His firing claim died on a deadline - but the interview questions kept the case alive
Yelp must face claims it refused to rehire a cancer survivor because of his disability, a federal court ruled.
A federal magistrate judge in Washington, DC, on August 28, 2026, let three of four claims proceed against the online reviews company. Only the oldest claim, over the worker's 2022 firing, was dismissed.
The worker joined Yelp in January 2019 as a trainee and rose to senior account executive, generally meeting or beating his sales targets. In late 2021 he was diagnosed with lung cancer and began chemotherapy. His cancer returned in 2022, making it hard to breathe on sales calls. HR told him to stop making those calls, and on October 22, 2022, Yelp fired him. The company allegedly told him he could not do the job because of his cancer, but said he could contact HR about reemployment once he recovered.
In May 2025, after recovering, he applied for an account manager role and completed a phone screen and a video interview. He alleges the interviewer fixated on his cancer diagnosis and treatment history rather than his qualifications, and seemed unfamiliar with accommodations when he raised them. Two days later, Yelp chose another candidate. He alleges the job stayed posted.
He first sued in DC Superior Court in September 2025, and Yelp moved the case to federal court. The court then dismissed his wrongful-termination claim under the DC Human Rights Act. He had two years to sue over the 2022 firing but filed well past the deadline. His argument that cancer treatment and Yelp's talk of future reemployment should excuse the delay failed. The court found he kept managing his own affairs throughout, and that a chance at future rehiring does not pause the clock on challenging a past termination.
His failure-to-hire and retaliation claims survived. The court found he plausibly alleged he was a "qualified individual" - his recovery, prior success at Yelp, and progress through the interview process supported that. On retaliation, the court pointed to the interview's focus on his medical history and the swift rejection.
One part of his retaliation theory - that Yelp acted against him for serving as a witness in another matter - was called "wholly conclusory." The court declined to strike it only because a motion to dismiss cannot pick apart single theories within a claim that otherwise stands.
The ruling decides only that these claims can proceed. The court made no finding that Yelp discriminated or retaliated, and the allegations remain unproven.
