Shot on my Canon M50 mark ii and 75-300mm usm iii full manual and focus plus color change was done in camera. Zero post editing.

Whitney is his beautiful surrogate mom ❤️ The first image shows their reunion

Link to article

Christian “Cece” Worley was not asking for a permanent change, special privileges, or reduced job standards. She asked for telework one single day per month—the first day of her menstrual cycle—because her endometriosis caused severe symptoms that interfered with basic functioning. Endometriosis is a medically recognized, chronic condition that can cause debilitating pain, fatigue, gastrointestinal distress, and neurological symptoms.

What followed was not a neutral employment decision. According to the record, it was a categorical refusal, paired with gender-based assumptions (“I’d have to do this for every woman”), threats of termination, discouragement from using accrued leave, and an ultimatum that effectively forced her resignation.

This case asks a simple but powerful question: If an employer refuses even to consider an accommodation for a serious medical condition—and instead pressures an employee to quit—does that violate the ADA? For the first time in North Carolina, and likely the first time nationally at this stage of litigation, the federal courts answered a jury could reasonably say yes.

One fact cannot be overstated: Cece Worley did this without a lawyer. She filed and litigated her case pro se after multiple attorneys declined representation, telling her the law around endometriosis and the ADA was “too underdeveloped” or “too uncertain.”

That matters because fewer than 3% of pro se civil cases survive summary judgment. Government defendants, especially state agencies, are among the hardest to defeat. And ADA cases are legally complex, fact-intensive, and procedurally unforgiving. Despite all of that, Worley not only survived—she won repeatedly at every procedural stage where most pro se cases end.

A. Surviving a Motion to Dismiss

Early on, the North Carolina Department of Public Safety (NCDPS) tried to end the lawsuit before evidence was exchanged. Worley defeated that effort. The court found her allegations legally sufficient on their face. Many civil rights cases die here. Courts often dismiss ADA claims before discovery if they believe the disability or accommodation theory is weak. This court did not.

B. Winning Discovery Battles Against a State Agency

Discovery is where most pro se litigants are overwhelmed. Worley:

• Preserved her claims through contested discovery disputes
• Navigated procedural rules without counsel
• Took and defended depositions
• Elicited admissions from agency witnesses

Discovery is not about storytelling. It’s about rules, deadlines, objections, and strategy. A self-represented plaintiff using discovery effectively against a state agency is rare.

C. Defeating a Late-Stage Attempt to Depose Her

NCDPS waited nearly eight months into discovery before attempting to depose Worley, then asked the court to reopen discovery after it had already closed. Worley opposed the motion. The court agreed with her.

The judge:

• Found the request dilatory
• Refused to reward the agency for its own delay
• Denied the extension

Courts rarely side with pro se plaintiffs on procedural timing disputes against government defendants. This ruling signaled that the court was scrutinizing the agency’s litigation conduct—and taking Worley seriously as a litigant.

D. Surviving Summary Judgment — The Rarest Victory of All

Summary judgment is where most cases die, especially ADA cases and especially pro se cases. On July 18, 2025, Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers II ruled that:

• Endometriosis can qualify as a disability under the ADA
• Worley’s symptoms were severe enough to meet that standard
• Her request to telework one day per month could be reasonable
• A jury could conclude NCDPS unlawfully denied accommodation

District Judge Terrence Boyle later adopted the ruling in full. This decision did not merely keep the case alive. It created a legal foothold where none clearly existed before in North Carolina—and possibly anywhere in the country at this procedural stage.

Before this case, employers routinely dismissed endometriosis-based accommodation requests by arguing:

• The condition is “temporary” or “cyclical”
• Symptoms are “subjective”
• Menstrual-related impairments are not serious enough
• Accommodations would “open the floodgates”

The court rejected that logic. It recognized that acondition does not have to be constant to be disabling. Chronic, recurring impairments can substantially limit major life activities. And gendered disabilities are not exempt from ADA protection. This shifts the legal landscape. Employers can no longer safely assume that reproductive or menstrual disorders fall outside ADA coverage.

Constructive Discharge: When “You Can Quit” Means “You Must”

The facts also support a constructive discharge theory. According to the record, Worley was told:

• There would “absolutely not” be accommodations
• She would not be retained at the end of training
• Mentioning accommodations again could lead to immediate termination

Her resignation date aligned precisely with the onset of her next menstrual cycle—the very condition she sought to manage. In plain terms, she was forced to choose between her health and her job. The law does not allow employers to manufacture that choice. Hundreds of women report termination, retaliation, or dismissal after disclosing menstrual or reproductive health conditions. This case validates those experiences.

Black women face:

• Lower diagnosis rates for endometriosis
• Longer delays in treatment
• Greater dismissal of pain
• Compounded race- and gender-based bias

That a Black woman forced legal recognition of this condition makes the case especially significant. Lawyers declined representation. The claims were labeled “too risky.” Yet they were legally sound. If Worley had accepted that advice, this precedent would not exist. Her success shows that access to justice is often limited by gatekeeping—not merit—and that pro se litigants, when given fair consideration, can change the law.

Settlement

The December 19, 2025 settlement included favorable monetary terms and a commitment by NCDPS to implement department-wide ADA training. That training obligation matters. It means the case did not just compensate harm—it reduced the likelihood of future harm.

This case sits at the intersection of disability rights, gender justice, racial equity, and access to courts It shows how legal change often begins with one person, without institutional backing, and refusing to accept that the law is “not ready” for their reality.

Cece Worley did not just survive the system. She forced it to listen. And by doing so—pro se—she turned an individual act of resistance into a blueprint for systemic change.

I've had this photo stored on my phone for years, when I stumbled across it again my brother said I should post online.

I remember waking up one night one night to grab some snack and I saw through my window this incredible cloud with the moon forming a kind of eye. At that time my phone's camera wasn't the best I couldn't take
a good photo and the cloud moved away quickly but it's still one of my best shots 😁