In a new lawsuit led by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Paycom Payroll LLC is facing allegations of disability discrimination in its handling of an employee’s food allergies, accused of firing them rather than providing reasonable accommodations. The EEOC’s lawsuit against Paycom states that the company violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) when it moved to fire the employee less than a month after she began to work for the organization, for her “health and wellness.” Many decisions made within the workplace appear innocuous at first, but they have varying impacts on the workforce and their ability to perform their job. How a company handles its workers and their needs can determine how well employees can perform their roles, which means that it is often in an organization’s best interest to find a way to support its hires.
The EEOC has filed a disability discrimination lawsuit against Paycom over alleged ADA violations, following the firing of an employee with food allergies. (Image: Pexels)
Paycom Payroll LLC Accused of Disability Discrimination for Failing to Accommodate Employee Food Allergies
The federal lawsuit against Paycom indicates that shortly after an employee with a severe allergy to onions was hired, she repeatedly suffered from anaphylactic reactions from exposure to food that her coworkers brought in. The employee states that her condition was disclosed during the interview process, so the organization was aware of it beforehand.
Problems began when the employee was exposed to her coworkers’ meals around her desk, causing a serious reaction that forced her to use emergency medication to deal with her symptoms. The next day, another instance of exposure required her to see on-site paramedic support.
Hoping to find a solution to this problem, the employee reached out to her supervisor and the HR team to inform them about the situation. The employee requested a secluded workspace during lunch hours as a solution, and Paycom initially did attempt to make accommodations, providing her with a private workspace for a few hours around lunchtime.
While Initial Accommodations Were Made, Matters Reportedly Continued to Worsen
The provisions proved to be insufficient after additional instances of exposure continued to cause reactions, two incidents even requiring her to take an ambulance to the hospital. Not only was the employee exposed to food brought in by coworkers, but she was also reportedly exposed to the trigger when the company brought in catered food for the team.
The employee then offered Paycom medical documentation to support her cause, which recommended that the employee work in a secluded location where she wouldn’t be as affected by the food, or have the option to work from home, where she had greater control over her environment.
Court documents state that company officials told her to “wear a mask and carry an EpiPen,” after refusing to provide the recommended accommodations. The employee was eventually moved to a more sparsely populated floor, but was then placed close to a breakroom. No other changes were made to accommodate the employee’s condition, and the day after her most severe reaction in June 2024, the employee was reportedly fired over the company’s inability to accommodate her.
The lawsuit alleges that Paycom did not inform her colleagues or provide her with the option of remote work despite having established policies permitting the practice. It also states that providing additional accommodations would not have “imposed an undue hardship on the operation of Paycom’s business.”
The Paycom Lawsuit Alleges ADA Violations: How Accommodations Can Differ From Case to Case
The EEOC’s lawsuit against Paycom indicates that the firing and lack of accommodations were a violation of the ADA, which oversees the labor rights of employees with disabilities or debilitating medical conditions. In most cases, the idea of disability accommodations comes with the expectation of visible physical conditions or clear evidence of the employee’s limitations to justify the need for adjustments, but this is a shortsighted approach. Ailments can look different from person to person, and while some are taken more seriously than others, they all equally affect the individual, impairing their ability to work despite their desire and intention to remain employed.
In comparison to other health conditions, food allergies are not always taken as seriously, but these conditions can prove fatal if ignored, and thus require employers to seriously consider how accommodations can be made without any undue hardship to their operation. “Employers have a legal obligation to explore and provide reasonable accommodations for workers with disabilities, especially when the potential consequences of inaction are life-threatening,” Andrea G. Baran, Regional Attorney for the EEOC’s St. Louis District, said in a statement. “No employee should be forced to choose between their health and their livelihood.”
When immediate solutions do not present themselves and existing strategies don’t work as intended, employers are still required to communicate with the employee to understand how accommodations can be made. Without sufficient efforts towards resolving the situation, employers risk being seen as unsympathetic to the worker’s condition, and there’s also the risk of legal repercussions that soon follow.
Subscribe to The HR Digest for more insights on workplace trends, layoffs, and what to expect with the advent of AI.
