Jennifer Ramsey began working for San Jacinto College District (“SJC”) in 2005 and, over approximately 15 years, received four promotions and generally positive performance reviews, eventually becoming Manager of Learning Technology. Beginning in 2018, Ramsey developed a severe medical condition affecting her vision, hearing, balance, and cognitive functioning. She took FMLA leave for surgery from November 2020 through January 2021 and was cleared to return to work without restrictions.
Eleven days after returning, Ramsey received her first written performance complaint, documenting two recent instances of tardiness and stating that similar problems had occurred “many times over the past several months,” a period that included her FMLA leave. Over the following months, SJC documented additional concerns involving tardiness (e.g., ten separate instances of Ramsey texting her supervisor that she would be late), late leave reports, missed meetings, and failure to meet deadlines. Some had no apparent connection to Ramsey’s medical condition, for example, Ramsey attributed late arrivals to traffic, a delayed appliance delivery to her home, and other personal circumstances. Around the same time, Ramsey received a “COVID-19 Hero” award after being nominated by her supervisor, and a July 2021 performance review noted concerns about accountability and timeliness but nevertheless rated her overall performance as “valuable.”
Ramsey continued to experience medical problems and took another period of FMLA leave for surgery from July through September 2021. Thereafter, she received intermittent FMLA leave, including for migraine flare-ups. After she returned, additional performance concerns arose, including for missed project deadlines and repeated late arrivals. In November, her supervisor, Kam Marvel, issued a Final Corrective Action Notice citing continued tardiness, missed deadlines, and interactions in which Ramsey allegedly behaved unprofessionally and spoke in an elevated tone.
Ramsey contended that some of the documentation omitted important disability-related context. For example, the corrective action criticized her for speaking in an elevated tone, but Ramsey asserted she had explained that her hearing difficulties affected her speaking volume. She had also requested softer lighting for her migraines and specialized headsets for her hearing problems. On November 19, Marvel acknowledged one of her headset accommodation requests and referred it to HR. Two days later, Ramsey told Marvel that she had a brain injury, believed there had been no empathy for her medical situation, that she had been written up three times, and that she talked with HR and believed she might have an EEOC claim. Marvel recommended her termination ten days later, and SJC terminated Ramsey on December 3 based principally on missed deadlines and errors in her work.
Ramsey sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). A divided Fifth Circuit reversed summary judgment for SJC on her ADA discrimination and retaliation claims and her FMLA retaliation claim, concluding that a jury could question whether SJC’s legitimate performance concerns were the actual reasons for her termination.
SJC did not dispute on appeal that it had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating Ramsey, including her repeated tardiness and missed deadlines. The central question was whether Ramsey had presented enough evidence for a jury to find those explanations were pretextual—that is, that they were not the College’s true reasons for terminating her.
The Court identified several pieces of evidence that, considered together, could support a finding of pretext. Ramsey began receiving written performance criticism after returning from FMLA leave yet received a positive performance rating during the disciplinary process. More importantly, her Final Corrective Action Notice allegedly omitted disability-related context for conduct characterized as unprofessional, including her elevated speaking volume and her statement that “nobody accommodates me.”
The Court also focused on Marvel’s knowledge of Ramsey’s condition. Marvel later declared that he did not know whether Ramsey had a disability or had requested disability accommodations when he recommended her termination. Yet the record contained evidence that Ramsey had discussed her migraines, hearing issues, brain injury, intermittent FMLA leave, medical appointments, and headset accommodation with him. His own notes also reflected Ramsey’s statement that she had a brain injury and believed she had a potential EEOC claim. The Court concluded that these inconsistencies could cause a jury to question the credibility of Marvel’s explanation for recommending termination.
SJC argued that its Chancellor, who made the final termination decision, was unaware of Ramsey’s disability. The Court agreed there was no evidence the Chancellor herself acted with discriminatory intent, but applied the “cat’s paw” theory, under which an employer may be liable when an unbiased decisionmaker relies on a recommendation influenced by another supervisor’s unlawful bias. Because Marvel prepared key disciplinary documents and recommended Ramsey’s termination, a jury could find his actions caused the ultimate decision.
The Court similarly allowed Ramsey’s retaliation claims to proceed. Her most recent accommodation request occurred only 12 days before Marvel recommended termination, and her discipline and termination also closely followed approval of her intermittent FMLA leave. Although timing alone was insufficient, the Court held that the timing combined with the other evidence of potential pretext created a factual dispute.
Ramsey v. San Jacinto Coll. Dist. (5th Cir. 2026) 2026 WL 2268172.
Note: Legitimate performance concerns do not necessarily insulate schools from disability or retaliation claims. When performance management overlaps with medical leave or accommodation requests, schools should ensure that disciplinary documentation is complete and accurate and that the ultimate decision rests on a careful and accurate assessment of the employee’s performance.