Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—6th Cir.: Air Force engineer with PTSD could not perform essential job function of communication, (Dec 10, 2025)

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.

After one outburst, the employee admitted that his anger went “from zero to 100 in a second,” as if he was “Bruce Banner transforming into the Incredible Hulk.”

Affirming summary judgment against the Rehab Act claim of a civilian Air Force Electronics Engineer who suffered from PTSD and who was fired after numerous disruptive incidents, including two especially angry outbursts, the Sixth Circuit, in an unpublished opinion, found his requested accommodations of flexible scheduling and a general understanding of his condition did not help him perform the essential job function of communication. Further, said the court, it did not need to consider whether he could perform this essential job function with accommodations he had rejected (Fowlkes v. U.S. Department of Defense, No. 25-3126 (6th Cir. Dec. 8, 2025, unpublished)).

As a civilian employee hired into the Air Force, the plaintiff’s first two years on the job were probationary. In his position as an Electronics Engineer with the F-15 Qatar Team, he was responsible for technical projects that supported foreign sales and he often worked with contractors that manufactured military equipment.

Accommodation requests. Early in his tenure, the employee told his first-level supervisor he suffered from PTSD and major depressive disorder and requested accommodations that would allow him to attend medical appointments during work hours. He also wanted certain supervisors to be aware of his conditions so they could understand his potential struggles, including some of his reactions triggered by PTSD such as diving for cover if he heard a sudden noise.

Working wonders. His supervisor agreed to the employee’s informal accommodation requests and his team understood he had PTSD and tried to help him succeed. According to the employee, the accommodations were “working wonders.”

Communications issues. Also early in his tenure, he had to complete technical evaluations in order to analyze proposals from a government contractor. Although this assignment required that he ask the contractor clarifying questions, his colleagues screened his questions because they were “a little too inflammatory.” The project supervisor was also concerned with the employee’s internal communications with his team as he would push back on her directions, circumvent her in the chain of command, and speak passive-aggressively to other team members. For his part, the employee believed the project supervisor was a “lady manipulator” who unfairly targeted him.

And while the employee also believed he did not have any other interpersonal issues in the workplace, his supervisors claimed his communications with others were a constant issue. Indeed, at his mid-point review assessment, his first-line supervisor told him he needed to “minimize the adversarial nature of [his] interactions.”

First outburst. In May 2019, seven months into his tenure, the employee and a colleague were on a conference call with representatives from Boeing. After one representative made a comment that seemed to question the employee’s reliability, the employee started yelling at him in a manner that could be heard across the office. He admitted that his anger went “from zero to 100 in a second,” as if he was “Bruce Banner transforming into the Incredible Hulk.” His colleague unsuccessfully attempted to intervene. Although his supervisors, as an accommodation, offered to provide him with another individual who could attend his calls to help de-escalate potentially adversarial communications, the employee refused, claiming he was “an adult” who did not need this assistance.

Second outburst. Two months later, the employee was talking with some colleagues about his work with Boeing, noting he was “pissed off” from his efforts to get information from the company’s representatives. As he talked, his anger escalated and he again began yelling. He was ultimately ordered to leave until he could cool off.

Termination. Based on these outbursts, as well as a long list of additional incidents, the employee was fired 11 months into his tenure.

Lower court proceedings. Claiming the Air Force fired him because of his mental health disabilities, the employee sued for disability discrimination in violation of the Rehab Act. The district court granted summary judgment to his employer.

Reasonable requests. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit first found that the employee’s accommodation requests for a flexible schedule and for his supervisors to recognize his PTSD and help him be successful with it were reasonable. While his request to have his condition recognized was vague, he clearly did not understand this proposed accommodation to include any formal counseling or personal assistance with anger-based PTSD symptoms, said the court, as he rejected his supervisors’ attempts to provide additional, individualized support to minimize adversarial encounters and help him de-escalate confrontations.

Communication. But as to whether the employee could perform the essential functions of his job with these accommodations, the court found the record established he could not. Communication with both colleagues and contractors was an essential job function, said the court, noting that pursuant to the job description, an Electronics Engineer was required to “[e]ffectively communicate[]” in “interactions with customers, coworkers, and groups,” communications needed to be “clear, concise, and at the appropriate level,” and the Electronics Engineer was expected to “[p]romote[] and maintain[] [an] environment of cooperation and teamwork.” The employee also acknowledged that an important part of his job was communicating with others professionally in order to solve the problems he was assigned to tackle.

He was unable, however, to perform the essential communication functions of his job even with his accommodations, said the court, pointing to his emotional outbursts that fractured relationships with Air Force contractors and required his supervisors to apologize for his behavior. In addition, his coworkers had to screen his questions to contractors because they were too inflammatory. While the Electronics Engineer was supposed to build rapport and collaborate with contractors, the employee “quickly became an obstacle his supervisors and colleagues were forced to overcome.”

As to his internal communications, the employee was disrespectful to his colleagues and was unable to follow the chain of command. Although he was advised he needed to work on this behavior, his conduct got worse and he was asked after his last outburst to leave the office until he cooled down. Not only did his requested accommodations not help him perform the essential communication function of his job, he rejected accommodations that may have helped, including a colleague who could sit in on his calls to help de-escalate adversarial encounters.

Finding that the employee was unable to communicate with contractors and coworkers in an appropriate manner, and that this hindered his ability to liaise with contractors and solve problems as an engineer, the court affirmed summary judgment against this claim.

The case is No. 25-3126.

Judge: McKeague, D.

Attorneys: John R. Folkerth (Weprin, Folkerth & Routh) for Richard Fowlkes. Kevin Koller, Office of the U.S. Attorney, for U.S. Department of Defense.

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge KentuckyNews MichiganNews OhioNews TennesseeNews