He had approved FMLA leave, a clean file, and a formal complaint on record
A production team leader at medical device giant Stryker is suing the company, alleging he was fired after taking approved medical leave for chronic health conditions - including diabetes.
The worker, who joined Stryker's fabrication department in Portage, Michigan, in June 2023, says his manager began treating his absences as a performance problem. This was despite the company having formally approved his leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act.
The complaint, filed October 8, 2026, in the US District Court for the Western District of Michigan, brings claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (which prohibits workplace discrimination based on disability), Michigan's disability rights law, and the FMLA. Stryker is a Fortune 500 medical technology company headquartered in Kalamazoo, Michigan.
The worker started as a production team leader on second shift. His 2023 performance review rated him as "Valued Performance," according to the filing.
Then his health became a factor.
The complaint alleges the worker suffers from diabetes, gastroparesis, and chronic low back pain. In April 2024, Stryker approved a medical leave as an accommodation before he became eligible for FMLA leave. By late January 2025, the filing states, he was sent home from work due to "profuse sweating" - a symptom of his diabetes - and requested continuous FMLA leave.
Over the following months, Stryker approved progressively broader leave: four episodes per month from January to July 2025, a continuous block in early March, and eventually eight episodes per month through December 2025. He was also approved to work from home during flare-ups, and the complaint states he completed his required work regardless of location.
But according to the filing, his manager did not see it that way.
The complaint alleges the manager began treating the worker's absences as a performance and attendance problem, despite knowing the leave was formally approved. On July 24, 2025, during an in-person meeting, the manager allegedly asked the worker whether he was "the right person" for his position "due to [his] health issues."
That comment set things in motion.
According to the complaint, the worker reported the remark immediately - emailing both his manager and a human resources business partner that same day. The filing alleges the HR partner "failed to conduct any investigation or follow up."
Two weeks later, the complaint states, the worker filed a formal ethics report. He was told on August 14, 2025, that the matter had been investigated, but according to the filing, nothing further was shared with him.
What followed, according to the complaint, looks like a pattern. The manager allegedly cancelled all scheduled one-on-one meetings with the worker after the ethics report was filed. The worker used approved FMLA leave on September 18, 19, and 22, 2025.
Eight days later, on the morning of September 30, 2025, his employment was terminated by phone call while he was on his way to work. The call came from the same manager and the same HR partner the worker had reported the comment to, the filing states.
Stryker's stated reasons for the termination, according to the complaint, were "alleged issues concerning the handling of an employee gift card incentive program" and "allegedly leaving work early without permission."
The filing calls those reasons "false and a pretext for discrimination and retaliation." It alleges the worker's personnel file contains no documentation supporting either reason, and that he never received any write-ups or warnings about those issues before taking FMLA leave and reporting the manager's comment.
The complaint further alleges that Stryker replaced the worker shortly after his termination with someone who does not have a medical condition, disability, or approved FMLA leave. It also states, on information and belief, that the manager has since left Stryker.
The worker filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in February 2026. The agency issued a right-to-sue letter in July 2026, and the complaint was filed within the required 90-day window.
The lawsuit seeks lost wages, punitive damages, and other relief. The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
For HR teams, the case sits squarely in the gap between corporate leave policies and what happens on the factory floor - and what can go wrong when the internal complaint process does not close that gap before the termination call is made.
The allegations in the complaint have not been tested in court, and no judge has made any findings or rulings on the merits of the claims.
