Paycom fired worker because of her onion allergy, EEOC claims
Reuters//July 6, 2026//
Summary:
- EEOC files suit against Paycom in Oklahoma city federal court
- Employee suffered multiple anaphylactic reactions to onion exposure
- Paycom terminated employee after denying remote work accommodation
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is suing Paycom, alleging the company fired an employee who had a severe onion allergy rather than providing “reasonable workplace accommodations.”
The agency contends the Oklahoma City payroll software company violated disability discrimination laws by failing to protect the employee, who repeatedly suffered anaphylactic reactions from exposure to food brought in by coworkers.
According to the lawsuit filed in Oklahoma City federal court, the employee told her supervisors and the human resources department about her life-threatening allergy and provided medical documents recommending she work either in a secluded space or from home.
The government alleges Paycom provided only temporary adjustments and declined to allow the employee to work remotely. Company officials also did not tell people who worked near her not to bring food containing onions to the office.
The employee experienced multiple allergic reactions when exposed to food in nearby breakrooms and hallways, the lawsuit contends. In two of those instances, she was taken by ambulance to the hospital.
The day after her most severe reaction in June 2024, the company fired her, stating it could not accommodate her disability, according to the EEOC’s complaint, according to the lawsuit filing.
The employee began working at Paycom on May 20, 2024, and according to the government’s lawsuit, she explained her severe onion allergy to Paycom officials.
On May 23, 2024, coworkers carrying onion burgers passed near her cubicle. The plaintiff smelled the onions and suffered an anaphylactic reaction that required her to leave work and use emergency medication.
The next day, she was again exposed to onions in the workplace, and she required treatment from paramedics onsite, according to the filing. Several days later, she sent an email to human resources requesting accommodation, explaining her allergy and rehashing her recent anaphylactic reactions.
Company officials approved the plaintiff’s temporary use of a private workspace from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., the lawsuit claims.
She then submitted records from her doctor that underscored the danger of onion exposure and recommended moving her to an enclosed office away from food or permitting her to work from home.
The lawsuit contends company officials responded by telling the plaintiff to wear a mask and carry an EpiPen. She was relocated to a room on a different floor with fewer employees, but a breakroom where employees routinely had food was approximately 15 feet away.
She experienced another severe reaction after moving floors. On June 19, 2024, Paycom terminated her, saying it was for the sake of her own “health and wellness,” according to the filing.
The EEOC is seeking a permanent injunction prohibiting Paycom from refusing to employ a qualified person with a disability because he or she “needs a reasonable accommodation to perform the duties” the position requires.
The lawsuit also asks the court to order Paycom to develop and carry out practices and programs that provide equal employment opportunities for qualified people with disabilities. The suit seeks backpay for the plaintiff, as well as other relief and damages from Paycom.
Top Legal News
- Judge dismisses suit accusing Zillow of kickback, racketeering schemes
- Settlement agreement did not terminate LLC membership
- Settlement may have mooted insurer’s coverage dispute
- Raleigh ed-tech company pays six figures to resolve EEOC disability discrimination charge
- EBay, former execs to pay $56M to settle couple’s harassment case
- ‘Don’t threaten our first responders’: Jackson sues FEMA again over withheld public safety funds
- 10 business development mistakes you can’t afford to make
Legal Tech
- AI in practice: How new technology is affecting litigation practice
- Experts foresee legal malpractice risk for those who eschew AI
- Legal Decoder launches AI-powered billing analytics interface
Commentary
- Legally Speaking: How communication failures turn disputes into lawsuits
- We tore out our own backup generator
- When is a PIP an adverse employment action?
- Legally Speaking: What spring can teach us about active listening
- A useful patent management government notice
- Opinion: NC judges have enormous power. Be sure to vote in November
- The third option: Why your best employees are quietly losing their edge
- AI divorce is real, but family law can still save itself










