A lawsuit filed in federal court alleges that a group of related chemical companies discriminated against a long-term employee by failing to accommodate his disabilities and retaliating against him after he suffered multiple strokes while on the job. The complaint was submitted by Rodney Jamal Pruitt in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on March 27, 2026, naming Genesis Custom Chemical Blending LLC; Smart Chemical Solutions LLC; Smart Chemical Holdings LP; Smart Chemical Holdings GP LLC; Integrated Advantage Group LP; and IAG Smart GP LLC as defendants.
According to the filing, Pruitt began working at the Ennis, Texas facility operated by the defendants in July 2017 as a Batch Technician. He was promoted to Plant Supervisor in August 2020 and oversaw operations at the facility. The complaint states that Pruitt had no history of disciplinary issues or attendance problems prior to June 3, 2024, when he experienced a serious medical emergency while performing his duties. Pruitt reportedly suffered stroke symptoms while atop a tanker trailer at work. Co-workers assisted him but management did not call emergency services; instead, they contacted his wife to pick him up from the facility.
Pruitt was hospitalized and diagnosed with multiple strokes, blood clots in his brain and heart, hypertension, Type 2 diabetes, cerebral infarction, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, and other cardiovascular conditions requiring ongoing specialist care. While still hospitalized between June 3-4, 2024, Pruitt alleges that management attempted to have him sign a statement attributing his medical emergency to a pre-existing condition—a request he refused.
The complaint details that during approximately six months of medical leave following his hospitalization, Pruitt kept regular communication with company management about his treatment progress and return-to-work plans. On September 16, 2024, company management submitted a Physical Demands Form to Pruitt’s physicians stating: “The company will accommodate work restrictions.” Based on this assurance from management that accommodations would be made for his medical needs upon return to work, Pruitt’s doctors released him back to employment with documented restrictions.
However, when Pruitt returned in November 2024 wearing a heart monitor as required by his physicians and with approved work restrictions in place, he learned that he had been removed from his Plant Supervisor position without notice. Other employees were informed of this change before Pruitt himself was notified. He was reassigned to a Helper position in Shipping and Receiving—a significant demotion—and lost access to benefits such as a company cell phone previously provided as part of his supervisory role.
Beginning in March 2025 according to the complaint, defendants started deducting wages from Pruitt’s salary for time missed due to medically necessary appointments related to his disability. These deductions were made without prior notice despite advance notification of absences provided by Pruitt along with supporting documentation from healthcare providers. The complaint asserts that similarly situated non-disabled employees were not subjected to equivalent wage deductions.
On April 30, 2025—approximately five months after returning from disability-related leave—Pruitt was terminated without warning or progressive discipline for alleged excessive absences due to medical appointments. His termination letter was issued on Smart Chemical Solutions letterhead and signed by Loretta O’Rourke using an official company email address.
Following termination from employment after seven-and-a-half years of service without prior attendance or disciplinary issues before his stroke incident, Pruitt applied for unemployment benefits. Defendants contested these benefits but the Texas Workforce Commission ruled in favor of Pruitt: “Defendants terminated Plaintiff because of absences from work that were due to reasons beyond Plaintiff’s control.”
The lawsuit brings claims under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as amended (42 U.S.C §12101 et seq.) as well as Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code. It alleges discrimination based on disability through demotion upon return from leave; deduction of wages for disability-related absences; failure to provide reasonable accommodation despite written promises; treating medically necessary absences as policy violations; failure to engage in an interactive process regarding accommodations; retaliation through adverse actions including demotion and termination following protected activity such as requesting accommodations; all resulting in lost wages and benefits plus emotional distress.
Pruitt seeks compensatory damages for past lost wages and benefits plus interest; damages for emotional distress including mental pain and suffering; front pay or reinstatement; punitive damages for alleged willful conduct by defendants; attorneys’ fees pursuant to federal and state law provisions; costs including expert expenses; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at maximum legal rates; injunctive relief where appropriate; and any further relief deemed just by the court.
The case is represented by Taylor Hunter (Hunter Law Corporation PC) based in Dallas and James R. Long (Long Trial Firm PLLC) based in Houston under Civil Action No. 3:26-cv-00990-X.
Source: 326cv00990_Rodney_Jamal_v_Genesis_Custom_Complaint_Northern_District_of_Texas.pdf
