Supervisors sometimes say things they should never say. When that happens, employers usually brace for impact. But this case shows how strong documentation and independent decision-making can prevent one person’s bad behavior from controlling the outcome.
TL;DR: A supervisor mocked an employee’s VA disability rating, and the employee reported it to HR. Months later, when the company chose not to renew the employee’s one-year contract, he claimed disability discrimination and retaliation. The employer won because upper management relied on independent performance concerns and the lapse of a required FAA flight certificate, not the supervisor’s comments. Without an unbroken chain between the supervisor’s bias and the final decision, the ADA claims failed.
Hey, supervisor, your bias is showing
The employee worked overseas as a loadmaster instructor. After he told his supervisor that his VA disability rating had increased to 100 percent, the supervisor responded with remarks about people who “game the system,” criticized the VA process, and, according to the employee, sarcastically called him a “cripple” and a “criminal.”
The employee reported the comments to HR. HR investigated, and a vice president reprimanded the supervisor. The comments stopped.
The performance story that unfolded without him
After the supervisor was disciplined, the employee continued working under his one-year contract. Over the following months, two issues emerged that had nothing to do with the supervisor who made the inappropriate remarks.
First, the job required the employee to maintain a valid FAA flight certificate. As the certificate approached expiration, the FAA requested additional medical information and delayed renewal. The certificate ultimately lapsed briefly. Because the ability to fly was central to the role, leadership viewed the lapse as significant.
Second, the new chief pilot began implementing performance reviews. The employee received “marginal” ratings in dependability, communication, and initiative. The evaluation included specific examples, such as needing close supervision to complete tasks and failing to share information unless repeatedly asked. One of the vice presidents had observed similar performance issues months earlier when supervising the employee directly.
These developments unfolded independently of the supervisor who made the offensive comments, and none of this documentation came from him.
Why the employer won
When the time came to decide whether to renew the contract, the decisionmakers focused on the FAA lapse and the documented performance issues. Those were the factors that shaped their judgment.
The supervisor who made the inappropriate comments had no authority to renew or terminate contracts. Instead, upper management relied on:
- the chief pilot’s detailed performance evaluation
- the vice president’s earlier firsthand observations
- the lapse of the FAA flight certificate
Two of the three decisionmakers did not know about the employee’s disability rating or his complaint to HR. The third had no evidence of bias. Their decision rested on job requirements and performance, not what the supervisor had said months earlier.
Because the employer could show that leadership made its own decision for independent reasons, there was no unbroken chain between the supervisor’s comments and the nonrenewal. Without that causal connection, the ADA discrimination and retaliation claims failed.
What employers can learn
Strong documentation outperforms speculation
Contemporaneous, specific assessments carry real weight. They gave leadership a defensible basis for the decision even after inappropriate comments surfaced.
Independent judgment protects the process
A biased supervisor cannot taint a decision if upper management relies on its own review of performance, requirements, and qualifications.
Respond to bad behavior, then separate it from the decision
Here, the employer addressed the supervisor’s comments promptly, then handled the contract decision based on unrelated performance concerns. That separation mattered.
The bottom line
A single supervisor can create risk, but the employer’s paper trail can determine the outcome. When strong records guide the decision, a bad actor does not get the final word.