Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—8th Cir.: Fired wind energy production worker cannot revive her disability, sex discrimination claims, (May 19, 2026)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

Zoltek’s advertised job description for a production operator indicated, among other things, that applicants had to be able to stand for up to 12 hours.

A production operator for a company that supplies products to wind turbine generators, fired after she was diagnosed with potential sciatica—which limited her ability to stand for extended periods—and then exhausted her FMLA leave, failed to establish failure to accommodate under the ADA or Title VII sex discrimination, the Eighth Circuit affirmed. She argued that standing was not an essential job function because Zoltek allowed her to sit for a few months and allegedly accommodated the standing restrictions of a male colleague, but “[a]n employer does not concede that a job function is ‘non-essential’ simply by voluntarily assuming the limited burden associated with a temporary accommodation.” The minimum objective criteria for production operators required that an individual be able to stand for up to 12 hours, lift more than 25 pounds overhead, bend, and turn; and there was no dispute that when Zoltek terminated her, she could not stand for more than 20-30 minutes, lift more than 10 pounds overhead, or bend (Kendall v. Zoltek Corp., No. 25-1411 (8th Cir. May 18, 2026)).

Supplier to wind turbine generators. Zoltek “produces essential products” as defined by a division of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and its “St. Peters facility supplies global products to wind turbine generators for renewable energy,” according to the court. In 2018, Zoltek hired the plaintiff to work as a production operator.

Job functions. As a production operator, she was expected to set up and operate equipment to process carbon fiber, restock materials, and pack, label, and document products. She reported that operating the equipment to process carbon fiber required her to stand, bend over, squat, walk, and reach. Zoltek’s advertised job description for a production operator indicated that applicants had to meet certain physical requirements, including the ability to lift at least 25 pounds overhead, turn, bend, reach, pull, walk, and stand for up to 12 hours.

Workplace back injury. In late April 2021, she slipped while at work and went to the emergency room a few days later for continuing back pain. She was diagnosed with muscle spasms and potential sciatica, but she was initially released to return to work with no restrictions.

Sitting time restriction. In June 2021, she provided Zoltek with a doctor’s note that stated: “Please allow [plaintiff] a sitting time secondarily, during her work shifts due to her sciatica flare ups.” Zoltek permitted this accommodation for several months, according to the court, but despite this temporary accommodation, it viewed its standing requirement as particularly important for production operators.

“[N]o sitting.” Earlier in the year, the plant manager had issued a “no sitting” reminder. Additionally, after providing the plaintiff an accommodation, Zoltek management informed the other production operators that “[n]obody’s supposed to be sitting down but [plaintiff].” Although she alleged that a male coworker was allowed to sit during his shift, Zoltek disputed that.

Update request. After accommodating her for a few months, Zoltek requested an updated doctor’s note and held a meeting with her. In mid-September 2021, she provided a doctor’s note that said she could work while seated but could not crawl under equipment. The note did not indicate that she could work while standing. Then, in early October 2021, she met with Zoltek’s HR staff to discuss the status of her medical restrictions and accommodations.

About the policy. Zoltek’s meeting notes indicated that although her restrictions did not inhibit her performance, the issue was the policy: production operators must stand for at least 12 hours, and Zoltek maintained that the requirement must be enforced.

Medical leave. Because of her inability to stand for an extended period, Zoltek placed her on medical leave following the meeting. Later in October 2021, while on leave, she submitted an updated doctor’s note that stated: “[Plaintiff] needs to be able to sit down immediately after standing to change paper. She cannot crawl around on the floor.” The note indicated that these restrictions were a permanent condition.

Disability benefits. In November 2021, she applied for and received short-term disability benefits. In her disability application, her nurse practitioner wrote that she could not bend, stoop, kneel, crawl under machines, reach under tables, stand for more than 10 minutes at a time, or lift more than 10 pounds overhead. The nurse further indicated that she would be unable to work until mid-April, at which point reassessment of her condition would be necessary.

