A recent lawsuit claims that an employee was terminated immediately after returning from approved medical leave, raising questions about workplace rights under federal law. The complaint was filed by Shanika Bentley on March 16, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against the Arthritis Foundation, Inc.
According to court documents, Bentley served as Director of Learning & Development at the nonprofit organization, which is described as dedicated to addressing the needs of individuals living with arthritis through advocacy, research, and community support. Bentley alleges that she performed her duties well throughout her employment, receiving annual salary increases and strong performance ratings. She states that she had never been disciplined or written up prior to events leading to her termination.
The dispute centers on Bentley’s request for medical leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) in early May 2025. She informed her supervisor, Cathy Hood, Senior Vice President of People Operations, about her need for FMLA due to a serious medical condition. Bentley reports that Hood pressed her for details regarding her condition and potential dates for leave despite assurances that information would be provided by her physician. Bentley also requested confidentiality regarding her health status.
Bentley formally submitted her FMLA request on or about May 9, 2025. She worked with Hood to ensure coverage of her responsibilities during her absence. However, she claims that following this request, Hood began making comments suggesting changes to Bentley’s role and expressed frustration over delays in receiving paperwork from Bentley’s physician. One incident described in the filing involved Hood shouting “Shanika!” when informed about pending documentation.
The complaint further states that five days after submitting her FMLA request, Hood questioned Bentley about outside employment opportunities—an issue previously discussed and permitted according to guidance given at hiring. Bentley asserts this inquiry felt retaliatory given its timing and their prior conversations regarding business ideas.
Bentley’s FMLA leave was approved from May 30 through July 30, 2025. She returned to work on July 31 after providing a doctor’s note clearing her return. On that same day, she was called into a meeting with Hood and another colleague where she was terminated without any prior disciplinary action or documentation of performance concerns.
The stated rationale for termination referenced business activities from previous years (2023 and 2024), which had not been raised before Bentley’s FMLA request. The complaint argues that this timing demonstrates retaliatory intent connected to Bentley exercising her rights under federal law.
In addition to claims under the FMLA for interference and retaliation, Bentley alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), asserting she was subjected to hostility due to both her disability and related accommodation requests. The lawsuit also includes state law claims such as assault, battery, negligent supervision, and negligent retention.
Bentley seeks multiple forms of relief from the court: declaratory judgment stating that defendant’s actions violated federal law; a permanent injunction barring similar conduct; back pay; front pay; compensatory damages; punitive damages; liquidated damages; attorney’s fees; costs; nominal damages; and any other relief deemed proper by the court.
The case is identified as Civil Action File No. 1:26-cv-01433-TRJ-RDC. Plaintiff is represented by attorney J. Stephen Mixon of The Mixon Law Firm.
Source: 126cv1433_Shanika_Bentley_v_The_Arthritis_Complaint_Northern_District_of_Georgia.pdf
