In November 2025, the Oregon Court of Appeals waded into the murky waters of employees’ quitting and job abandonment versus termination of employment. In Cullen v. Clean Water Services Division, the Washington County Circuit Court found that the employee (1) engaged in “uncharacteristic” behavior, and (2) subsequently expressed to the CEO that he was “done.” Based on the “done” comment, the employer terminated employment, believing the employee quit, and the Circuit Court ruled in favor on a motion for summary judgment. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision. Although the Court of Appeals did not specifically address the merits of plaintiff’s claims, it affirmed the importance of thoughtfully considering whether certain employee behavior may be sufficient to put an employer on notice of a possible disability and need to engage in an interactive process required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as amended. The Court of Appeals also noted the importance of communicating with employees in clear and definite terms whenever possible, such as whether an employee is considered to have quit or resigned.
Alleged violations of the ADA and any state equivalent are very fact-intensive inquiries, making motions to dismiss difficult to secure. An overview of the facts of this particular case, including the employee’s unclear resignation, highlights this problem.
Cullen v. Clean Water Services: The Facts
In this case, plaintiff Cullen was a long-term employee of defendant employer, Clean Water Services (CWS), who “uncharacteristically[] lost his temper” during a meeting in the summer of 2022. About a month later, on August 22, 2022, plaintiff met with CWS’s CEO and stated the following:
“I'm done. I always thought I was an eternal optimist, but I've lost hope and cannot endure any longer.
“Starting tomorrow, I will be gone using [t]ime [o]ff[,] [without] [p]ay and thereafter I will use accruals until I can get my affairs in order. This is not how I've wanted to go out, but I am exhausted and lost all hope. There are a few people I will talk to personally * * * but I leave the rest to you. Thank you for your time.
“* * * [T]here is nothing more to talk about, I've said everything I have to say all too many times about what needs to be done to improve the company, but with too little effect, so my hope is gone. For both our sakes, let us part professionally, with my integrity intact.”
In response, the CEO requested to “talk” more about plaintiff’s decision and offered that plaintiff “think [it] over.” Plaintiff responded that he would “maybe” “be able to make a decision” after he had time to think about it, but he “couldn’t commit to anything.”
A flurry of action took place over the days that followed, including the following:
- Plaintiff texted a coworker that he “never imagined [he] would go out this way.”
- Plaintiff discovered he was locked out of his work computer.
- Plaintiff contacted Human Resources for information relating to his employer’s employee assistance program.
- Plaintiff emailed the CEO to express “surprise” that he was locked out of his work computer. After the CEO explained to plaintiff that she was “respect[ing] his decision to resign,” plaintiff responded that he had not “resigned.”
- Plaintiff’s wife (who also worked for CWS) told the CEO that she believed plaintiff “would want to” return to work, but that plaintiff “needed some compassion and time off.”
- Plaintiff again met with the CEO, who told plaintiff that “she would not pressure him to return.”
- Plaintiff emailed the CEO and stated he would return to work after a “30- to 60-day leave to address his mental health issues.”
Ultimately, the CEO informed plaintiff that, based on their discussion during the original August meeting, plaintiff had “no path back” to work.
Plaintiff subsequently informed CWS that he had been diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder and Anxiety, and that he attributed his conduct over the summer of 2022—including his outburst, and his statement that he was “done”—to this diagnosis. CWS had approved a period of FMLA leave for plaintiff to obtain treatment for his condition, but his employment was ultimately terminated following his leave.
Among other lawsuit allegations, plaintiff claimed that CWS decided to terminate his employment after they became aware of and/or because of his alleged disability.
The Trial Court’s Decision and Appeal
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment argued that, because they were not aware of any alleged disability when plaintiff resigned during the August meeting, they could not have retaliated and/or discriminated against plaintiff on the basis of his alleged disability.
At the summary judgment stage, the trial court determined that plaintiff’s statement to the CEO that he was “done,” combined with his text exchange with his coworker, was sufficient to establish there was no genuine issue of material fact that plaintiff had voluntarily resigned during the August meeting. As a result, the trial court agreed with and granted summary judgment for CWS.
The Oregon Court of Appeals disagreed that there was a “clear understanding” that plaintiff resigned during the August meeting and reversed the trial court’s decision. The decision itself related primarily to the trial court’s denial of plaintiff’s request for additional time to obtain discovery about his claims. However, with respect to plaintiff’s allegations of possible disability discrimination and/or retaliation, the Court of Appeals identified that the appropriate inquiry was whether plaintiff had resigned before or after CWS knew or should have known about his alleged disability.
Key Takeaways for Employers Navigating Ambiguous Resignations and ADA Interactive Process Obligations
An employer’s obligations under the ADA or state equivalent—including what conduct or language is sufficient to trigger the ADA-mandated interactive process—can be incredibly nuanced. This is especially true when an employee engages in “uncharacteristic” behavior, but does not identify any need for support and does not request any accommodation. In these situations, it can be difficult for employers to balance their desire to be supportive of employees with the need to not engage in any guesswork about an employee’s condition, experience, or disability-related needs.
The Cullen decision reinforces the importance of pausing to evaluate the full picture before, for example, proceeding with a termination decision. Because courts will scrutinize what the employer knew (or should have known) at every decision point along the way, it is critical to be thoughtful and intentional when navigating complex termination decisions, particularly when an employee’s unusual behavior is involved.
Employers should consider adopting some definitive steps:
- An employee engaging in “uncharacteristic” behavior is not automatically protected as a disability under the ADA or a state equivalent law. However, it is possible that “uncharacteristic” behavior could be sufficient to trigger a duty to inquire about a disability or engage in an interactive process. For this reason, it is important to pause and evaluate each scenario on a case-by-case basis.
- Employers should not make decisions in a vacuum or ignore surrounding circumstances. If a termination situation is unclear, employers should speak with employees involved in the employee’s work, gather information about conversations the employee may have had with their supervisor, manager, HR personnel, or others (including, for example, inquiries about the company’s employee assistance program), and determine a course of action based on the information gathered.
- Employers should consult with HR or counsel if an employee’s “uncharacteristic” or problematic behavior is involved and may be disability-related, prior to making any adverse employment decisions, such as termination of employment. The EEOC has also published guidance for employers applying performance and conduct standards to employees with disabilities.
- Employers should always communicate with employees in clear and definite terms. If providing the employee with time to gather or provide additional information relating to a possible disability, set clear and reasonable deadlines in a written communication. Similarly, if faced with a surprising employee resignation and providing time for possible reconsideration, communicate a definitive deadline. Employers will have difficulty defending deadlines that were never clearly communicated to employees.
Reach out to our employment law & labor relations team for help in navigating your obligations under the ADA or state equivalent program.
The legal issues impacting this topic are and will continue to be ever-changing (Employment Law in Motion!), and since publication of this blog post, new or additional information not referenced in this blog post may be available.
This article is provided for informational purposes only—it does not constitute legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship between the firm and the reader. Readers should consult legal counsel before taking action relating to the subject matter of this article.
