William Oscar Ward, a pro se plaintiff, sued his former employer, Wesley Medical Center, claiming discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The dispute originated from a workplace conflict where Ward alleged two colleagues were taking credit for a cleaning tool he invented. Shortly after making these complaints, Ward sought treatment for anxiety and requested leave through a third-party administrator. Although his leave was initially approved, Ward failed to provide timely medical documentation to extend his leave beyond the approved dates and did not respond to multiple requests from Human Resources to meet regarding his return to work. Consequently, Ward was terminated after exhausting his FMLA leave. The district court granted summary judgment to Wesley, finding Ward failed to establish causation for his claims. Ward appealed, arguing the district court abused its discretion by limiting the scope of litigation and denying his request to proceed without prepayment of fees.
The Tenth Circuit reviewed the case de novo, affirming the district court's decision on several grounds. First, the appellate court rejected Ward's argument that the district court abused its discretion by excluding claims not included in the pretrial order, noting that claims omitted from the pretrial order are waived. The court also upheld the district court's ruling that Ward failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) and local rules by failing to provide a concise statement of disputed facts, meaning Wesley's facts were deemed admitted. On the merits of the ADA discrimination claim, the court applied the McDonnell Douglas framework. It held that Ward failed to establish a prima facie case because there was no evidence that Wesley knew about his anxiety when the alleged discriminatory acts occurred. The court stated, 'ADA liability cannot be based on actions taken when [an employer] was unaware of [the plaintiff’s] disability.' Regarding the retaliation claims under both the ADA and FMLA, the court found Ward failed to prove causation. The termination occurred three months after Ward sought treatment for anxiety and requested leave. The court reasoned that 'three months between the protected activity and the adverse action, standing alone, is not sufficient to establish causation.' Finally, the court denied Ward's request to proceed in forma pauperis, finding his financial declaration showed he had sufficient resources to pay the filing fees.
The judgment in favor of Wesley Medical Center stands, and Ward's claims are dismissed. The decision reinforces that employers are not liable for discrimination if they lack knowledge of a disability at the time of the adverse action. It also clarifies that a three-month delay between protected activity and termination is generally too long to infer retaliation without additional evidence of a causal link. Additionally, the ruling emphasizes the strict procedural requirements for pro se litigants opposing summary judgment, requiring them to specifically identify disputed facts or risk having the opposing party's facts admitted.