Edward Rhodes, represented by Benjamin Barrett, has filed a complaint against Sysco Atlanta for failing to reasonably accommodate his disability request, thus allegedly violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. Rhodes suffered injuries as a result of a car accident and he argues that the company terminated him instead of providing him adequate time to recover.
Prior to the events relevant to the case, the plaintiff was a forklift operator for the defendant who was in the first wave of rehires following layoffs due to the COVID-19 pandemic, per the complaint. On August 25, 2020, Rhodes was involved in a car accident that resulted in a diagnosis of acute neck pain, chest wall trauma, and a compression fracture of the lumbar spine at the L1 level.
In the following days, at the order of his primary medical provider, Rhodes submitted paperwork requesting medical leave until October 6. The report also included notice that further restrictions might be placed by a neurosurgeon. Sysco, through the human resources contractor the Hartford, approved his request. On September 21, the plaintiff submitted a request for an extension, and on September 24, he submitted documentation from his rehabilitation provider supporting this request. The extension was approved until November 1.
On October 27, Edward notified Sysco that his provider issued his return to work release effective November 25. That day, his primary point of contact at Sysco human resources, texted him to ask if he would need any additional accommodations on his return. He responded he would need none and the contact replied that he would need to be seen by the company nurse prior to returning to work. On November 2, Sysco, through the Hartford, notified Edward Rhodes that his request for leave through the 25th was denied, and Sysco terminated him on November 5 for failing to return to work.
The plaintiff alleges that his termination violates the Americans with Disabilities Act since his request for an additional 24 days of leave to accommodate his temporary disability would not place an undue burden on Sysco as there were several former employees who had yet to be rehired following the COVID-19 layoff, and the company is sufficiently large and sufficiently profitable to fall under the act. He seeks financial compensation necessary to eradicate the effects of its alleged unlawful practices as well as for the cost of this action, including reasonable attorney fees.
The complaint was filed in the Northern District of Georgia, and the plaintiff requests a jury trial.
