3rd Circuit: Last-Minute Disability Claim Does Not Block Firing

A federal appeals court ruled on July 20, 2026, in Hileman v. West Penn Allegheny Health Systems Inc., d/b/a Forbes Hospital (No. 25-1459, 3rd Circuit) that an employee who raised her diabetes only after being accused of misconduct cannot use the Americans with Disabilities Act to challenge her discharge. The decision confirms that employers in the Third Circuit may enforce neutral workplace rules, including a no-sleeping policy, even when the underlying behavior traces back to a medical condition.

The case turns on timing and notice. Cheryl Hileman, a night-shift CT scan technician at Forbes Hospital outside Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, never disclosed her diabetes or any related limitations until the meeting where her supervisor questioned her about reported misconduct. That delay, the court found, defeated both her accommodation claim and her retaliation claim.

What happened at the hospital?

Roughly one year into the job, Hileman received a reprimand for excessive absences. The reprimand included instructions on how to request a disability accommodation or medical leave if she needed one. She never made such a request.

Five months later, a coworker reported that Hileman was "sleeping on duty, texting during work, and failing to stock rooms." Hospital policy prohibited sleeping on the job or positioning oneself to sleep, and it warned employees that violations could result in discharge.

Her supervisor met with her to explain the accusations and hear her side. Hileman denied sleeping but admitted she may have shut her eyes because of dry eye pain and fatigue caused by a change in diabetes medication. This was the first time she had mentioned anything to her employer about diabetes, medication, dry eyes or fatigue. She later emailed her supervisor saying she was "praying for improvement and adjusting the medication." The hospital fired her for violating the no-sleeping policy, and she sued under the ADA.

Why did the court side with the employer?

The appeals court identified two decisive factors. First, Hileman raised nothing about her alleged disability until after her misconduct surfaced. To prove an ADA claim, she had to show the hospital knew she needed an accommodation and improperly failed to provide it. An employer bears a greater responsibility to consider and discuss accommodation when a disability is obvious or the employee's comments put it on notice.

No such notice existed here. The court found no observable impairments and no prior disclosures that would have alerted the hospital to a possible disability. Hileman waited until she stood on the brink of discharge to raise any disability-related issue.

Second, Hileman violated a clear work rule. Even if her statements were treated as an accommodation request, and even if the hospital accepted that she was disabled under the ADA, the hospital could still enforce its no-sleeping policy. The court stated: "Except in narrow circumstances, employers may enforce neutral workplace rules even when misconduct stems from a disability."

The court's opening words framed the whole dispute: "The disability-discrimination and medical leave laws are shields against discrimination, not get-out-of-discipline-free cards."

What should HR take from the ruling?

Timing is the central variable. When an employee explains performance or misconduct problems by citing a health condition, HR teams should document when they knew, or should have known, about a possible disability. A condition first mentioned during a misconduct investigation rarely creates a retroactive accommodation obligation.

Consistent enforcement matters just as much. Even with a known health condition, employers must determine whether the employee clearly violated a work rule that the organization has applied consistently to others. A policy enforced unevenly invites a different outcome than the one in this case.

The ruling also does not give employers blanket permission to ignore late disclosures. The court carved out "narrow circumstances" where enforcing a neutral rule against disability-related conduct may still be unlawful, and it did not define that boundary here.

In plain terms: document the timeline, apply rules evenly, and treat eleventh-hour disclosures with care rather than dismissal. Employers inside the Third Circuit — Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware and the U.S. Virgin Islands — can cite this decision when defending discipline against claims raised only after the fact.