Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Daniel M. Thomas worked for Gray Television Group as a nightside anchor and executive producer. After Gray required employees to receive a COVID-19 vaccine by October 1, 2021, Thomas sought an ADA accommodation based on an asserted allergy to polyethylene glycol and polysorbate-80. His sister-in-law, Dr. Jessica Hutchins, signed Gray’s medical questionnaire and advised him not to receive the vaccine.
Gray denied the request after concluding that it could not reasonably allow an anchor to work remotely without undue hardship, citing the need for in-person interaction, broadcast quality, and the cost of home-broadcasting equipment. Gray terminated Thomas when he remained unvaccinated. Thomas sued for failure to accommodate and disability-based discharge, and Gray moved to strike portions of his affidavit and for summary judgment.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted Gray’s evidentiary motion in part. It struck Thomas’s account of an allergy diagnosis as hearsay, his assertions that earlier reactions were caused by the two substances as conclusory and unsupported, and his later claim that ingesting them caused throat swelling and restricted breathing under the sham-affidavit doctrine. Other portions describing his symptoms and behavioral changes remained admissible, while objections unrelated to the dispositive disability issue were denied as moot.
The court granted Gray summary judgment and dismissed Thomas’s claims with prejudice because he failed to establish an ADA disability. His theory that an allergy prevented vaccination, which in turn prevented him from retaining a vaccine-mandated job, was too indirect because the asserted impairment itself did not substantially limit a major life activity. Independently, the court found insufficient evidence that Thomas had the claimed allergy or that it substantially limited eating, breathing, or working. Because disability was essential to both claims, the court did not address their remaining elements.
Key Takeaways
- An asserted condition does not qualify as an ADA disability merely because it prevents vaccination and thereby limits access to jobs requiring vaccination; the impairment itself must substantially limit a major life activity.
- Thomas produced no medical records, specialist confirmation, or designated expert testimony establishing an allergy to polyethylene glycol or polysorbate-80, and his own physician’s testimony was equivocal.
- A plaintiff’s affidavit cannot create a genuine factual dispute through hearsay, unsupported causation opinions, or material symptom claims that contradict prior deposition testimony.
Why It Matters
The decision applies Fifth Circuit authority rejecting ADA theories built on an indirect chain from a medical condition to inability to receive a vaccine and then to loss of vaccine-mandated employment. Employees challenging workplace vaccination policies still must prove that an impairment itself substantially limits a major life activity.
The ruling also underscores the evidentiary demands at summary judgment. A self-reported diagnosis and unexplained symptoms may be inadequate when the record lacks medical documentation or admissible expert evidence connecting the asserted condition to the alleged limitations.