Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—8th Cir.: Engineer, fired over handicap parking dispute, cannot revive claims, (Jul 31, 2026)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

The employee never provided medical documentation explaining his disability and limitations, resulting in a breakdown in the interactive process for which he was responsible.

Affirming a district court’s grant of summary judgment against the ADA claims asserted by an engineer concerning handicap parking, the Eighth Circuit determined that while statements by his supervisors may have shown that they did not believe he needed an accommodation, they were not enough to show that the decision to fire him was motivated by discriminatory animus. Per company policy, the employer had asked for medical documentation, which the employee failed to provide, and had repeatedly told the employee he was violating the company’s parking policy. He nevertheless refused to abide by the policy, even under threat of termination, and was eventually fired for insubordination (Hibbert v. MC Realty Group, LLC, No. 25-2955 (8th Cir. July 30, 2026)).

The employee in this case worked as a lead engineer assigned to support a realty group in the UMB Bank buildings in Kansas City. He had his ankle replaced in 2001, which resulted in some mobility issues. He worked at UMB’s Technology Operations Center for years after the surgery.

Job duties. According to the employee, an average day at work required him to walk most floors of a four-story, 272,000-square foot building. Sometimes he also walked to the 1010 Grand building, located one to two blocks from the Tech Center.

Handicap placard. In 2021, the employee received a permanent disabled parking placard from the Missouri Department of Revenue, allowing him to park in a handicap spot at the Tech Center.

Building reassignment. The employee’s building assignment changed from the Tech Center to 1010 Grand in June 2022. However, his assigned parking spot remained at the Tech Center. When a manager emailed him on June 14 asking him where he was parked, he sent a photo of his truck parked in a handicap spot at 1010 Grand. A week later, the manager sent an email to all engineers reminding them to park in their assigned spots.

Accommodation request. In a June 24 email, the employee asked to park at the 1010 Grand building. The manager sent him a “Reasonable Accommodation Request Medical Certification” form, asking him to complete the form by July 12. The employee contended he provided medical documentation in 2001 when he had ankle replacement surgery. The employer stated it did not have records from then. The employer then set a new deadline of July 26, saying the paperwork was needed before any accommodation could be discussed.

Around this same time, the employer received a request from another employee for a parking accommodation. This employee was also already assigned a handicapped parking spot, although not at the building to which he was assigned.

Managers’ comments. When the manager updated her superior about the requests, the manager stated, “[i]f the correct documents are not going to be provided, then he has nothing to complain about[,] correct?” Her superior responded that “the bigger issue” was that both employees “have to walk more than 50 feet at a time to do their jobs” and “[i]f they cannot do it for parking purposes but can for their job[,] that just sound[ed] ridiculous to [him].” The manager responded, “I agree 110%.”

Paperwork. After the July 26 deadline passed, the employee informed his manager that he had “hit a road block” with his medical documentation, but he had attached to his email his renewal paperwork for his handicap parking placard. The other employee who had requested a different parking space did the same. That paperwork did not include any medical documentation or description of disability. On August 9, the two employees were told they needed to park in their assigned spots because neither had completed and returned the medical certification form.

Violations continue. Two weeks later, the realty company’s operations manager emailed the employee’s manager and her superior about his frustrations with engineers and UMB parking spots. A team meeting was held on August 26 wherein the engineers were told they would be fired if they did not park in their assigned spots.

A copy of the employer’s parking policy was given to the employee, and the employee was told he had to park in his assigned spot at the Tech Center or in the handicap spot in that garage. The employee refused to sign the policy because “he had a disability placard and should be able to park in any space.”

The employee continued to park at 1010 Grand. He was given a final warning for insubordination on August 29 and was suspended when he parked there the following day. He was ultimately fired on September 14. The other employee who had requested a different parking spot went back to parking in his assigned spot and still works for the employer.

