The court found the company showed "bend-over-backwards respect" for the employee's rights
A federal appeals court has ruled that an employee's last-minute accommodation request could not undo a termination already set in motion.
The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit handed down the decision on March 24, 2026, siding with National Grid USA Service Company, Inc. in a retaliation case brought by Sandy Harris, Jr., a former Change Analyst whose job required him to work across Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and part of New York. The outcome offers a clear reminder for HR teams navigating the often murky overlap between workplace policy enforcement and employee rights.
The facts are straightforward. In July 2020, Harris took vacation during the COVID-19 pandemic to visit family in Ohio and California. When his time off ended, he did not return to Massachusetts. Instead, he told his supervisor he planned to work from out of state, pointing to a company policy that allowed remote work outside an employee's assigned territory on a temporary basis. The catch was that the policy required prior approval from a manager, and Harris had never asked for it.
Two days later, National Grid's HR director sent Harris a letter telling him he had violated company policy by working out of state without authorization. The letter gave him a choice: come back immediately or be treated as having resigned. It also floated the option of a severance package.
Harris responded the same day, saying he was not resigning and wanted to work out of state temporarily. It was in that same response – and only after receiving the ultimatum – that he first mentioned having preexisting health conditions that put him at higher risk during the pandemic and asked for a reasonable accommodation to work off-site. He never claimed he was unable to return to his territory and work remotely from there.
National Grid did not immediately pull the trigger. The company's medical team gave Harris clear instructions on what documentation he needed to submit and set a deadline of August 18. Harris also briefly filed for leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act, then withdrew the request. He submitted a short note from his doctor saying he would benefit from working remotely during the pandemic, but the letter did not explain why he needed to be in Ohio or California rather than at home in Massachusetts. National Grid told him the documentation fell short and asked for more detail. Harris did not provide it. The company terminated him on August 19.
Harris sued, claiming he was fired in retaliation for seeking a disability accommodation and exercising his rights under the FMLA. He did not argue that National Grid had failed to accommodate a disability – only that requesting one cost him his job.
The court was unconvinced. The timeline, in its view, told the whole story. National Grid had already decided to terminate Harris if he refused to return to his territory before it ever learned he intended to seek an accommodation or file for FMLA leave. The company issued its ultimatum on July 30, and Harris raised his medical concerns only in response to that ultimatum. The court pointed to longstanding precedent establishing that retaliation claims cannot rest on protected activity that happened after the employer had already set its course.
What may be most instructive for HR professionals is what happened between the ultimatum and the termination. Rather than moving swiftly to end the employment relationship, National Grid paused. It gave Harris time, provided guidance, and set a reasonable deadline for him to support his accommodation request. The court described this as a show of respect for the employee's rights – not evidence of retaliation. In fact, the court found that the accommodation request likely extended Harris's employment by nearly three weeks.
The court also dismissed the argument that National Grid checking whether Harris had submitted FMLA paperwork on the eve of his termination proved the company wanted to fire him before he could file. The HR director's internal message made clear the intent was to confirm the company had given Harris the agreed-upon time to respond.
The First Circuit affirmed the lower court's ruling in full.
For HR teams, the takeaway is practical. Documenting the timeline of employment decisions matters – especially when an accommodation or leave request enters the picture after disciplinary action is already underway. And when an employee does raise medical concerns or invoke FMLA rights mid-process, pausing to engage with the request in good faith can make the difference between a defensible termination and a costly lawsuit.
