and ARIC’s denial of Manning’s STD benefits. Therefore Manning has failed to present a prima facie case of retaliation under Section 510. b. Non-Discriminatory Reason and Pretext Assuming arguendo Manning had presented a prima facie Section 510 retaliation case, the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework requires ARIC to provide a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason supporting Manning’s termination. See Fitzgerald, 521 F.3d at 871 (describing the second prong of McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis). ARIC’s stated reason for terminating Manning’s employment after denying Manning’s appeal was Manning’s failure to submit a work release form, which resulted in Manning being ineligible to work and thus caused her to accrue three unexcused absences. Godfrey, 89 F.3d at 759 (<HOLDING>). This is a valid, nondiscriminatory reason
holding that the employers determination that the employees doctor did not provide a valid certification of disability was permissible the employer could require that employee to return to work under section 510 and that ejven if the employer was mistaken in its evaluation of the employees disability as long as that determination was in good faith and formed the basis of the decision it is permissible under section 510 holding that although physicians letter requesting an accommodation for disabled employee came after employers decision to terminate employer should have reconsidered the decision to terminate his employment holding that after the employer determined the employee was not disabled the employer had a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason to terminate the employee for unexcused absences under section 510 holding that where employee gave notice to employer of injury and employer told employee that nothing could be done for him through workmans compensation employer had breached statute and was liable for medical treatment which was reasonable and necessary to restore employee to maximum usefulness holding that an employer who has determined that the employee had not been under a disability can discipline that employee for subsequent unexcused absences and not violate section 510