Clean record, full bonus - then she disclosed her conditions
An HR manager says Johnson & Johnson fired her after she requested disability accommodations and took FMLA leave.
The worker, who served as a Manager of Employee Relations and Labor Relations on J&J's North America team, filed a federal lawsuit on October 23, 2026, in the US District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The complaint brings four counts against Johnson & Johnson Services, Inc. under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
According to the filing, the worker joined J&J in July 2022 through its Experienced Human Resources Leadership Development Program. She completed the program and was placed on the Employee Relations and Labor Relations team in August 2024.
Her track record, the complaint says, was strong. She received favorable performance evaluations, never received a single disciplinary action or performance improvement plan, and as recently as January 7, 2026, her then-supervisor gave her a strong performance rating. She also received 100% of her target bonus.
Then she asked for help.
The complaint alleges that during the week of February 9, 2026, the worker contacted a company occupational health nurse to request accommodation paperwork. She had been diagnosed with major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and gastrointestinal issues - conditions the filing describes as substantially limiting her ability to concentrate, interact with others, think, and work.
She had been afraid to come forward, the complaint says. She had seen other employees "pushed out" after taking leave.
About a week after that conversation with the nurse, the filing alleges, the worker's supervisor started questioning her arrival times at the office - for the first time ever. That same supervisor had managed the worker before and never raised the issue, even though the worker kept roughly the same schedule.
The company initially rejected the worker's accommodation paperwork, according to the complaint, saying it could not accept documentation from a licensed social worker and needed a "prescriber" instead. So the worker found one. A psychiatric nurse practitioner completed the ADA paperwork on March 16, 2026, confirming the worker's diagnoses and stating it was "medically necessary" for her to work from home five days a week.
At the time, the worker was already remote three days a week under company policy. The accommodation would have added two more.
Things went downhill from there, the complaint alleges. The supervisor became less friendly and seemed annoyed. When the worker asked about the status of her request, the supervisor claimed she was "conflicted out" and said a peer would handle it.
On April 2, 2026, the complaint describes a meeting with a more senior director in which the worker says she was snapped at over minor issues. Later that same day, the filing alleges, two supervisors raised - for the first time - an alleged performance concern dating back to roughly May 2025. It had never come up during the worker's 2025 year-end review.
One supervisor also brought up a 2025 sexual harassment matter the worker had allegedly been uncomfortable handling. According to the complaint, the worker explained she had experienced a sexual assault and felt discomfort with the subject matter. The filing says the director "appeared disgusted" by her response.
The very next day, the complaint alleges, the supervisor told the worker the previous meeting did "not go towards performance" and confirmed she had no issues with how the worker was doing her job.
On April 13, 2026, the complaint says the company denied the accommodation request, saying in-office collaboration was necessary. The only alternative on the table was a private room for the two days the worker came into the office. According to the filing, that did not address the worker's documented need to be outside the office setting entirely - and other employees in the same department were allowed to work remotely five days a week.
The worker's health worsened after the denial, the complaint says. Feeling she had no choice, she requested FMLA leave, which was approved from May 22 through July 6, 2026.
She came back on July 7. The complaint alleges her supervisors essentially ignored her for the next few weeks.
Then came August 6. The worker joined what she believed was her mid-year review - she had missed it while on leave. Instead, according to the filing, her supervisor told her she was being terminated effective immediately, citing alleged performance issues and the 2025 sexual harassment matter. The complaint says the worker asked if she could respond. The answer was "no."
The complaint calls the stated reasons for termination "false and pretextual," pointing to the strong performance review and full bonus from January 2026, and the supervisor's own April 3 confirmation that she had no issues with the worker's performance. The concerns cited at termination, the filing notes, predated both.
According to the complaint, J&J sent the worker a separation agreement with a general release of claims after the meeting. She refused to sign.
She filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC on September 4, 2026, and received a right-to-sue notice on September 29, 2026. The lawsuit seeks back pay, front pay, compensatory and punitive damages, reinstatement, liquidated damages under the FMLA, and attorneys' fees.
For HR teams, the timeline here is hard to ignore: a clean performance record, a disability disclosure, an accommodation denial, FMLA leave, and a termination one month after the return - all in the space of six months.
The allegations in the complaint have not been tested, and no court has made any findings or rulings on the merits.
