any disabilities or needs for accommodations to their employers. The court's decision reinforces the idea that while employers have a duty to accommodate employees with disabilities, that duty is contingent upon the employee clearly expressing their needs. This case may serve as a precedent for future cases involving disability discrimination and workplace accommodations.
Moving forward, this ruling may affect how employees approach their employers regarding disabilities. It emphasizes the importance of clear communication and the necessity for employees to formally request accommodations or medical leave. Employers may feel more secure in enforcing workplace policies, knowing that they are not required to accommodate needs that have not been clearly articulated.
As for what’s next for Hileman, she has the option to appeal the ruling, but the court’s decision is a significant setback for her case. There are no related cases pending that could influence or change the outcome of her situation. The ruling stands as a reminder of the responsibilities both employees and employers have in navigating workplace accommodations.