One email allegedly demanded a "full release" - then the EEOC weighed in
A worker says FedEx Freight wouldn't take her back until she was "100% healed." A federal agency took her side.
A FedEx Freight employee in Connecticut has filed a lawsuit that lands on a problem many HR teams still get wrong: the "100% healed" return-to-work rule.
April Williams sued FedEx Freight Inc. - NHC in the US District Court for the District of Connecticut in a complaint filed June 4, 2026. She alleges the company refused to bring her back from medical leave unless she was completely free of restrictions - a bar she says violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, the federal law protecting qualified workers with disabilities.
Here is the shape of it, in plain terms. Williams says she went out on an approved medical leave, then got a doctor's note clearing her for "light duty" with some accommodations. She says she tried again and again to open the "interactive process" - the conversation the ADA requires so an employer and employee can work out reasonable accommodations - and hit a wall.
One email, the complaint says, made the wall explicit. Williams alleges that on or around June 5, 2025, management told her she could not come back without a "full release without restrictions." The EEOC's determination quotes an email to her of that date reading: "Did you get a full release without restrictions from the Dr.? We cannot return you to work until we have that."
That is the line that should make HR leaders wince. A blanket "100% healed" policy is one of the oldest traps in disability law, because it skips the individual assessment the statute demands. The complaint calls it a "per se violation of the ADA."
Williams also alleges the leave cost her money and momentum. The filing says FedEx Freight "systematically withheld, denied, and blocked" her from cost-of-living adjustments, raises, and bonuses that non-disabled coworkers received. And when she applied for internal lateral roles - weekly, she says - the complaint alleges the company denied her interviews and, more than once, took down the posting within 24 hours of her applying.
The agency record is what gives this teeth. The EEOC's Boston Area Office investigated and, in a determination dated March 18, 2026, found that Williams "established a prima facie case of employment discrimination under the ADA" and that FedEx Freight "engaged in employment discrimination in violation of the ADA." The same determination notes the agency found insufficient evidence of race, sex, or age discrimination under Title VII. After conciliation failed, the EEOC issued a right-to-sue notice dated April 7, 2026.
According to the filing, the company told the EEOC it "has continuously and diligently worked with her to accommodate her need for leave from work and her attempts to return to work." The agency found an ADA violation despite that denial.
For anyone running an HR function, the to-do list writes itself. Strip "100% healed" and "no restrictions" language out of return-to-work policies; the law wants a case-by-case look, not a hard line. Document the interactive process, every step - because going quiet, as the complaint alleges happened here, looks bad later. And keep an eye on how leave status bleeds into pay, bonuses, and internal job moves, where gaps can turn into evidence. Williams is asking for $300,000, plus back pay, front pay, and an order banning the policy.
The allegations have not been tested in court. FedEx Freight has not yet filed a response, and no court has ruled.
