New ADA Principle: Vaccination Refusal Not a Disability – Conard v. Chanel, Inc.

Introduction

The Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Ealaila Conard v. Chanel, Inc., No. 23-13624 (11th Cir. Mar. 17, 2025), establishes an important clarification under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): an employee’s refusal to comply with a universal COVID-19 vaccination mandate does not give rise to disability discrimination or retaliation claims under the ADA. Pro se plaintiff Ealaila Conard, a former retail sales associate at Chanel, challenged her termination for failing to vaccinate against COVID-19, alleging disparate impact discrimination and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 12111 et seq. The district court dismissed her complaint for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. This commentary unpacks the background, legal reasoning, and future effect of this new ADA precedent.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed the district court’s dismissal. It held that:

Conard’s refusal to become vaccinated did not constitute a “disability” under the ADA because she neither had an actual physical impairment nor was she “regarded as” having one (42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(A)–(C)).
Refusing to comply with an employer’s vaccination policy is not a “protected activity” under the ADA; therefore Conard could not proceed on an ADA retaliation theory.
The district court did not err in rejecting Conard’s arguments about unlawful medical inquiries or confidentiality provisions, nor in denying her motion for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).

The Court applied de novo review to the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal and construed Conard’s pro se filings liberally. Finding no “manifest error of law or fact” nor any viable amendment, it affirmed without further discussion.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

42 U.S.C. § 12102(1) – ADA definitions of “disability,” “record of,” and “regarded as.”
Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm’n v. STME, LLC, 938 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. 2019) – Holding that being perceived as possibly carrying a communicable disease in the future is not a disability.
Silberman v. Miami Dade Transit, 927 F.3d 1123, 1134 (11th Cir. 2019) – Elements of an ADA discrimination claim.
Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 1998) – Liberal construction of pro se pleadings.
United States v. Campbell, 26 F.4th 860 (11th Cir. 2022) – Issues waived by affirmative relinquishment.

Legal Reasoning

1. ADA Discrimination Claim: To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a plaintiff must allege she is a “qualified individual with a disability,” was denied benefits or discriminated against, and that this was “by reason of” her disability. Conard alleged disparate-impact theories under § 12102(1)(A)–(C), but she did not plead any actual impairment, record of impairment, or that Chanel “regarded” her as impaired. Relying on STME, the court held that an unvaccinated status—absent evidence of a long-term or substantial impairment—cannot satisfy the statutory definition.

2. ADA Retaliation Claim: The ADA prohibits retaliation against anyone who opposes practices made unlawful by the ADA. Conard argued her refusal to vaccinate was “protected opposition,” but the court found no causal link between an ADA-protected act and her termination. Chanel’s vaccination policy predated Conard’s objections and applied uniformly; her discharge was a direct consequence of non-compliance, not “retaliation” for lodging an ADA complaint.

3. Other ADA Provisions: Conard contended the vaccination policy ran afoul of the ADA’s prohibitions on non-job-related medical examinations and confidentiality requirements, but she cited no binding authority. The Court found no basis to invoke those provisions when the policy did not single her out for a medical exam or breach any confidentiality obligations.

Impact

This decision reinforces employers’ authority to impose universal public-health measures—even strict vaccination mandates—without fear of ADA disability or retaliation claims from employees who refuse on non-disability grounds. Going forward:

Employers in the Eleventh Circuit can rely on Conard v. Chanel as controlling precedent that refusing a vaccine does not create an ADA claim absent an actual qualifying disability.
Employees challenging similar mandates must demonstrate an actual disability or a request for a reasonable accommodation under the ADA to have a viable claim.
Counsel should advise that opposition to a neutral health policy is not a legally protected “opposition” under the ADA’s anti-retaliation provision.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Qualified Individual with a Disability: Someone who has a physical or mental condition that substantially limits a major life activity, has a record of such a condition, or is perceived as having one.
Record of Impairment: Historical documentation that an individual once had a substantially limiting condition, even if they no longer do.
Regarded as Having an Impairment: When an employer mistakenly believes an employee has a long-term impairment, even if none exists.
Protected Activity under ADA: Opposing discrimination or participating in ADA enforcement—not merely refusing to follow a neutral policy.
De Novo Review: An appellate standard under which the Court re-examines legal conclusions without deferring to the lower court.

Conclusion

Conard v. Chanel, Inc. clarifies that refusal to comply with a general vaccination requirement does not, by itself, trigger ADA protections for disability discrimination or retaliation. The Eleventh Circuit’s ruling underscores that the ADA’s definition of “disability” is tied to actual or perceived impairments—not to future health risks or objections to neutral policies. Employers may now look to this decision when crafting and enforcing public-health programs, and counsel should ensure that any ADA-based claim alleges a genuine qualifying disability or protected activity under the statute.