Takeaway: While employers must carefully consider an employee’s request for a parking spot nearest the workplace, they can generally require a medical certification of disability and need for accommodation in addition to a disability placard. When an employee fails to provide such certification and parks in a spot without permission, the employer can discipline the worker.
Termination of an employee for parking in a disabled spot without providing required medical certification of a disability was lawful, even though the worker had a disability placard, a federal appeals court decided.
The employee worked as a lead engineer for JanCo FS3 LLC — doing business as Velociti Services. He was assigned to support MC Realty Group LLC in the UMB Bank buildings in Kansas City, Mo. He had his ankle replaced in 2001, which affected his ability to run, stand, and sit still, and sometimes required him to stop and rest when walking. He worked at UMB’s Technology Operations Center for years after the surgery.
The employee testified that on an average day his job required walking most floors of the four-story, 272,000-square-foot building. Sometimes he walked to the 1010 Grand Building one or two blocks from the Tech Center. In 2021, he received a permanent disability parking placard from the State of Missouri, allowing him to park in an accessible spot at the Tech Center.
The employee’s building assignment changed to 1010 Grand in June 2022, but his assigned parking spot remained at the Tech Center. A Velociti manager emailed him on June 14, 2022, asking for a photo of where he was parking. He sent a photo of his truck in an accessible spot at 1010 Grand. A week later, she emailed all the engineers telling them to park where assigned.
In a June 24 email, the employee asked to park in the 1010 Grand Building. The manager sent him Velociti’s “Reasonable Accommodation Request Medical Certification” form a few days later with a letter asking him to complete it by July 12. The employee asked for more time and explained that he provided medical documentation in 2001, when his ankle was replaced. The manager told him that she did not have files from 2001 and extended the deadline until July 26.
The manager updated her manager and the HR director. She told her manager that Velociti was already providing accessible parking to another employee in a different building. He replied that both employees walk more than 50 feet for their jobs and that it sounded ridiculous to him that they could not do so to park. She agreed.
On July 21, the employee told her that his doctor was on medical leave and the substitute doctor would not complete the form. She emailed her manager and the HR director, who replied that the doctor would not complete the form because he did not need an accommodation. On Aug. 1, the employee emailed that he hit a roadblock with the form and instead attached his disability placard renewal paperwork.
Two weeks later, MC Realty’s operations manager emailed the Velociti managers about his frustrations with Velociti engineers and UMB parking spots. Velociti called a team meeting on Aug. 26 and told the engineers they would be fired if they did not park in their assigned spots. The manager gave the employee Velociti’s parking policy and told him to park in his assigned spot on the lower level or in the accessible spot of the Tech Center garage. The employee refused to sign the policy because he had a disability placard and, according to him, should be allowed to park in any space.
The employee continued to park at 1010 Grand. Velociti gave him a final warning on Aug. 29, suspended him when he parked there the next day, and fired him on Sept. 14.
The employee sued Velociti, MC Realty, and UMB Bank for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, and the employee appealed.
On appeal, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals considered the employee’s claims that Velociti violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by denying his request to park at 1010 Grand. It determined that the employee failed to provide medical documentation explaining his disability and limitations, which is a valid employer requirement under the ADA. Without information explaining his disability, Velociti could not know the specific limitations it imposed and provide a reasonable accommodation.
The court further considered the employee’s discrimination and retaliation claims based on the communications between his manager, her manager, and the HR director that showed opposition to his accommodation request. The court, however, noted that the emails did not disparage the employee’s disability but questioned his need for an ADA accommodation.
As a result, the 8th Circuit upheld the district court’s decision dismissing the case.
Hibbert v. MC Realty Group LLC, 8th Cir., No. 25-2955 (July 30, 2026).
Jeffrey Rhodes is an attorney with McInroy, Rigby & Rhodes LLP in Arlington, Va.
Was this resource helpful?
Validate your HR expertise
Earning your SHRM-CP credential makes you a recognized expert and leader in the HR field.
Related Content
Transform HR with mobile technology to streamline workflows, enhance communication, and boost employee engagement across distributed teams.
A new study found that talent development practitioners believe performance-based assessments are more effective at measuring employee learning outcomes than knowledge tests.
As AI makes deeper inroads into organizations, employee concerns about the technology continue to grow. Here's how HR leaders can address the fear of AI among their own staff, as well as in the wider organization.