Employee Had Two Allergic Reactions Serious Enough for an Ambulance — Her Employer Refused Remote Work and Fired Her the Day After the Worst One

Photo credit: AI-generated image created using ChatGPT. Illustrative only.

One day you’re trying to settle into a new job. The next, you’re in an ambulance because something a coworker brought into the office set off a reaction you can’t just “walk off.” That’s the picture the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is painting in a new lawsuit against Paycom Payroll, LLC, a payroll and HR software company based in Oklahoma.

In a press release announcing the case, the EEOC’s original post says the employee had a life-threatening food allergy, repeatedly experienced anaphylactic reactions at work, and asked for changes that would keep her safe. The agency says the company didn’t provide an effective fix—and ultimately fired her right after her worst reaction.

It wasn’t a one-time scare — it kept happening

According to the EEOC, the problems started shortly after the employee was hired. Coworkers brought food into the workplace, and exposure to that allergen repeatedly triggered severe reactions for her.

This wasn’t described as mild discomfort or something solved with a quick break. The EEOC says she suffered multiple anaphylactic reactions, with two episodes so serious she needed ambulance transport to a hospital.

That’s the kind of medical emergency that turns a workplace “preference” into a safety issue fast. And in the EEOC’s telling, it also made the stakes of any accommodation request painfully clear.

She says she flagged the danger early and backed it up with medical documentation

The lawsuit claims the employee did what employers typically ask workers to do: she promptly informed supervisors and human resources about her condition and provided medical documentation.

The medical recommendation described by the EEOC wasn’t vague. It suggested she work either in a secluded space or from home—options aimed at reducing the chance that food in nearby areas could put her in danger.

In an office, allergens don’t stay politely confined to a lunch bag. The complaint points to exposure from food brought in by coworkers, including in nearby breakrooms and hallways—exactly the kind of environment that’s hard to control without real cooperation and clear boundaries.

Temporary tweaks didn’t fix the problem — and remote work was denied

The EEOC says Paycom responded with limited, temporary workspace adjustments. But those changes allegedly didn’t work, because they still left her exposed to the allergen in the surrounding environment.

One detail the EEOC highlights is what didn’t happen: the company allegedly didn’t notify nearby employees to avoid bringing the allergen into the workspace. In other words, the burden stayed on the person having medical emergencies, not on the shared environment that was triggering them.

The other big point is remote work. The EEOC says the company declined to let her work from home even though it had established policies that permitted remote work. In the agency’s version of events, an available tool was sitting right there, and the company still said no.

Two ambulance rides later, she was fired after the worst reaction

The escalation described by the EEOC is hard to miss: despite notifying the company and providing documentation, the employee continued to experience allergic reactions at work, including two that required ambulances.

Then came June 2024. The EEOC says she had her most severe reaction that month, and the company terminated her employment the very next day.

According to the complaint, the company’s stated reason was blunt: it said it could not accommodate her disability. That line—coming immediately after a medical emergency—is central to why the EEOC is treating this as more than a workplace misunderstanding.

The EEOC is framing it as a failure to accommodate — and retaliation for asking

The federal agency says this conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations absent undue hardship. The ADA also prohibits firing someone because of a disability or because they requested an accommodation.

In the press release, Andrea G. Baran, regional attorney for the EEOC’s St. Louis District, emphasized the basic expectation: “Employers have a legal obligation to explore and provide reasonable accommodations for workers with disabilities — especially when the potential consequences of inaction are life-threatening.” She added, “No employee should be forced to choose between their health and their livelihood.”

David S. Davis, director of the EEOC’s St. Louis District, also pointed to process, not just outcome. “Federal law requires employers to engage in an interactive process and consider reasonable solutions,” he said, adding that the EEOC would continue enforcing protections so workers aren’t pushed out due to “unsupported assumptions or insufficient effort.”

The EEOC says it filed the case—EEOC v. Paycom Payroll, LLC, Case No. 5:26-cv-01622-R—in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma after attempting to resolve the dispute through its administrative conciliation process.

What people tend to focus on in cases like this

The press release doesn’t include public comments, but it does spotlight the details that usually drive reactions when a workplace health crisis becomes a legal fight: whether the employee documented the condition, whether the employer tried real solutions, and whether there were obvious options the company refused to use.

Here, the EEOC’s account centers on those pressure points. The employee allegedly provided medical documentation. The company allegedly tried only temporary fixes. And remote work—described as allowed under company policy—was allegedly taken off the table anyway.

Another detail that stands out is the shared-space issue. The EEOC says the company didn’t notify nearby employees to avoid bringing the allergen around her workspace. For many readers, that’s the moment the story stops being about one worker needing “special treatment” and becomes about whether an employer made a serious, coordinated effort to keep someone from ending up in the hospital again.

Now the dispute is in federal court, with the EEOC alleging disability discrimination and a failure to accommodate. The bigger human reality underneath the filings is simpler: a worker says she kept getting exposed, kept getting sick, and was ultimately shown the door right after the worst emergency—despite asking for a work setup that could have kept her safe.