Did IT Worker’s ADHD get him Permanently Logged Off?

What Do You Think?

Employers face numerous legal risks when responding to an employee who mentions that he has a disability. One of those risks is that supervisors will respond with negative comments that could create the appearance of retaliation.

In a recent retaliation lawsuit that reached the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, an IT worker began working for a university in 2013. He started a new chapter in his career in 2017 when he was promoted to “workstation support specialist.” The new chapter was more like the part of a novel where things turn bad, though. He said he struggled with the new position and had some performance problems. He received his first ever negative performance evaluation around March 2018. He said he also began requesting accommodations for his ADHD in 2018.

He claimed that over the years, his supervisors discouraged him from talking about his disabilities, including ADHD. He claimed that:

• A supervisor said, in 2016, that the high-level managers "would terminate anyone who would go to HR about" disabilities. 
• A supervisor once told him to stop discussing his disabilities after he purportedly brought them up "over and over." 
• A supervisor called his repeated explanation of his ADHD "irritating." 
• After he spoke to a supervisor four to five times about ADHD in 2014, the supervisor allegedly told him, "Seriously Jim, I know exactly what ADHD is. [A co-worker] has ADD, I know exactly what it is, STOP BRINGING IT UP, it is irritating."

The university fired him nine days after his negative performance review. This also happened to be just just nine days after he admitted to misusing university computer equipment. 

He sued his employer for retaliation under the ADA and the Nebraska Fair Employment Practices Act.

The employer argued that it never took any adverse action against him.

To establish retaliation under either of the above laws, an employee must show that:

1. He engaged in protected conduct;
2. The employer subjected the employee to an adverse employment action; and
3. The employer engaged in the adverse action because of the conduct

An action is materially adverse if it produces harm that might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making a complaint. Trivial harms, such as petty slights, minor annoyances, and lack of good manners, aren’t sufficient.

Did the employee suffer unlawful retaliation?

A. Yes. His statements about his disabilities were continually met with supervisors’ negative responses.

B. No. He didn’t establish that the comments would have dissuaded a reasonable person from exercising his rights.

If you selected B, you agreed with the court in Tramblay v. Board of Regents of the Univ. of Nebraska., No. 24-1884 (8th Cir. 08/01/25), which held that the employee didn’t establish retaliation.

The court noted that some of the comments by supervisors were simply pointing out that an employee requesting an accommodation must act reasonably. In any case, none of the alleged comments were sufficient to constitute an action that would dissuade a reasonable employee from bringing a complaint through proper channels.

Further, the employee didn’t connect his suboptimal performance evaluation to his protected conduct. The evaluation occurred after he took on a new role and, as he admitted, began struggling. 

“The evidence does not support a determination that the university concocted a finding of deficient performance to retaliate,” the court said.

The employee also didn’t show that he was terminated because of his requests for accommodations. The evidence instead indicated that he was fired shortly after, and because of, his misuse of computer equipment. 

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s ruling in the university’s favor.

Share This Article: