A recent lawsuit alleges that a worker was wrongfully terminated while on approved disability leave, raising questions about employer obligations under federal and state disability laws. The complaint was filed by Delish Freeman in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on March 27, 2026, naming Kenco Logistic Services, LLC and Voya IM SLP Holdings Inc., doing business as Voya Financial, as defendants.
According to the court filing, Freeman asserts that she was subjected to discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) after suffering severe injuries in a car accident on August 27, 2025. The document states that Freeman sustained torn vertebral disks in her neck and back when another vehicle collided with hers. As a result of these injuries, she experienced significant limitations in daily activities such as standing, bending, lifting, driving, and working.
Freeman had been employed by Kenco since December 3, 2021 at its facility located at 1871 Willow Springs Church Road in Social Circle, Georgia. She is described as having been an exemplary employee who excelled as a forklift operator for nearly four years prior to her injury. Following her accident, Freeman applied for disability leave through Voya Financial—Kenco’s designated agent for administering employee leave—pursuant to company policy.
The complaint outlines that Voya initially approved Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave from August 27 through November 13, 2025. Subsequently, ADA leave was granted from November 14 through November 30, which was later extended multiple times based on medical advice. Ultimately, Freeman’s ADA leave was set to continue through February 5, 2026. This approval was confirmed both in writing by Voya on January 4 and visible in Freeman’s employee portal.
Despite these approvals, the lawsuit alleges that on January 16—while still on approved ADA leave—Freeman contacted Kenco Human Resource Specialist Rebecca Brantley to confirm her return-to-work date of February 6. She was informed during this call that she had already been terminated for failing to return to work. When Freeman explained her ongoing approved leave status, she was directed to speak with Greg Goyer, Kenco’s Human Resources Manager.
During their conversation, Goyer claimed that a letter had been sent requiring Freeman to return without restrictions by December 19 but could not provide proof that it had been received or delivered. According to the filing: “Mr. Goyer never engaged in any interactive process with Plaintiff relating to Plaintiff’s disability accommodation.” Furthermore: “Prior to the January 16 phone call between Plaintiff and Mr. Goyer…Plaintiff’s Voya employee portal showed an ADA Leave benefit end date of February 5.” Within hours after this call—and allegedly at the instruction of Kenco staff—the portal reflected a retroactive change ending Freeman’s leave on January 2.
The complaint claims that this alteration allowed defendants to justify terminating Freeman effective January 2 despite her prior approval for continued absence due to disability. It also alleges that Thomas & Company Inc., acting as third-party human resources administrator for Kenco, submitted documentation containing these altered records to the Georgia Department of Labor stating: “Did not return from medical leave of absence.”
Freeman brings several legal claims against both companies including failure to accommodate under the ADA; interference with ADA rights; retaliation following protected activity; failure by Kenco specifically to engage in an interactive process regarding accommodations; discrimination under Georgia’s Equal Employment for Persons with Disabilities Act; and civil conspiracy under state law related to denial of those rights.
The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages for lost wages and benefits along with general damages for emotional distress and mental anguish caused by what are described as willful acts by defendants. She also requests punitive damages where applicable; back pay; front pay; attorneys’ fees; costs; pre-judgment interest; injunctive relief prohibiting further discriminatory conduct; and all other relief deemed appropriate by the court.
Attorneys Destiney Randolph (Georgia Bar No. 492233) and Christopher B. Hall (Georgia Bar No. 318380) from Hall & Lampros LLP represent Delish Freeman in this case (Civil Action No.: 1:26-cv-01656-MHC-JEM).
Source: 126cv01656_Delish_Freeman_v_Kenco_Logistic_Complaint_Northern_District_of_Georgia.pdf
