BMW faces suit alleging HR used mental health disclosure against worker
BMW's U.S. arm is facing fresh scrutiny over how it handled an employee's mental health, medical leave and a disputed relocation stipend, according to a recent federal filing.
On January 29, 2026, former employee Rubena Kalli filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against BMW of North America, LLC and BMW Shared Services, LLC. In the court papers, she alleges disability discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act. The companies have not yet had these allegations tested in court, and no determination has been made.
Kalli says she worked for the defendants from approximately September 3, 2014, through November 6, 2023, and describes herself as a high-performing employee who received promotions and took on increasing responsibility. In or around June 2023, she assumed a role as a Mystery Shop Digital Analyst based at BMW's Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey, headquarters. For that position, the complaint states she was offered either a $45,000 bonus to fully relocate or a $10,000 stipend to commute; she chose the commuter option.
The filing says Kalli suffers from depression and anxiety, which she claims substantially limit one or more major life activities. In or around September 2022, she was diagnosed with depression and informed human resources personnel, including Lead Human Resources Business Partner Kim Ecks and Megan Hernandez, about her condition and its impact on her job duties. She also told HR that the Mystery Shop Digital Analyst role was negatively impacting her disability, according to the document.
The defendants allegedly advised her to take disability leave and stated they would discuss finding a new role when she returned. Kalli says she went on protected medical leave beginning on or about September 9, 2022, for approximately six weeks. During that period, HR representative Marissa Boretz asked whether she had relocated for the analyst position. Kalli says she replied that she had not, had chosen the commuter option and planned to take on a new role upon her return from disability leave.
According to the complaint, Boretz then told her she would need to return the $10,000 stipend. Kalli says she responded that returning the money would not be a problem, as she had not touched the funds, and asked to whom she should issue the check. Boretz stated that someone would contact her regarding repayment. Kalli alleges no one ever did.
She returned from leave on or about October 22, 2022, was told she could work remotely until she found a new position, and in or around February 2023 became an Executive Customer Relations Specialist working in person at Woodcliff Lake. She says she continued to wait for the defendants to contact her about repayment, as she had been instructed.
On or about May 19, 2023, Kalli missed work due to what she describes in the filing as a severe panic attack that left her unable to work or complete daily life activities. She says she told her supervisor, Ms. Russo, about her disability and requested a reasonable accommodation: flexibility to take time off whenever she was experiencing a depressive episode or panic attack. After Russo responded that she was "there for" her, Kalli sent an email on June 6, 2023, outlining her disability in detail.
The complaint alleges that, rather than engage in an interactive process or provide reasonable accommodations, the defendants used her disability disclosure against her. On July 11, 2023, Kalli met with Operations Manager Anthony Cavanaugh and Alexis Callan from Human Resources. She says Cavanaugh projected the email she had sent to Russo outlining her disability onto a large screen, questioned her about why she had missed work on May 19, and then shifted to purported concerns about her work performance and working from home. According to the filing, Cavanaugh spent the remainder of the meeting reprimanding her and stated, "You're on probation. I'll be watching you very closely. If it doesn't work, we will fire you." The complaint describes the probation as informal and procedurally irregular, lacking written notice, a performance improvement plan, objective criteria or a defined timeline, and says it deviated from the defendants' standard performance management practices. Kalli states she had never previously received any notice of negative work performance or been subject to any discipline.
On or about August 10, 2023, Cavanaugh allegedly told her she was no longer on probation, that the defendants could see she was working hard, acknowledged a "dramatic improvement" in her performance and thanked her for taking feedback seriously. Still, Kalli claims the defendants continued to seek pretextual reasons to terminate her employment.
The relocation stipend issue resurfaced in October 2023. On or about October 12, Ecks contacted Kalli about a meeting but did not disclose the subject. During an October 16 call, Ecks asked whether Kalli had moved and whether she had returned the $10,000 stipend. Kalli says she informed Ecks that she had not relocated but had already told the Human Resources department of this fact during her disability leave, more than a year earlier. She confirmed she had not touched the money and could return it immediately.
According to the complaint, Ecks told her she was "actively under investigation" and that not yet repaying the money "looks like embezzlement," instructed her not to return to work, and said the investigation would be completed by the end of the week. Kalli alleges she immediately complied, timely sending the requested payment and providing written confirmation and proof of delivery.
When she sought updates, Kalli says Ecks responded that she was waiting on a response from someone at the relocation company before the defendants could conclude the investigation. On November 6, 2023, Ecks allegedly informed her that her employment was terminated.
Kalli's filing claims the defendants' stated reasons for termination were pretextual and that she was terminated because of her disability, her requests for accommodation and her exercise of rights protected by the FMLA. The lawsuit seeks back pay, front pay, lost compensation and benefits, compensatory and punitive damages, liquidated damages under the FMLA, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.
For HR leaders, the case, if it proceeds, could spotlight how disability disclosures, mental health conditions, leave decisions, documentation around informal discipline, and relocation or stipend arrangements are handled inside large organizations. The allegations remain unproven, and the court has yet to rule on the merits.
