Atlanta Employment Attorneys Blog
An employee recovering from surgery is cleared to return to work, but with temporary medical restrictions. Can the employer refuse to allow the employee to return until those restrictions are completely lifted?
A new settlement announced by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) highlights the potential legal consequences of that approach.
On November 5, 2026, the EEOC announced that a Florida automobile dealership company agreed to pay $112,500 and implement significant workplace reforms to resolve a disability discrimination lawsuit involving an employee recovering from cancer-related surgery.
The case illustrates an important principle under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): An employee does not necessarily have to be completely healed or free from medical restrictions to return to work. EEOC
What Happened?
According to the EEOC, Schumacher Auto Group, a Palm Beach County automobile dealership company, terminated an accounting clerk in May 2024 while she was on medical leave recovering from cancer-related surgery.
The employee had requested permission to return to work with temporary medical restrictions. Specifically, her restrictions included a five-pound lifting limitation and prohibitions against repetitive squatting, bending, or lifting for three weeks.
Rather than allowing her to return with those restrictions, the EEOC alleged that the company terminated her employment.
The EEOC filed suit in the Southern District of Florida, alleging that the employer violated the ADA by failing to provide reasonable accommodations and terminating the employee because of her disability.
The case, EEOC v. Schumacher Auto Group, Inc., No. 9:26-cv-81322-EA, was resolved through a four-year consent decree.
Under the settlement, the company agreed to pay $112,500 in compensatory damages to the former employee. It also agreed to implement a comprehensive disability accommodation policy, provide regular training, and report disability accommodation requests and complaints to the EEOC.
The settlement resolves the EEOC’s allegations; it is not a judicial finding that the company violated the ADA. EEOC
Why “100% Healed” Policies Can Violate the ADA
The ADA generally requires covered employers to provide reasonable accommodations that enable qualified employees with disabilities to perform the essential functions of their jobs, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship.
Reasonable accommodations may include modified schedules, temporary adjustments to nonessential duties, workplace modifications, or additional medical leave.
Importantly, the EEOC has long taken the position that employers cannot automatically require employees with disabilities to be completely free of medical restrictions before returning to work.
The agency’s guidance explains that requiring an employee to be fully recovered may violate the ADA when the employee could perform the essential functions of the position with or without reasonable accommodation.
That does not mean employers must eliminate essential job duties or accommodate every restriction. Rather, they must evaluate the employee’s actual limitations, the essential functions of the position, and whether a reasonable accommodation is available. EEOC
The Importance of the Interactive Process
One of the most significant aspects of this case is the relatively short duration of the requested restrictions.
The employee allegedly needed modifications for only three weeks.
Whether an accommodation is reasonable depends on the particular circumstances, including the employee’s duties, the nature of the restrictions, and the employer’s operations.
For example, a five-pound lifting restriction might substantially interfere with the essential duties of a warehouse employee who routinely handles heavy materials. The same restriction might have little impact on an accounting employee whose principal responsibilities involve computer work, financial records, and administrative tasks.
Employers should therefore avoid relying exclusively on generalized job descriptions or blanket medical-clearance policies.
Instead, they should engage in an individualized assessment to determine whether the employee can perform the essential functions of the position with reasonable accommodation.
The EEOC’s accommodation guidance also emphasizes that employers should consider alternative effective accommodations when the employee’s preferred accommodation is unavailable or would create an undue hardship. EEOC
What About FMLA Leave?
The ADA and Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) provide separate, potentially overlapping protections.
An employee may exhaust available FMLA leave—or may never have qualified for FMLA leave—and still be entitled to a reasonable accommodation under the ADA.
Similarly, an employee who is medically cleared to return from FMLA leave with restrictions may have additional rights under the ADA.
Employers should therefore evaluate FMLA eligibility, ADA accommodation obligations, and applicable leave policies separately rather than assuming compliance with one statute satisfies all legal obligations. EEOC
Five Practical Takeaways
- Avoid blanket “100% healed” requirements. Employers should not automatically refuse to reinstate employees merely because their physicians impose temporary medical restrictions.
- Identify essential job functions. Determine whether the employee can perform the position’s fundamental duties with or without reasonable accommodation.
- Evaluate temporary accommodations. Short-term restrictions may be addressed through modified schedules, adjustments to marginal duties, or other effective accommodations.
- Document the interactive process. Employers should maintain records of accommodation requests, medical restrictions, proposed alternatives, and the reasons for granting or denying accommodations.
- Consider ADA obligations independently of FMLA eligibility. The expiration or unavailability of FMLA leave does not necessarily eliminate an employer’s duty to consider reasonable accommodation.
The Bottom Line
The Schumacher settlement reinforces an important lesson for Georgia employers and employees: Medical restrictions do not automatically make an employee unqualified to return to work.
Before denying reinstatement or terminating an employee recovering from a medical condition, employers should evaluate whether reasonable accommodations would permit the employee to perform the essential functions of the position.
For employees, the case underscores the importance of clearly communicating medical restrictions and requesting accommodations that would permit a safe return to work.
A temporary restriction may require a temporary adjustment—not the end of the employment relationship.