Seyfarth Synopsis: The Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Mullin v. U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs clarifies that confidentiality protections around medical certifications are robust and enforceable, even absent viable accommodation or disability discrimination claims. The Court affirmed that under the Rehabilitation Act, which is analyzed using the same standard as Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Mullin’s discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation claims could not survive summary judgment. The Court found, however, that when an employer conditions access to protected leave on submission of medical documentation, the medical certification constitutes an “inquiry” triggering confidentiality protection of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. Despite dismissing the remaining claims, the Court determined an issue of fact existed as to the employee’s unlawful disclosure of medical information claim.
In Mullin v. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the Eleventh Circuit addressed a complex set of claims brought by a VA employee alleging disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, unlawful disclosure of medical information, and retaliation (and/or a retaliatory hostile work environment). The case stems from Mullin’s respiratory issues and breast cancer diagnosis, resulting in several requests for workplace accommodations. The District Court initially granted summary judgment in favor of the VA as to all counts. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the disability discrimination, accommodation, and retaliation claims, but, notably, reversed and remanded the District Court’s grant of summary judgment as to the unlawful-disclosure claim, serving as a strong reminder of confidentiality obligations around employer handling of medical information.
The Court’s refusal to overturn summary judgment as to the discrimination and accommodation claims rested on a detailed factual record showing no adverse employment action because of a disability and a reasonable accommodation process that included workstation moves, air purifiers, and incremental telework, culminating in full-time telework. Similarly, the retaliation and hostile work environment claims were rejected as either repackaged accommodation disputes and/or lacking evidence of severity. The Court applied established legal standards under the Rehabilitation Act, which incorporates ADA employment provisions, to dismiss these claims.
In analyzing the unlawful disclosure claim, the Court determined, as a threshold matter, that a private right of action does exist under the ADA for such claim, irrespective of disability status. The Court indicated that the elements of such claim include whether the employer “made a proper inquiry into [the employee’s] medical condition, whether the [employer] disclosed the results of that inquiry to persons in violation of [the law], and whether [the employee] suffered a tangible injury because of the unlawful disclosure.” Mullin v. Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., No. 22-12354, 2025 WL 2267816, at *9 (11th Cir. Aug. 8, 2025). Contrary to the VA’s argument, the Court held for the first time that an employer’s request for a FMLA medical certification constitutes a statutory “inquiry” under the ADA’s confidentiality provisions, incorporated into the Rehabilitation Act. It follows that medical information obtained through such required certifications is protected, and unauthorized disclosures can give rise to liability. The Court further found an issue of fact as to whether human resources unlawfully disclosed Mullin’s medical information to a union steward, and further, found that Mullin’s testimony with regard to her emotional distress stemming from the disclosure was sufficient to create an issue of fact as to whether the disclosure created harm. In light of these factual disputes about the disclosure of Mullin’s cancer diagnosis and resulting harm, the Court remanded for further proceedings.
Practically, this decision signals to employers that FMLA medical certifications are not mere formalities but can trigger statutory confidentiality obligations under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. Moreover, the risk associated with improperly disclosing confidential information is not merely theoretical; employers must carefully limit internal dissemination of such medical information, restrict access to a need-to-know basis, and rigorously document and train HR personnel to avoid liability. Employers should be aware that unauthorized disclosures of medical information—even absent a successful discrimination claim—pose litigation risks. The Mullin decision highlights that emotional distress and other harms from confidentiality breaches can sustain claims.
