Subaru Worker Sues Automaker, Says Firing Followed Approved Narcolepsy Leave

Why It Matters

The case underscores the legal and reputational risks for manufacturers that mishandle disability accommodations and the interactive process required by the ADA and FMLA. A ruling could force stricter HR compliance and sizable financial exposure for Subaru.

Key Takeaways

• Compton used approved intermittent FMLA leave for narcolepsy in 2025
• HR denied his request to answer questions about prior absences
• Internal complaint form was withheld; meeting led to termination
• Lawsuit alleges ADA accommodation failure, disability discrimination, retaliation
• Subaru has not yet responded; case may set precedent

Pulse Analysis

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) set clear standards for employers to engage in an interactive process when an employee requests a reasonable accommodation. Failure to do so can trigger claims of discrimination and retaliation, especially when an employee’s condition, such as narcolepsy, requires scheduled medication and rest periods. Courts have consistently ruled that employers must document accommodations, respond promptly to employee inquiries, and provide a transparent avenue for internal complaints.

In the Subaru of Indiana Automotive case, the plaintiff alleges a systematic breakdown of these obligations. After receiving approval for intermittent FMLA leave in March 2025, Compton was suddenly interrogated about earlier absences, denied the chance to explain, and blocked from filing a formal grievance. The subsequent termination, occurring less than ten days after the denied complaint request, forms the crux of his ADA and FMLA retaliation claims. If the lawsuit proceeds, Subaru could face back pay, front‑pay, punitive damages, and attorney fees, potentially running into six‑figure sums, while also confronting heightened scrutiny from regulators and labor advocates.

Beyond the immediate parties, the dispute signals a warning to the broader manufacturing sector, where shift work and health‑related accommodations are common. Companies must reinforce HR training on disability law, ensure timely documentation of accommodations, and maintain clear, accessible complaint mechanisms. Proactive compliance not only mitigates litigation risk but also supports workforce morale and retention, essential factors in a competitive industry facing ongoing talent shortages. A favorable outcome for the plaintiff could catalyze industry‑wide policy revisions and reinforce the legal precedent that disability accommodations cannot be weaponized against employees.