EEOC Sues Paycom for Firing Employee With Severe Onion Allergy

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit against Paycom Payroll LLC in late June 2024, alleging the software company violated federal disability law by firing an employee with a life-threatening onion allergy rather than providing reasonable accommodations. The suit, filed in Oklahoma City federal court, claims the company’s actions constitute disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

According to the complaint, the employee, identified as Katie Jorgenson, began working as a benefits coordinator at the Oklahoma City-based company on May 20, 2024. Despite having disclosed her severe anaphylactic allergy during the hiring process and orientation, she experienced multiple allergic reactions due to exposure to food brought into the office by coworkers. The EEOC alleges that after the most severe reaction in June 2024, which required hospitalization, Paycom terminated her employment, stating it could not accommodate her disability.

This case serves as a critical reminder for business owners that obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act extend far beyond accommodations for mobility or sensory impairments. In our experience, many small and mid-sized companies lack a formalized, documented procedure for handling accommodation requests, which exposes them to significant legal and financial risk. The core of the EEOC’s argument against Paycom isn't just the final decision to terminate, but the alleged failure to engage in a good-faith “interactive process” to find a workable solution. A severe food allergy is considered a disability under the ADA if it substantially limits a major life activity, such as eating or breathing. Establishing clear protocols for these situations is a vital component of business process reengineering. Proactively creating and following a consistent process for evaluating accommodation requests protects both the employee and the company. To learn more about shoring up your company’s internal compliance workflows, contact C&S Finance Group LLC at csfinancegroup.com for guidance.

The lawsuit details a series of escalating incidents. Just three days into her employment, on May 23, 2024, Jorgenson suffered an anaphylactic reaction when colleagues carrying onion burgers passed her cubicle. The reaction required her to leave work and use emergency medication. The following day, another exposure to onions led to paramedics being called to treat her on-site. The EEOC’s complaint states that over the course of her brief employment, Jorgenson experienced multiple reactions, two of which were severe enough to require ambulance transport to a hospital.

Jorgenson had reportedly informed her supervisors and Paycom’s human resources department of her condition and provided medical documentation. Her physician recommended that she be permitted to work either in a secluded area or from home to avoid accidental exposure. The EEOC alleges that Paycom failed to implement an effective solution.

According to court documents, the company made temporary adjustments, including relocating Jorgenson to a room on a floor with fewer employees. However, this room was approximately 15 feet from a breakroom where food was regularly present. The lawsuit claims Paycom did not inform nearby coworkers of the life-threatening allergy to prevent them from bringing food containing onions to the area. Furthermore, the company allegedly denied Jorgenson’s request to work remotely, despite having an established policy that permitted other employees to do so.

The EEOC contends that the proposed accommodations would not have created an “undue hardship” for Paycom. The agency’s lawsuit accuses the company of showing “reckless indifference” to Jorgenson’s federally protected rights by failing to explore viable solutions before resorting to termination. “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,” said Andrea G. Baran, regional attorney for the EEOC’s St. Louis District, in a statement. “No employee should be forced to choose between their health and their livelihood.”

The company fired Jorgenson in June 2024, the day after her most severe reaction. The EEOC’s filing asserts that Paycom made this decision without waiting for additional medical documentation that Jorgenson had offered to provide, without consulting her physician, and without attempting other potential accommodations.

In response to the lawsuit, a Paycom representative issued a statement: “While we do not comment on pending litigation, we want to affirm that Paycom is committed to the well-being of our employees. We maintain a workplace that complies with applicable federal, state and local employment laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act.”

The case will now move forward in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. Its progression will be closely watched by employers and legal experts, as the outcome could further define the scope of reasonable accommodations required for employees with severe food allergies and clarify the procedural steps companies must take to remain compliant with the ADA.