Mechanic says Nevada Gold Mines fired him 14 days before its own deadline

Stucky started at Nevada Gold Mines in September 2019 and, according to the filing, advanced to Level 6 in the underground division. The complaint says he has gastroesophageal reflux disease and a related gastrointestinal impairment – a serious, recurring condition that substantially limits major life activities including digestive function and the ability to work. The condition required about three months of leave in late 2024, which the company accommodated through its short-term disability program. 

It recurred on or about December 16, 2025. Stucky says the company’s third-party leave administrator confirmed his FMLA eligibility but limited protected leave to eight days, designating it as protected through December 23, 2025. On or about December 24, 2025, the complaint says, Nevada Gold Mines denied his short-term disability claim. He alleges he kept the company updated on his medical status while waiting for clearance to return, and that no one engaged him on accommodations or a return-to-work plan. 

Then the timing the complaint leans on hardest. On or about January 16, 2026, the filing says, the leave administrator sent Stucky an extension request that set February 5, 2026 as his deadline to submit medical certification. On or about January 22, 2026 – 14 days before that deadline – Nevada Gold Mines terminated him on what the complaint describes as “a false and pretextual basis.” 

There is a second thread. The complaint says that in late 2025, the company assigned Stucky to operate underground mining equipment for which he had not received adequate training. When a trainer purported to certify him on the gear, he declined to sign because he did not believe the certification reflected his actual training. That refusal anchors his tortious discharge claim, which under Nevada public policy protects workers who in good faith decline unreasonably dangerous conditions. 

For HR readers, the alleged sequence is the headline: FMLA eligibility confirmed but leave capped at eight days, a short-term disability denial that the complaint says drew no accommodation dialogue, and a termination delivered inside the company’s own extension window. None of it has been proven. But the pattern is the kind that lands employers in front of the EEOC every year – leave, disability and accommodation handled as separate channels rather than a connected obligation.