When a Federal Agency Ignored Its ADA Duties: A Case Study in Disability Discrimination and Retaliation
A Federal Employee Asked for Help, and the Agency Failed Him
Federal law, including the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act, requires federal agencies to support employees with disabilities by providing reasonable accommodations. Yet in this case, a federal agency did the opposite.
A GS-14 Information Technology Specialist was dealing with serious mental health conditions. He took the responsible and legally appropriate step of notifying his supervisors, explaining that bipolar disorder, anxiety, ADHD, depression, and related symptoms were making it difficult to concentrate and manage his workload. His supervisors acknowledged receiving this information and even admitted noticing symptoms consistent with these conditions.
The agency was on full notice that the employee had a mental disability affecting job performance. What followed is a clear example of what happens when an employer ignores its legal obligations.
No Interactive Process, No Accommodations, and No Good-Faith Effort
Once a federal employer becomes aware that an employee may need help, it must begin an “interactive process” to determine what accommodations might be appropriate. This is a basic requirement of federal disability law.
Here, that never happened. One supervisor admitted that he ignored agency policy requiring him to contact the reasonable-accommodation office when an employee reports a medical condition affecting performance. Instead, he chose to rely on his “own judgment,” even though the employee worked entirely remotely, leaving the supervisor with limited visibility into the employee’s day-to-day work.
The agency never asked questions, followed up, or explored any accommodation options. The law requires action, and the agency provided none.
The Truth About the Employee’s Performance
Although the agency later attempted to justify termination by citing performance problems, its own records contradict that narrative. A mid-year performance review described the employee as cooperative, responsive to feedback, customer-focused, and steadily improving.
The supervisor who oversaw much of the employee’s daily work acknowledged that he never observed poor performance. He also could not recall giving negative feedback that the agency claimed to have relied upon. In addition, a key project that the agency labeled “late” in termination paperwork had actually been completed on time in a previous year, a fact the agency later admitted.
The employee even offered to voluntarily downgrade his GS level because of the stress created by his disabilities. This was a sign of self-awareness and honesty, not misconduct or incompetence.
Retaliation After Filing an EEO Complaint
Once the employee filed an EEO complaint, the situation escalated. The supervisor sent an email essentially cutting off communication and stating it would “not be wise” to have any further contact until the EEO case was resolved. He told the employee that the complaint had a “devastating” effect on coworkers and suggested that he hoped everyone could “move on to the next job,” a comment that reads as clear pressure to drop the complaint.
These comments are exactly the type of retaliatory conduct that the law prohibits. Federal employees have the right to file EEO complaints without fear of punishment or hostility.
Expert Evaluation Showed the Employee Could Have Succeeded
A licensed psychologist conducted testing and confirmed that the employee met diagnostic criteria for Bipolar I Disorder. Importantly, the psychologist concluded that the employee could have continued performing well with minimal accommodations. These accommodations were simple, including the ability to step away during severe symptoms, small adjustments to deadlines, brief breaks, and modest workload modifications.
Because symptoms tend to “wax and wane,” these basic accommodations would have allowed the employee to maintain productivity and stability. The agency never explored any of them.
Why This Matters: A Clear Breakdown of Federal Disability Rights
This case highlights why federal disability protections exist. When agencies ignore clear medical information, fail to explore accommodations, exaggerate performance problems, and retaliate against employees who assert their rights, the consequences can be severe.
Federal employees are entitled to a fair process. They are entitled to reasonable accommodations. They are entitled to a workplace free from retaliation. When an agency disregards these obligations, it violates both federal law and basic fairness.
Federal Employees Facing ADA Discrimination Have Options
Employees with disabilities deserve support, not punishment. When a federal agency fails to follow the law, workers should not hesitate to consult an experienced federal employment discrimination lawyer.