By Tom Whitfield

A federal court in Arizona has refused to dismiss ADA claims from a Director of Nursing who was fired two weeks after requesting leave for cancer treatment. The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona denied summary judgment for Physician's Management Employee Leasing Company (PMPH), finding the employer's stated reason — an unfavorable accreditation survey — lacked the documentation to survive challenge.

The ruling, in a case involving Dr. Ronald Mogaka, turns on two obligations HR teams know well: the duty to document performance decisions and the mandatory interactive process after a disability disclosure. Both claims now proceed to trial.

What happened in the case?

Mogaka served as Director of Nursing at PMPH from January 2023 until his termination that December. He has colorectal cancer. He alleged he disclosed his diagnosis and asked for time off for doctor's appointments. The employer denied his requests twice, he said, and terminated him shortly afterward.

PMPH told a different story. It said the hospital had received an unfavorable Joint Commission survey and a preliminary denial of accreditation, plus unspecified "overall poor performance." That explanation, the employer argued, was a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason to fire him.

The court was not persuaded. In short, the employer had a reason but no receipts.

Why did the accreditation defense fail?

To defeat summary judgment on the wrongful termination claim, PMPH needed evidence supporting its stated reason. It had almost none.

• The Joint Commission's report did not list nursing services among the cited deficiencies.
• PMPH produced no evidence tying the accreditation citation to Mogaka's department.
• The employer could point to no documented write-ups or progressive discipline, despite its own personnel policy requiring that process.

That missing paper trail supported an inference of pretext — that the stated reason covered an unlawful one. The timing alone mattered: termination just two weeks after the leave request satisfied the low initial bar of showing discrimination.

The takeaway is simple: an accreditation citation, by itself, is not documentation.

What about the accommodation claim?

PMPH raised three defenses, and the court rejected all of them. The employer argued Mogaka never submitted a written request, provided no medical documentation, and could have used paid time off instead.

None of this held. Accommodation requests need not be in writing. And evidence suggested Mogaka was actually discouraged from using PTO for a scheduled appointment.

Once an employer learns an employee needs an accommodation, the interactive process is mandatory — not optional, not conditional on formal paperwork. A leave of absence for medical treatment can itself qualify as a reasonable accommodation, the court noted, even where treatment success is not guaranteed.

The takeaway: informality is not a defense. An oral request, made after a cancer disclosure, triggers the obligation.

What should employers take from this?

Three practical lessons follow from the ruling.

• Before relying on a compliance failure as termination grounds, produce the underlying report and connect the deficiency to the specific employee.
• Follow your own progressive discipline policy — or document a clear justification for bypassing it.
• Treat any request connected to a disclosed medical condition, however informal, as a trigger for the interactive process.

There is a caveat worth stating plainly. The court did not decide that PMPH discriminated; it decided only that a jury should weigh the question. Employers reading this as a loss on the merits would misread it. What the decision does establish is that courts will test the documents behind a termination decision, not just the story told about them.

As similar ADA claims continue to reach trial courts, the employers best positioned to defend them will be those whose files match their explanations.