Mental Health Is Now a Retention Problem. For Some Employers, It's Also a Legal One.

One in four employees have considered quitting because of their mental health.

Let that sink in.

Not compensation. Not commute. Not a bad boss. Mental health.

The latest NAMI-Ipsos Workplace Mental Health poll paints a pretty stark picture: employees are stressed, overwhelmed, and—critically—don't feel safe talking about it at work. Nearly half fear judgment. Even fewer trust HR or leadership with these conversations.

That's not just a culture problem. It's a retention problem. And, increasingly, a legal one.

Your ChatGPT history as a hiring test? That's a hard no.

"Take out your phone and open your ChatGPT app. Type this prompt: 'Based on my past conversations, analyze my behavioral tendencies.'"

In a Reddit post that has gone viral, that's what someone claims just happened to them during a job interview.

If that interview scenario is real, the issues aren't just ethical. They're also potentially legal.

Pro tip from pop culture: Don't fire your employees while they are in the ER

"If you fire her, she will sue you and I will testify."

That's not a plaintiff's lawyer talking. That's Dr. Robby, the chief of emergency medicine on The Pitt, grabbing a patient's phone and putting her boss on notice while she's being treated for what looks like SIRS—a systemic inflammatory response that's threatening her leg and possibly her life.

Debbie Cohen is in the ER. Her rash is spreading. Three senior physicians are at her bedside. And her biggest fear is missing work.

Her boss keeps calling, accusing her of exaggerating, dangling termination if she doesn't show up. At one point she pleads, "Please! Please don't fire me!"

Filing an EEOC charge doesn’t automatically buy an employee job immunity

Some believe that once an employee complains to the EEOC, discipline must stop. Supervisors must tread lightly. Performance problems must be ignored.

The 4th Circuit just reminded everyone that's not how Title VII works.

In Andrews v. DeJoy, the court affirmed summary judgment for the Postal Service on a retaliation claim brought by a clerk who had a long history of documented performance problems — both before and after she filed an EEOC complaint.

After loudly clashing with her supervisor and being escorted from the building by police, the employee, a clerk, filed an EEOC charge. After her post-suspension return to work, management continued documenting attendance issues, insubordination, and performance deficiencies, eventually issuing a notice of removal (later reduced to a suspension through arbitration).

She sued, claiming retaliation. She lost.

4 solid steps to win your disability discrimination/reasonable accommodation case

The 6th Circuit just delivered an opinion that reinforces two lessons employers should already know: accommodations require clarity and documentation, and timecard falsification is a litigation killer.

Energy Harbor Nuclear Corp. reassigned a maintenance supervisor with nearly 30 years of service to 12-hour night shifts. He complained that the schedule was worsening his Type 2 diabetes, specifically that the night shift was "killing" him. Management told him to provide medical documentation if he needed an accommodation. Upon his presentation of a doctor's note, the company moved him to day shift as requested.

Then came the problem. The company audited his outage time entries against objective badge-swipe data from the plant's protected area. The audit revealed discrepancies in 21 of 26 entries, including 10 overstated by more than 30 minutes. Management interviewed him (with a witness present), reviewed security data, escalated the issue to HR, and a separate internal review team conducted its own investigation. The company fired him for falsifying time records.

He sued for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation.

"We can't do that" is not an ADA interactive process. Or is it?

The 6th Circuit just handed employers a clear win in Bowles v. Chicken Salad Chick. The court held that a fast-casual restaurant did not have to accommodate a cashier/service employee who requested to sit for five minutes after every ten minutes of standing. That request would have eliminated essential job functions and fundamentally changed the job.

The Sixth Circuit held that an employer cannot be liable for failing to engage in the ADA interactive process where the employee's requested accommodation is unreasonable as a matter of law, because an interactive-process claim presupposes the existence of a viable reasonable accommodation.

What does a font have to do with an employer's values? Apparently, a lot.

The State Department just ordered diplomats to ditch Calibri and return to Times New Roman as the required typeface in all official communications. Secretary Marco Rubio framed this change not as a typography choice, but as a way to "abolish yet another wasteful DEIA program."

