Consider these facts. An employee with diabetes went to Las Vegas for a vacation. So far, so good. However, she was scheduled to work the last two days of the trip. She called in sick those days.

Her employer became suspicious and challenged the employee when she returned from the trip. She responded by presenting a bogus doctor's note. The employer completed an investigation and fired the employee for lying about the reasons for her two-day absence from work.

The employee challenged her termination and attempted to hedge her bets by raising several claims. For example, she went all in on an ADA claim. She alleged she was diabetic and that the employer fired her for that reason.

The employee was busted on this argument.

Especially under the amended ADA, diabetes would be viewed as a physical impairment that does substantially limit a major life activity. However, the employer did not terminate the employee for that reason. Rather, it had a legitimate non-discriminatory business reason for the termination: The employee lied about the reasons for her absence. Her ADA claim failed.

The employee failed to draw to an inside straight with a gender claim. She alleged that the employer terminated her because she was a woman.

The court rejected this claim as well. In order to prevail, the female employee would have to establish that similarly situated males were treated more favorably.

The court held that the deck was stacked against the employee on this claim.

It found that no male employee had improperly taken sick leave, lied to the employer about the reasons for the sick leave then further lied to cover-up the wrongdoing -- and wasn't fired! Again, gender wasn't the reason for the termination. Rather, the employee's misconduct was the cause.

This case highlights the need for an employer to have a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for its major employment decision. It also shows that not everything that happens in Vegas stays in Vegas, and for employees, lying to the employer is not much better than rolling snake eyes.

Opinions expressed solely are those of the writer. James Jorgensen practices law at Hoeppner Wagner & Evans in Valparaiso.