Lawsuit. Subsequently, the employee filed this lawsuit asserting claims under the ADA for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation. The district court granted the employer summary judgment against all claims, leading to this appeal.

Interactive process breakdown. First, the court addressed the employee’s failure-to-accommodate claim. It was undisputed that the employer knew of his disability and his need for accommodation. However, he failed to provide medical documentation explaining his disability and limitations, which the employer had requested and which was required under company policy. Thus, any breakdown in the interactive process was due to the employee’s failure to provide the required documentation, not the employer’s refusal to prove an accommodation, explained the court.

Although the interactive process is meant to be informal and flexible, continued the court, the employee was responsible for providing relevant information about his condition and his needs. Without medical information explaining his disability, the employer could not know the specific limitations imposed by his disability.

Indirect evidence. Turning to the employee’s remaining claims, the court noted that he did not have direct evidence of discrimination or retaliation. The employee had cited to the statements made by his supervisors as direct evidence of discrimination, but the court disagreed, explaining that while those statements may show that the supervisors did not believe the employee needed an accommodation, they were not enough to show that the decision to terminate his employment was motivated by discriminatory animus.

Without direct evidence, the court applied the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting framework. Assuming without deciding that the employee had established his prima facie case, the court found the employer had proffered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its decision—insubordination.

Pretext. Shifting the burden back to the employee to show evidence of pretext, the court found that he was unable to meet this burden. There was no evidence, for example, that the employer had failed to follow its own policies or that it had treated similarly situated employees in a disparate manner.

It was undisputed that the employer gave the employee a copy of its parking policy and repeatedly warned the employee he was violating the policy. The employer also warned its engineers that they would be fired if they did not follow the policy. When the employee failed to follow the policy, he was suspended and ultimately terminated. His coworker, who made the same accommodation request and received the same warning, went back to parking in his previously assigned space and still works for the employer. Further, there was no evidence the employer gave shifting explanations for its decision. The only reason it has ever given for the termination decision was the violation of its parking policy.

In addition, the court found that the statements made by the employee’s managers were insufficient for a reasonable trier of fact to infer that discrimination was the real reason for firing the employee. Although the managers had shown frustration with the accommodations process, none of the comments involved the decision to suspend and fire the employee. Those decisions came after the employee continued to violate company policy and disregarded disciplinary warnings.

Rejecting the employee’s argument that he would not have been insubordinate if his accommodation had been granted, the court noted that this did not change the fact the motivating reason for his termination was his misconduct, not his underlying disability.

Temporal proximity. Similarly, the employee could not show that the employer’s reason for firing him was to retaliate for expressing opposition to a parking policy that he believed violated the ADA. According to the employee, he made his opposition known verbally and through refusing to sign the company parking policy or the corrective action he received at the end of August 2022. He pointed to the close temporal proximity between his opposition and when he was fired, but the court noted that close temporal proximity can rarely show pretext on its own.

There was no other evidence proffered by the employee suggesting that the employer’s “real reason” for firing him was his refusal to sign the documents or his verbal opposition to the policy. Instead, the record suggested that, despite multiple warnings, the employee continued to park in a garage to which he was not assigned.

Without evidence for a jury to find the employer’s reason was unworthy of credence because it had no basis in fact or that a prohibited reason likely motivated the employer, the employee’s claim failed, concluded the court, affirming the grant of summary judgment in favor of the employer.

The case is No. 25-2955.

Judge: Kobes, J.

Attorneys: Katherine Leigh Cooper (Cornerstone Law Firm) for Rick Hibbert. Sean R. Cooper (Krigel Nugent + Moore) for MC Realty Group, LLC and JanCo FS3, LLC dba Velociti Services.

Companies: MC Realty Group, LLC; JanCo FS3, LLC; Velociti Services

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge Retaliation ArkansasNews IowaNews MinnesotaNews MissouriNews NebraskaNews NorthDakotaNews SouthDakotaNews GCNNews