Fired Sodexo technician sues, blasting blanket 90-day modified-duty cap

He returned to work that September on restrictions set by his workers’ compensation providers, performing modified duties. But after 90 days, Corona alleges, the company pulled that accommodation under what he describes as a blanket rule capping modified duty for injured workers, even though work within his restrictions was still available. He says he was pushed back onto medical leave on December 17, 2024, and that his late-January request to resume light duty was turned down without any back-and-forth about alternatives. 

The suit also points to comments Corona attributes to the Operations Director at the site. According to the filing, the director told him, “I tore my rotator cuff and never missed a day of work,” and “I didn’t need surgery,” and remarked during team meetings, in a sarcastic tone, “Michael’s still restricted.” 

Corona further claims that when Merck decided it wanted two HVAC technicians and a reliability engineer instead of three technicians, he was the one let go, despite having more tenure, more experience, and more HVAC certifications than the two workers who stayed on. One of them, he says, did not even have a valid driver’s license to drive on site. The employee who delivered the news allegedly called it a “Merck directive.” Corona adds that he had hired a workers’ compensation attorney during his leave because wage-replacement benefits were not being paid. 

For HR teams, the case is a familiar flashpoint: hard time limits on modified duty, the expectation of a genuine dialogue with employees each time accommodation needs shift, and the added scrutiny that comes when a termination closely follows a workers’ compensation claim. Corona’s suit also underscores how selection decisions in a staffing change can be second-guessed if tenure, qualifications, and business reasoning are not clearly documented. 

Corona is seeking compensatory and punitive damages along with equitable relief. The allegations have not been tested in court, Sodexo and SDH Services West have not yet filed a response, and no ruling has been issued.