Calibri, however, didn't become the State Department's font because someone wanted to score diversity points. It was chosen because disability and accessibility groups recommended it. Plenty of research shows that sans-serif fonts can be easier to read for people with certain visual impairments. That's not ideology. It's science + usability.

Imagine being so committed to rolling back inclusion that you turn fonts into a culture-war battlefield.

Target's new "smile" policy has some serious legal problems

You can't policy your way to happy employees. But Target sure is trying.

The retailer just rolled out its new "10-4" policy. Employees must now (1) smile, make eye contact, wave, and use "welcoming body language" within 10 feet of any customer, and (2) when within 4 feet, personally greet guests and "initiate a warm, helpful interaction."

We all appreciate good customer service. But from an employment law and HR perspective, this policy raises some serious red flags.

Correcting the press: unpaid leave after the FMLA expires

Let's play one of my favorite games: correct the press.
The Issue: unpaid leave as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA.

Cliff Kaplan, 65, worked for a beverage distributor at Beechwood Sales & Service for 16 years. Then came a diagnosis of stage-four esophageal cancer. He took unpaid medical leave under the FMLA while he underwent chemotherapy.

Twelve weeks later his manager called. His FMLA had just expired, and the company needed him back immediately. When Cliff said he wasn't physically able to return, they fired him. No severance, no discussion, no attempt to work it out. Just a letter ending a 16-year career.

100% healed policy = 100% ADA violation

This one's for every business who's ever said to a sick or injured worker, "We can't bring you back until you're 100%."

The EEOC announced a $200,000 settlement with Elon Property Management after it required employees returning from medical leave to provide a doctor's note saying they could return to work "without restrictions." Elon also required a doctor to sign off on a copy of the employee's job description — and refused to let employees back if they couldn't meet every demand.

The EEOC's response was clear: "Policies that require an employee to be 100% before returning to work are unlawful. Employers must assess whether an employee can perform the job with or without a reasonable accommodation."

🚨 You can't ask that: Disability questions in hiring 🚨

Yesterday, a commenter noted on LinkedIn that many individuals with disabilities suffer in silence at work because they're afraid to disclose their disability during the hiring process—worried it might get them screened out. "There are dueling incentives for claiming or not claiming a disability, and the pendulum has swung hard towards staying as masked as possible if you don't want to end up in application purgatory," he wrote.

I wholeheartedly disagree. It is 100% illegal to ask an applicant this question in a job interview: "Do you have any medical conditions we should know about?" It's a per se ADA violation and a lawsuit waiting to happen.

Just because an employee says he has a disability doesn't mean he actually does

The University of Nebraska fired James Trambly, an IT support specialist, for violating university policy by removing a hard drive from a university-owned computer without authorization. The termination followed a year of documented performance issues—poor communication, overstepping into colleagues' work, visible frustration, interrupting clients, and spending excessive time on service calls.

After his termination, Trambly sued for disability discrimination and retaliation, claiming the university was aware of his "mental impairment": attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

Breaking down the proper way to handle an extended medical leave of absence

I spend a lot of time calling out employers who mishandle workplace issues. Today, I'm highlighting one that got it right.

Leanna Coffman was a Nexstar Media employee who suffered serious pregnancy-related complications and took 12 weeks of FMLA leave after giving birth. When her FMLA leave expired, Nexstar continued to provide support—giving her months of additional time off and approving her short-term disability benefits.

But when she still couldn't return to work six months after going out on leave, and also couldn't provide a clear return date, Nexstar made the difficult decision to terminate her.

So she sued for discrimination and FMLA retaliation. She lost on all counts. Why? Because Nexstar handled this situation correctly. They followed the law, communicated clearly, documented their decisions, and gave Coffman much more than the law required.

Managing employees' food allergies and preferences in the workplace

One employee is vegan. Another is allergic to shellfish. Another is lactose intolerant. Another has Celiac disease and can't eat gluten. And yet another is kosher. You're hosting a company lunch. What do you have to accommodate, and what should you accommodate?

