Nicholas Birmingham v. Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama, LLC

── Nicholas Birmingham v. Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama, LLC ── Case No.: 25-10938 Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: April 01, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 25-10938 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 04/01/2026 Page: 1 of 13 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-10938 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ NICHOLAS BIRMINGHAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus HYUNDAI MOTOR MANUFACTURING ALABAMA, LLC, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama D.C. Docket No. 2:23-cv-00737-KFP ____________________ Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and KIDD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Nicholas Birmingham appeals the grant of summary judg- ment to his previous employer, Hyundai Motor Manufacturing USCA11 Case: 25-10938 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 04/01/2026 Page: 2 of 13 2 Opinion of the Court 25-10938 Alabama, LLC, on his disability discrimination and retaliation claims. After careful review, we affirm. I. BACKGROUND From June 2018 through February 2023, Birmingham worked on the engine production line at the Hyundai manufactur- ing facility in Montgomery, Alabama. Birmingham suffers from chronic asthma and bronchitis, which resulted in him sometimes missing work. By the end of 2022, Birmingham had exhausted his annual Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) leave but continued to submit FMLA requests, which were denied. Birmingham faced dis- ciplinary action for his excessive absences and Hyundai ultimately terminated him when he continued to miss work. Shortly after his termination, Birmingham filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) charge of dis- crimination that asserted, as relevant here, that he was terminated because he had taken medical time off “directly connected to” his disability “and because [Hyundai] believed that [his] condition was likely to continue to require [him] to miss additional work days.” Birmingham contended Hyundai forced him “to sign a commit- ment letter that subjected [him] to more restrictive scrutiny of” his FMLA leave, which was a basis for his termination. Hyundai re- sponded that it fired Birmingham solely for his excessive absentee- ism, and it had no knowledge of Birmingham’s disability, nor did Birmingham request accommodations for it. It elaborated that, de- spite the corrective opportunities presented, Birmingham failed to USCA11 Case: 25-10938 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 04/01/2026 Page: 3 of 13 25-10938 Opinion of the Court 3 provide company-approved coverage for his absences and did not timely return his commitment letter. In December 2023, Birmingham, through counsel, filed the instant complaint against Hyundai, alleging one count of disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a), and one count of retaliation, in violation of the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(2). The parties consented to a mag- istrate judge handling the proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and proceeded to discovery. Several months later, Hyundai moved for summary judg- ment. As relevant here, Hyundai argued th