The Salvation Army has denied a federal agency’s claims that the organization forced a Lynchburg employee out of her job while she sought cancer treatment.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued the Salvation Army in June, saying the employee, Krystle C. Woods, was denied reasonable accommodation to change her schedule for medical care when she worked part-time as a caseworker in the Salvation Army’s Lynchburg family services office.
The suit also alleges that in October 2024, the Salvation Army told Woods to resign or face termination after she said that her treatment would last through February 2025. Woods was diagnosed with Hodgkin’s lymphoma in August 2024.
In a response filed Friday, the Christian charitable organization said that it allowed Woods to miss approximately 55 full workdays and four partial days during her first three months on the job and that Woods resigned on her own.
The Salvation Army said that it “acted in good faith and did not violate any rights available to Mrs. Woods under any state or federal law.”
“Mrs. Woods unilaterally and voluntarily resigned from her position,” the organization said in its response, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia by Paul Klockenbrink of the Roanoke-based law firm Gentry Locke.
The EEOC is a federal agency that investigates and litigates cases of employment discrimination.
The Salvation Army is an international organization whose churches and community centers, such as its Center of Hope on Park Avenue in Lynchburg, provide shelter beds, free meals, disaster relief and other social services.
In the EEOC’s complaint, the federal agency said that Woods was granted intermittent leave from work for surgery and other care after her August 2024 diagnosis.
The EEOC claims that in fall 2024, Woods asked to change her schedule on some days to offset time taken for medical leave, but the Salvation Army denied the request. The Salvation Army said in its response that it had no knowledge of this request but said that it “reserves the right to amend its response based on further investigation and discovery.”
The Salvation Army also denied the allegation that its human resources representative told Woods to resign or be terminated in October 2024.
The EEOC’s lawsuit claims that Woods chose to resign to preserve her ability to return to work at a later date. If she had refused to resign and had instead been terminated, she would have been ineligible to come back to her job, the suit claims.
The EEOC said that Woods’ initial resignation email cited the Salvation Army’s “inability to accommodate [her] medical needs,” but the human resources representative instructed her to change it to instead cite health reasons.
In its response, the Salvation Army acknowledged that Woods sent a resignation email and drafted a second email but denied the other related allegations.
The EEOC said in its suit that in April of this year it tried to informally resolve the issue with the Salvation Army to “eliminate the discriminatory practices and provide relief” after Woods filed a complaint with the agency, but that by May, the conciliation effort had failed.
In its response, the Salvation Army acknowledged that the EEOC sent it a letter deeming the informal process “unsuccessful” but said that it participated in good faith and denied any discriminatory practices.
The EEOC’s lawsuit accuses the Salvation Army of two counts of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act and requests a jury trial as the agency seeks financial compensation for Woods and unspecified punitive damages.
“The unlawful practices … created significant financial hardship, inconvenience and instability, as well as emotional and physical distress for Mrs. Woods, including mental anguish,” the EEOC wrote in its complaint.
In its response, the Salvation Army asks the court to instead enter judgment in its favor.
