A federal agency has taken a Santa Fe hospital to court over the way it handled an employee’s request for a different job after an injury. The case turns on a question many New Mexico workers face after a serious medical event, which is what an employer owes a person who can still work but not in the same position. Federal law answers that question in a way many employers underestimate.
What the Lawsuit Alleges
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico against St. Vincent Hospital, the entity operating Christus St. Vincent Regional Medical Center. According to the agency, a long-term employee fractured her foot and tore tendons in her ankle around 2021. She returned from medical leave and worked light duty in a patient care role for several months before asking to be moved to a different position she could physically handle.
A receptionist position was open. She was not placed in it. Instead, according to the EEOC’s announcement of the lawsuit, the hospital terminated her and stated in the termination letter that she would not be eligible for rehire until she was fully recovered or had a release for full duty.
These are allegations. The hospital has not been found liable, and the matter remains pending.
Why Full-Duty Release Policies Draw Attention
Employers sometimes adopt rules that sound neutral but function as a blanket bar against workers with restrictions. A policy requiring an employee to be one hundred percent healed before returning is the most common version. The Americans with Disabilities Act does not permit that shortcut. It requires an individualized look at what the person can actually do.
Practices that tend to attract federal scrutiny include the following:
- Demanding an unrestricted duty release as a condition of returning
- Ending employment automatically when a light duty period runs out
- Treating any medical restriction as a disqualification from all work
- Declining to review open positions the employee could fill
- Applying a fixed leave limit without considering the individual situation
Each of these substitutes a rule for a conversation. That is the problem.
Reassignment Counts as an Accommodation
When an employee can no longer perform the core duties of a current role because of a disability, transfer to a vacant position the person is qualified for is one accommodation an employer is expected to consider. It is not a favor. It is a recognized obligation, subject to whether the change would impose an undue hardship on the business.
The obligation also depends on a back-and-forth exchange. An employer should discuss options with the worker rather than deciding alone that nothing exists. Additional agency guidance on disability rights at work is available through the EEOC disability resources page.
Documentation Helps
Workers who suspect their restrictions were used against them should preserve written accommodation requests, medical release forms, job postings that were open at the time, and any correspondence about return to work. Written records carry weight that memory does not.
Deadlines Apply
Most federal discrimination claims require a charge with the EEOC before a lawsuit can be filed. Those filing deadlines are short, and a charge submitted to the New Mexico Human Rights Bureau is generally dual-filed with the federal agency. Waiting is the most common way a strong claim becomes unusable.
Talking With a Santa Fe Employment Lawyer
A denied accommodation request does not always mean a legal violation occurred. Sometimes no suitable position exists. Sometimes the restrictions genuinely prevent the work. A Santa Fe, NM employment lawyer can reconstruct the timeline and identify whether the employer met its obligations or skipped them.
If your employer refused to consider an open position after an injury, or terminated you because you were not released for full duty, the attorneys at Davie & Valdez P.C. can review what happened and explain the options available to you under federal and New Mexico law.