ADA Claim Involving Denied Travel Requests Proceeds to Trial

Takeaway: Over the years, courts have questioned whether an employee can go to trial on a discrimination claim based on evidence that undermines the employer's reasons for firing but stops short of demonstrating an unlawful motive. 

A 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision found that an employee had enough evidence to go to trial by showing faults in their employer's explanations for their discharge and demonstrating that the employer disparaged their disability.

The plaintiff had worked for L3 Harris Technologies Inc. and its predecessors since 1992. As of June 2019, he served as senior director of international business development. He traveled often for work, and his division's policy was to book employees in coach-class seats.

The plaintiff suffered from recurring cellulitis, a painful bacterial infection of the skin and the tissue beneath it. Cellulitis thrives on poor circulation, so extended periods in a cramped coach-class seat could trigger debilitating flare-ups. To address his condition, the plaintiff submitted a formal request for an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) that would allow him to travel in exit-row, business-class, or first-class seating. An HR representative approved the request and informed the plaintiff and his supervisor in August 2019.

Over the next three months, the plaintiff's supervisor changed. His former supervisor repeatedly disparaged his disability and accommodation request, including in front of his new supervisor, who expressed no disapproval of the remarks. The new supervisor, in consultation with the prior supervisor, denied his requests for international travel while granting others' travel requests.

In addition to denying his travel requests, the supervisor took steps to remove the plaintiff from his leadership role. These included holding a meeting at a country club to announce a proposed reorganization of the business development division. At that meeting, the supervisor revealed to the plaintiff and his colleagues a plan to eliminate his senior director position. The plan would install another employee as director of international business development, a new role that would effectively replace the plaintiff's role. The new position was not posted internally, contrary to standard practice, and the supervisor's plan did not mention a new role for the plaintiff.

The plaintiff confronted his supervisor about the newly created position and asked why a replacement was being given the role. The supervisor said he heard that the plaintiff did not want the job. The plaintiff corrected him, stated that he did want it, and asked the supervisor to fix it. The supervisor said he already sent the proposed staff changes up the chain of command for approval, but because the changes had not been approved yet, he promised to see what he could do. The plaintiff told the supervisor that if he could not fix it, the plaintiff wanted to go somewhere else in the company. And, if all else failed, L3Harris should put a deal on the table for him to consider.

Interactive Resource: Multistate Laws Comparison Tool

But instead of trying to walk back the reorganization or find the plaintiff a new role, the supervisor contacted L3Harris' vice president of HR. The supervisor told HR that the plaintiff wanted to be packaged out of the company and asked HR to add him to a reduction in force plan for the following weeks. HR directed the supervisor to complete a reduction in force form, which he did with the help of the prior supervisor and others. The supervisor later claimed that the plaintiff had performance issues, despite a lack of support for this assertion.

The prior supervisor notified the plaintiff that his job had been eliminated, and he received no severance. The plaintiff sued for discrimination and retaliation under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act, and L3Harris moved for summary judgment. The district court noted that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of disability discrimination and had presented proof that undermined the employer's asserted reasons for separation. However, he had not connected his discharge to his disability. Thus, the court granted L3Harris' motion for summary judgment.

Toolkit: Managing Equal Employment Opportunity

The plaintiff appealed. On appeal, the 10th Circuit considered the U.S. Supreme Court precedent that rejected a “pretext plus” requirement for employment discrimination plaintiffs to show discrimination. However, that decision recognized that, in limited instances, an employee with slight evidence of pretext might have so little proof of discriminatory motive that his claim should not survive summary judgment. The court reasoned, however, that this was not such a case. The plaintiff had shown that his former supervisor disparaged his disability in front of his new supervisor. This created a possible inference that the new supervisor considered his disability in eliminating his position.

The court thus reversed the grant of summary judgment and ordered the case to go to trial.

Jenny v. L3Harris Technologies Inc., 10th Cir., No. 24-4032 (July 21, 2025).

Jeffrey Rhodes is an attorney with McInroy, Rigby & Rhodes LLP in Arlington, Va.