A recent legal filing alleges that an employee was terminated shortly after disclosing a mental health condition and requesting workplace accommodations, raising questions about compliance with federal and state disability laws. The complaint was filed by Thomas Gaydosh in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on April 14, 2026, naming Roush Enterprises as the defendant.
According to the complaint, Thomas Gaydosh began working as a Senior Program Manager at Roush Enterprises in November 2023. The document states that Gaydosh disclosed his diagnosis of Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (CPTSD) to Human Resources in early March 2025 after his condition became unmanageable. He formally requested accommodations supported by medical documentation and applied for leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). His requests included intermittent paid time off for flare-ups related to his condition, permission to call his wife during work hours if needed, direct communication regarding deadlines, and use of voice memoranda.
The filing reports that Gaydosh’s FMLA leave was approved promptly by Roush Enterprises’ Benefits Coordinator. He took three weeks off beginning in March 2025 before returning to work on March 28, 2025. While on leave, he received a performance review that allegedly downplayed positive customer feedback and focused instead on the effects of his mental health condition. Upon returning to work, Gaydosh claims he was excluded from meetings, stripped of core responsibilities, instructed not to contact stakeholders, and avoided by colleagues.
The complaint further details that two days after Roush Enterprises approved his accommodation request—on April 4, 2025—Gaydosh was informed by Human Resources that his position had been eliminated. However, five months later in September 2025, Gaydosh learned that Roush Enterprises was advertising for a Senior Program Manager position identical to his own prior role. The lawsuit asserts: “Plaintiff’s role was not eliminated by Defendant; rather, Plaintiff was terminated due to his disability and his exercise of protected rights under the ADA and the FMLA.”
Gaydosh contends that prior to disclosing his disability or taking leave he received positive verbal feedback from management and had not been warned about any issues with job performance or risk of termination. He also claims he had been “inundated with work” before making these disclosures.
The legal action brings four counts against Roush Enterprises: Disability Discrimination in Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Retaliation in Violation of the ADA, Disability Discrimination and Retaliation in Violation of Michigan’s Persons With Disabilities Civil Rights Act (PWDCRA), and Retaliation in Violation of the FMLA. The complaint alleges that “Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff because of his disability…by terminating his employment,” further stating that “Defendant’s proffered justification for Plaintiff’s termination is pretextual.” It also claims that non-disabled employees were treated more favorably.
In support of retaliation claims under both federal and state law as well as under FMLA protections, Gaydosh points to what he describes as temporal proximity between protected activities—such as applying for leave or requesting accommodations—and termination: “Plaintiff was terminated just two days after Defendant formally approved his accommodation request.”
As relief from the court, Gaydosh seeks compensatory damages for lost wages and benefits; liquidated damages as provided under FMLA statutes; exemplary and punitive damages; prejudgment interest; attorneys’ fees; costs; and any other relief deemed appropriate by law or equity.
Attorneys Noah S. Hurwitz (P74063) and Grant M. Vlahopoulos (P85633) from Hurwitz Law PLLC represent Thomas Gaydosh in this matter. The case is identified as Case No. 2:26-cv-11217-RJW-DRG.
Source: 226cv11217_Thomas_Gaydosh_v_Roush_Enterprises_Complaint_Eastern_District_of_Michigan.pdf