Let's start with the law:

Heel turn? How a dress code became an ADA problem.

This case started with a pair of Skechers, and will end with a jury trial.

A cocktail server at MGM National Harbor, Rebecca Lopez-Duprey, suffered from foot conditions—Achilles tendonitis and Equinus deformity—that made wearing heels painful and medically inadvisable. Her doctor recommended she wear flat, supportive shoes. Eventually, MGM granted her an ADA accommodation to do just that.

Lopez-Duprey wore Skechers-style black shoes for over two years without issue. Then came a policy change.

In late 2021, MGM issued a memo updating the dress code and specifying which shoes were allowed, even for employees with ADA accommodations. Skechers weren't on the approved list. The company disciplined Lopez-Duprey multiple times, including once for showing up to work in her doctor-recommended sneaker. She protested internally, and her doctor even submitted another note, this time stating she needed those shoes permanently.

MGM terminated her shortly thereafter for violating its appearance standards.

Lopez-Duprey sued for failure to accommodate under the ADA. 

Documentation wins cases

Charles Carroll worked as a high-ranking exec at IDEMIA, the company behind TSA PreCheck. He ran a new initiative called "Trusted Fan" and was involved in renewing a major TSA contract.

He was also in his 60s and had recently been diagnosed with prostate cancer.

A year after disclosing his diagnosis, and after delivering the TSA contract renewal, he was fired. The company said it was due to performance issues: lack of leadership, mishandling the Trusted Fan rollout, and frustrations around the contract renewal process.  

The Sixth Circuit upheld summary judgment for the employer across the board, including on Carroll's disability and age discrimination. Why? One word: documentation.

This is NOT how the ADA is supposed to work

Some federal agencies within the Trump administration have delayed acting on employee requests for reasonable accommodations because they are still figuring out their return-to-office policies.

That's not how the ADA works.

The ADA doesn't allow employers to "wait and see" before engaging in the interactive process. It doesn't allow delays while leadership huddles over long-term telework plans. And it definitely doesn't permit an employer to ignore an accommodation request just because it's inconvenient or politically tricky.

PSA: Get your measles titer checked

I just had measles titer checked—and to my surprise, it came back really negative. That means I either never had the measles vaccine (which I definitely did, as a child) or my immunity has disappeared over time.

This matters because measles is one of the most contagious viruses on the planet. If you're not immune and you're exposed to someone with measles, you have a 90% chance of getting infected. And it's not just a rash and a fever. Measles can cause pneumonia, brain swelling, and even death.

Moreover, we're currently seeing measles outbreaks across the country in places where it hasn't shown up in years. While many adults assume they're protected, as I just learned that may not be the case.

Medical marijuana accommodation is highly state-law dependent

Q: Must an employer accommodate of an employee's legal use of medical marijuana?

A: It depends.

Case in point: Davis v. The Albert M. Higley Co.

Brian Davis, who used legally prescribed medical marijuana to treat his anxiety, depression, and ADHD, sued The Albert M. Higley Co. for wrongful failure to hire under Pennsylvania's Medical Marijuana Act (MMA) and for disability discrimination under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA).

What makes an accommodation "reasonable"?

Let's talk about Nguyen v. Bessent and the IRS's year-long effort to accommodate an employee with medical limitations.

Thuy-Ai Nguyen, an IT specialist at the IRS, requested multiple accommodations related to her severe depression, anxiety, and cognitive impairment. Her requests? A transfer to a different division, formal training, a part-time schedule, and the ability to work from home or transfer to a location with a shorter commute.

The IRS partially granted her requests: It offered her a new assignment with different immediate supervisors, on-the-job training, and a six-month part-time schedule. But it denied her telework request, arguing that in-person training was necessary. They also searched for positions closer to her home but found no vacancies.

Nguyen rejected the offer, arguing it wasn't a "reasonable" accommodation because her higher-level manager remained the same and she still had to commute to the same location.

The court disagreed.