“[N]o alternative.” In January 2022, Zoltek fired the production operator. It explained that she had no foreseeable return-to-work date and had represented that she could not return to work without medical restrictions or with ones that could be reasonably accommodated. The employer also noted that she had exhausted her FMLA and other leave entitlements, leaving it with “no alternative but to terminate [her] employment.”

Lawsuit. After receiving a right to sue letter from the EEOC, she filed a complaint in federal district court in Missouri alleging ADA failure to accommodate and retaliation, and Title VII sex discrimination.

Decision below and appeal. The district court held that Zoltek was entitled to summary judgment regarding both the employee’s ADA failure to accommodate and her Title VII sex discrimination claims because she could not perform the essential functions of her job as a production operator and was not qualified. The district court also granted summary judgment against her ADA retaliation claim, having found that the “record contains no evidence of discrimination or an adverse action in [her] employment conditions.”

She appealed only as to the ADA failure to accommodate and Title VII sex discrimination claims.

ADA failure to accommodate. Affirming, the Eighth Circuit rejected the former production operator’s contention that standing was not an essential function of her job because Zoltek allowed her to sit for a few months and accommodated her coworker’s standing restrictions. Although Zoltek permitted her to sit occasionally from June to October 2021, observed the appeals court, “[a]n employer does not concede that a job function is ‘non-essential’ simply by voluntarily assuming the limited burden associated with a temporary accommodation.” Indeed, her “individual experience” was irrelevant to the essential functions analysis: “[i]nstead, it is the written job description, the employer’s judgment, and the experience and expectations of all [production operators] generally which establish the essential functions of the job.” Thus, the fact that Zoltek temporarily permitted her to sit occasionally for a few months did not advance her argument that standing is not an essential function for a production operator.

What about the coworker? As to the coworker, said the court, even assuming Zoltek permitted him to sit, that also did not undermine Zoltek’s position that standing is an essential function of production operators. It was undisputed that Zoltek’s plant manager issued a “no sitting” reminder to the production operators in early 2021, and Zoltek informed production operators that “[n]obody’s supposed to be sitting down but [plaintiff].” Even if Zoltek permitted the coworker to sit, it “appears to be an anomaly under our review of the record,” observed the Eighth Circuit, “as the work experience of other production operators demonstrates that they were required to stand during the entirety of their shifts.”

Not qualified. Having found the physical requirements identified in Zoltek’s job description undisputably essential functions of her job, the appeals court concluded that she failed to demonstrate that she was qualified for it. It was undisputed that when Zoltek fired her, she could not stand for the duration of a 12-hour shift. Indeed, she could only stand for 20 to 30 minutes at a time. Additionally, she could not bend, stoop, kneel, crawl under machines, reach under tables, or lift more than 10 pounds overhead. Thus, even if Zoltek permitted her to sit during her shifts, at the time that it fired her, she was unable to perform the other essential functions for her job.

Sex discrimination. The former production operator’s Title VII sex discrimination claim fared similarly. She did not rely upon direct evidence, and in the McDonnell Douglas analysis, again, there was the issue of whether she was qualified to perform her job. As the appeals court previously concluded, she was not objectively qualified because she could not perform the essential job functions of a production operator with or without reasonable accommodation. And because she failed to establish that she was qualified, it was unnecessary for the Eighth Circuit to address her argument that Zoltek treated her differently than a similarly situated male employee.

The judgment of the district court was accordingly affirmed.

The case is No. 25-1411.

Judge: Shepherd, B.

Attorneys: Michael J. Gras (Law Offices of Michael J. Gras) for Angela Kendall. Thomas E. Berry, Jr. (Jackson Lewis) for Zoltek Corp.

Companies: Zoltek Corp.

MainStory: TopStory DisabilityDiscrimination SexDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge ArkansasNews IowaNews MinnesotaNews MissouriNews NebraskaNews NorthDakotaNews SouthDakotaNews ESGNews GCNNews