In most ADA cases, the question of whether an employee has a disability isn’t in serious dispute. Courts typically move quickly to focus on accommodations or workplace conduct. But in this case, the court stopped at step one, finding that the employee hadn’t shown he had a disability at all.
TL;DR: An IT employee at a public university brought a disability discrimination lawsuit alleging failure to accommodate, disparate treatment, and a hostile work environment. But the court dismissed all of his claims because he failed to provide current evidence that he had a disability under the ADA or similar laws. His retaliation claim also failed—not because of his disability status, but because he couldn’t rebut the employer’s legitimate reason for firing him.
Read the full opinion
Disability Discrimination: Dead on Arrival
The employee claimed that he had ADHD that substantially limited his ability to speak, listen, concentrate, think, learn, and work. But the only supporting evidence he offered was a 1996 pediatric specialist’s note stating that, at age 13, he “carried a diagnosis of . . . ADHD.” Now in his 40s, he submitted no updated medical records and offered no evidence showing how ADHD limited his functioning as an adult.
The court held that these unsupported allegations were not enough. His disability discrimination claims, whether framed as failure to accommodate, disparate treatment, or hostile work environment, failed because he could not satisfy the threshold requirement of proving a qualifying disability under the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, or state law.
Retaliation: No Evidence of Causation
The employee also alleged retaliation for requesting accommodations, citing negative performance evaluations, rude comments, and eventual termination. But the court found no evidence that these actions were connected to his protected conduct.
His performance issues began after moving into a new role and were documented well before termination. The “rude” comments from supervisors, like calling his ADHD explanations “irritating,” weren’t pleasant, but they didn’t amount to materially adverse action under the law.
As for his firing, it came shortly after he admitted to violating policy by removing a university hard drive without permission. The court concluded this was a legitimate, independent basis for discharge. The employee failed to show that the reason was false or pretextual, or that others were treated more leniently for similar violations.
💡 Lessons for Employers
✅ This is the exception, not the rule
In most ADA cases, courts breeze past the question of whether someone has a disability. Since the ADA was amended, the definition has been construed broadly. But this case reminds us that it still has limits.
✅ Maintain documentation standards
While employers shouldn’t routinely challenge whether someone has a disability, they should still document what’s provided (and what’s not). When an employee does not provide medical documentation or relies on an outdated diagnosis, there may be grounds to challenge ADA coverage.
✅ Don’t build a defense around lack of disability unless the facts are extreme
This case worked out well for the employer, but most “you’re not really disabled” arguments go nowhere. If there’s any real evidence of an impairment, courts will usually skip to whether the accommodation was reasonable or whether essential functions could be performed.
✅ Don’t ignore complaints just because the legal bar isn’t met
Even if an employee doesn’t have a disability under the ADA, how managers respond still matters. Irritation, hostility, or dismissiveness can fuel retaliation claims or broader workplace culture issues.
✅ Take the accommodation process seriously
When an employee requests an accommodation, engage promptly and in good faith. Document the interactive process, ask for relevant medical information if needed, and focus on whether the employee can perform the essential functions of the job with or without an adjustment. That’s where most ADA litigation is won or lost.
Final Thought
The ADA sets a low bar for proving disability, but it’s still a bar individuals must clear. This case shows that plaintiffs with actual disabilities still need real, current evidence of an impairment that limits major life activities. And when that’s missing, other ADA protections do not apply.