She says she reported her supervisor to HR five times before losing her job
An Eli Lilly employee says the company fired her the same afternoon it approved her accommodation to keep working from home.
A former Eli Lilly employee has sued the drugmaker in federal court in Indiana. Her complaint, filed July 1, 2026, will resonate with any HR leader handling a performance plan, a medical leave and a discrimination complaint about the same worker at once.
The worker, whom the filing describes as a Caucasian former internal coach, alleges the company discriminated and retaliated against her over her race and a disability, and punished her for taking medical leave.
Here is the sequence she describes. She started at Eli Lilly in February 2022. In September 2023, according to the complaint, her supervisor placed her on a 90-day performance improvement plan for "failure to communicate effectively and failure to complete tasks timely." A final written warning followed in April 2024, based on a coworker complaint.
That is where her account turns. The filing says a colleague she consulted did not think the matter should have been escalated and told the supervisor it had been handled. The worker also alleges that coworkers who had supposedly complained about her denied doing so and, according to the complaint, told her the supervisor "was trying to fire you and he's looking for information."
In May 2024, the complaint says, she reported to HR that she believed her supervisor was discriminating against her because of her race. In that report, according to the filing, she said the supervisor had made "discriminatory comments" and had shown "preferential treatment" toward African American employees and employees from ethnically diverse backgrounds, including on promotions and engagement. The filing says the supervisor is African American and is not a defendant in the case. The complaint also alleges that in June 2024 the supervisor told her she had not deserved the improvement plan or its financial consequences.
Then came the disability claims. In October 2024, the worker requested an accommodation for ADHD, citing "environmental" factors she attributed to her supervisor, and the company approved her request to work from home, according to the complaint. In April 2025, the filing says, she made a second race-discrimination report, this time alleging Eli Lilly's diversity, equity and inclusion policies were being applied in a discriminatory way.
Her physician placed her on medical leave starting April 7, 2025, according to the complaint, and extended it twice before releasing her to return with accommodations on July 7, 2025. That same day, the filing says, Eli Lilly approved her request to keep working from home because of "the severe stress caused by" her supervisor. Later that afternoon, the company terminated her.
By her own count, recorded at termination, the worker says she had reported her supervisor to HR and Employee Relations five separate times.
For HR teams, the pattern the complaint describes is a familiar risk profile: an accommodation approved and a termination carried out on the same day, on the heels of a documented run of internal complaints. Under the law, a termination that lands close to protected activity - requesting an accommodation, taking FMLA leave, or reporting suspected discrimination - can support a retaliation claim, because courts weigh timing closely. The same records that show what an employer did can also show what it knew and when.
The suit names Eli Lilly as the defendant, not the supervisor. It brings claims under Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act, and asks the court for reinstatement, back pay, and compensatory and punitive damages. The worker says she filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Charge No. 470-2025-05379) and received a notice of suit rights before filing.
None of the allegations have proven, and no court has ruled on the claims.
