The timeline between accommodation paperwork and termination? Just one day
Crocs allegedly fired an employee one day after she submitted disability accommodation paperwork — a timeline every HR professional should take seriously.
Wendy Smith, who worked as a training coordinator at the company's Las Vegas distribution center starting in June 2022, filed a lawsuit on April 10 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada (Smith v. Crocs, Inc. et al., No. 2:26-cv-01133). She is claiming the footwear giant discriminated against her based on her disabilities, retaliated against her for requesting workplace accommodations, and interfered with her rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act.
The case is at its earliest stage. None of the allegations have been proven. But the picture that emerges from the filing is one HR leaders will want to sit with.
Smith says she suffers from right knee osteoarthritis — she had a full knee replacement in September 2023 — and was later diagnosed with arthritis in her foot in early December 2025. Both conditions, according to the lawsuit, make prolonged standing and walking painful and difficult.
For much of her time at Crocs, Smith says the company accommodated her without issue, allowing her to alternate between sitting and standing during shifts. That arrangement, the lawsuit says, worked. Then in October 2025, Crocs allegedly removed her seated workstation and moved her to a standing-only area on the production floor — a move that directly worsened her condition.
Smith requested a new accommodation on October 29, 2025. According to the filing, Crocs briefly gave her a step stool, then took it away and began conducting covert surveillance of her at work.
In December, her physician provided formal documentation recommending she sit for half her shift and stand for the other half. Smith submitted the paperwork on December 18, 2025. The lawsuit alleges Crocs never engaged in any kind of back-and-forth — no conversation, no exploration of alternatives, no attempt to find her another role within the facility.
The next day, December 19, she was let go. The lawsuit claims the stated reasons were pretextual, and that the real motivations were her disabilities and her history of speaking up about discriminatory treatment at work.
Smith is seeking compensatory damages, emotional distress damages, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. She has requested a jury trial.
For HR professionals, this case puts a spotlight on something that comes up again and again in employment litigation: timing. Courts and juries pay close attention to how quickly an adverse action follows a protected request. When an employee hands over medical documentation and is terminated the very next day, that sequence becomes the centerpiece of the case.
The interactive process exists for a reason. It is not a box to check — it is the mechanism through which employers demonstrate good faith. Skipping it, especially at the moment an employee is most vulnerable, can turn a routine accommodation request into a serious legal exposure.
No determination has been made on the merits of this case.
