She attached a doctor’s note and asked for extra time. The termination letter arrived two days later
A Colorado retailer named a worker’s disorder in her termination letter - then told a court it never knew she was disabled.
That did not go well.
On November 6, 2026, the Tenth Circuit reversed a lower court ruling favoring Appliance Factory and sent the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's ADA case back for further proceedings.
The worker joined the company as a sales associate in Thornton, Colorado in February 2019 - described by the company as “an excellent and productive employee.”
In March 2020, she fell ill with suspected COVID-19, telling the company’s HR specialist she felt “like dying.” Appliance Factory granted twelve weeks of Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave, expiring June 8, 2020.
Her condition never fully resolved. By May, persistent stomach problems had set in. She wrote: “I’m still not feeling well. Everyday I wake up thinking that I will get back to normal but I am still not well.” Her doctor scheduled an endoscopy and recommended she stay off work until results came through.
On June 2 - six days before her leave expired - she called the HR specialist, reporting she could not breathe, had difficulty speaking, and was in stomach pain. She asked for “a few weeks” after the endoscopy to recover. The HR specialist, she testified, “was quiet” and said she needed to talk to her boss.
Then came a breakdown in communication. The company insisted on phone calls. The worker kept emailing, explaining she could not always speak. On June 9, the HR specialist suggested she resign if unable to return.
The termination letter arrived June 10. In it, Appliance Factory acknowledged the worker had “requested an extension of FMLA . . . for a gastrointestinal disorder” - but said it could not extend leave for a non-COVID condition.
That phrase became the company’s problem.
The endoscopy confirmed mild gastritis. With proper medication, her symptoms improved within weeks - just as she had told the company they would.
The EEOC sued on the worker’s behalf, alleging Appliance Factory violated the ADA by failing to accommodate her, firing her over her disability, and retaliating for her accommodation request. The district court sided with the employer. The Tenth Circuit reversed.
On notice, the appeals court held that a formal diagnosis is not required to alert an employer to a disability. Detailed symptom updates, a doctor’s note, and the company’s own acknowledgment of a “disorder” were enough to create a jury question.
On accommodation, the majority held that requesting “a few weeks” tied to a specific procedure and an estimated recovery timeline was enough for a jury to weigh. One judge dissented, calling the estimate speculative. The majority acknowledged the question was close.
For HR teams, the case shows that when FMLA runs out, ADA obligations can step in - and what an employer writes in a termination letter can end up being used against it.
The Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded. No final determination has been made on the merits of the EEOC’s claims.
