By Lori Cooper
In November 2025, the Oregon Court of Appeals waded into the murky waters of employees’ resignation/ job abandonment versus termination of employment. In Cullen v. Clean Water Services Division, the Court highlighted the importance of thoughtfully considering whether an employee’s statements and/or behavior may be sufficient to put an employer on notice of a possible disability and the need to engage in an interactive process required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Court also noted the importance of communicating with employees in clear and definite terms whenever possible, such as whether an employee is considered to have quit or resigned.
Background of the Case
In this case, plaintiff Cullen was a long-term employee of defendant employer, Clean Water Services (CWS), who “uncharacteristically” lost his temper during a meeting in the summer of 2022. About a month later, on August 22, 2022, plaintiff met with CWS’s CEO and expressed frustration and dissatisfaction with his job. The employee also made several statements which appeared to indicate he was resigning (e.g., “I’m done. I always thought I was an eternal optimist, but I’ve lost hope and cannot endure any longer”, “This is not how I’ve wanted to go out, but I am exhausted and lost all hope”, and “Let us part professionally, with my integrity intact.”)
A flurry of action took place over the following days, including:
• The employee discovered he was locked out of his work computer.
• The employee contacted Human Resources for information relating to the employee assistance program.
• The employee emailed the CEO to express “surprise” that he was locked out of his work computer. After the CEO explained to plaintiff that she was “respect[ing] his decision to resign,” plaintiff responded that he had not “resigned.”
• The employee emailed the CEO and stated he would return to work after a “30- to 60-day leave to address his mental health issues.”
Ultimately, the CEO informed the employee that, based on their discussion during the original August meeting, he had “no path back” to his job.
The employee subsequently informed the employer that he had been diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder and Anxiety, and that he attributed his behavior and communications to this diagnosis. The employer had approved a period of FMLA leave for the employee to obtain treatment for his condition, but his employment was ultimately terminated following his leave.
Among other lawsuit allegations, the employee claimed that his employment was terminated after the employer became aware of and/or because of his alleged disability.
The Oregon Court of Appeals’ Decision
The employer argued that, because they were not aware of any alleged disability when the employee resigned, they could not have retaliated and/or discriminated against the employee on the basis of his alleged disability.
The Court disagreed that there was a “clear understanding” that plaintiff resigned and identified that the appropriate inquiry was whether the employee had resigned before or after the employer knew or should have known about his alleged disability.
Key Takeaways for Employers
An employer’s obligations under the ADA (or Oregon state law equivalent) – including what conduct or language is sufficient to trigger the ADA-mandated interactive process – can be extremely nuanced. In situations where an employee does not identify any need for support and does not request any accommodation, it can be difficult for employers to balance their desire to be supportive of employees with the need to not engage in any guesswork about an employee’s medical condition or disability-related needs.
The Cullen decision reinforces the importance of pausing to evaluate the full picture before proceeding with disciplinary action or a termination. Courts will likely scrutinize what the employer knew (or should have known) at every decision point along the way, so it is critical for employers to be thoughtful and intentional when navigating complex termination decisions.
If faced with a situation where an employee is expressing frustration with their job, employers should consider the following:
• Do not make decisions in a vacuum or ignore surrounding circumstances. If the situation is unclear, speak with employees involved in the employee’s work, gather information about conversations the employee may have had with their supervisor, HR personnel, or others (including, for example, inquiries about the company’s employee assistance program), and determine a course of action based on this information.
• Prior to making any adverse employment decisions, consult with HR or legal counsel if an employee’s behavior seems unusual or problematic and you think it may be disability-related.
• Always communicate with employees in clear and definite terms. Set clear and reasonable written deadlines for the employee to provide medical or other relevant information. Similarly, if faced with a surprising employee resignation and providing time for possible reconsideration, communicate a definitive deadline. Employers will have difficulty defending deadlines that were never clearly communicated to employees.
Contact LGLG’s employment and labor law team for help in navigating your obligations under the ADA or state law equivalent programs.
