A recent lawsuit alleges that an employee was terminated after requesting medical accommodations, raising questions about workplace rights under federal law. The complaint was filed by Candace Howard in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on March 16, 2026, naming Favorite Healthcare Staffing, LLC as the defendant.
According to the filing, Howard worked in a leadership role supporting emergency shelter operations in Chicago. She claims she was dismissed shortly after asking for reasonable accommodation due to medical restrictions following surgery. The complaint states that her employer cited alleged timecard fraud as the reason for her termination but asserts this accusation is false.
The document outlines several legal issues at stake. Howard alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. She claims that after undergoing surgery in March 2024, her physician restricted her from lifting more than ten pounds during recovery—a limitation she says substantially affected major life activities such as lifting and mobility. Howard informed her employer about these restrictions and continued performing essential job duties, including coordinating logistics and communicating with colleagues.
On April 22, 2024, Howard requested a reasonable accommodation for her medical condition and provided supporting documentation from her physician. The complaint reports that Favorite Healthcare Staffing delayed responding to this request and required repeated documentation submissions. During this period, Howard says she was required to relocate between hotel locations despite informing management that moving would be difficult due to her condition. She also notes that several non-human resources employees requested medical information from her.
Howard asserts that “Defendant failed to engage in a good faith interactive process to determine appropriate accommodation.” She further alleges that on May 8, 2024—shortly after making her request—her employment was terminated based on an allegation of timecard fraud. The filing states: “Plaintiff denies this allegation and states that she continued performing work duties during the relevant period.” It also claims there was no reasonable investigation into her work activity before termination and describes the stated reason as pretextual.
The lawsuit includes four counts: disability discrimination under the ADA; failure to accommodate under the ADA; retaliation for engaging in protected activity by requesting accommodation; and sex discrimination under Title VII. Regarding sex discrimination, Howard alleges: “Defendant treated Plaintiff differently than male employees” and claims male employees received more favorable treatment regarding workplace accommodations.
Howard reports having exhausted administrative remedies by filing a charge with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). She received a Notice of Right to Sue on December 17, 2025, which is attached as an exhibit in the filing. This lawsuit was filed within ninety days of receiving that notice.
In terms of relief sought from the court, Howard requests judgment in her favor along with back pay and lost wages, front pay or reinstatement, compensatory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorney’s fees, as well as any other relief deemed just by the court.
The case is identified as 1:26-cv-02988 before Judge Martha M. Pacold and Magistrate Judge Daniel P. McLaughlin in the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division. Candace Howard is representing herself pro se.
Source: 126cv02988_Candace_Howard_v_Favorite_Healthcare_Complaint_Northern_District_of_Illinois.pdf
