Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—D.N.H.: Fired firefighter with PTSD advances disability discrimination, retaliation claims, (Sep 11, 2025)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

The firefighter twice asked his chief to allow him to take his PIP to read to himself, but the chief, who knew he had PTSD, continued to read the PIP aloud.

A former firefighter for a New Hampshire town, fired after his new chief—who was a former coworker and knew he had PTSD—placed him on a PIP and then required him to have a fitness for duty evaluation, may proceed to trial with his disability discrimination and retaliation claims, a federal district court found. A reasonable jury could conclude that the firefighter made requests for reasonable accommodation, and that the chief “was very familiar with [his] condition and knowingly provoked [his] PTSD response during the PIP meeting by surprising him with the PIP and reading it aloud in a confrontational manner.” The jury could likewise find that the firefighter was using a reasonable accommodation already in place, and that he complained about discriminatory conduct before his firing (Powers v. Town of Durham, No. 23-cv-327-SM-TSM (D.N.H. Sept. 10, 2025)).

Coworkers. The firefighter and his future chief had worked together in the Durham Fire Department from 2011 to 2016. The firefighter had PTSD when he was hired, a condition the fire department was aware of at the time. Indeed, the department allowed him time for weekly therapy sessions during his working hours. The future chief knew that he suffered from PTSD and that he attended weekly therapy sessions.

Discussions of work challenges and PTSD. At that time, both the future chief and the firefighter worked under a chief who was a difficult boss. The two began to discuss their work challenges and details of their lives over lunch and on walks, and, as a result of their conversations, the future chief came to understand that PTSD symptoms might include paranoid episodes, antisocial behaviors, and loss of focus and concentration. The firefighter explained to him that his PTSD frequently manifested in symptoms of panic and rumination, particularly when confronted by conflict related to his work or job security. The firefighter often discussed his difficulty communicating with the former chief, who he said triggered his PTSD symptoms by confronting him suddenly with criticism of his work performance.

Revolving door. The firefighter left Durham in 2016 to work for the Rochester Fire Department, but the two former coworkers remained close friends and continued to communicate after the firefighter’s move to Rochester. In 2018, the former chief left the Durham Fire Department, and the new chief acceded to the position. The firefighter then returned to Durham to work under him.

Deteriorating relationship. By the fall of 2019, their relationship began to deteriorate. The new chief was concerned about the firefighter’s work performance, including complaints about his driving while in a fire department vehicle, the tone of some of his work communications, and his failure to attend several meetings without first communicating that he would be unavailable. The firefighter considered it difficult to communicate with the new chief, which he believed was triggering his PTSD symptoms. By early 2020, he thought his relationship with his former colleague had become adversarial.

Difficult meeting. On January 17, 2020, the firefighter asked to meet with the new chief one-on-one to discuss their communication issues and the latter’s expectations of him. That meeting allegedly never occurred, but in a different meeting that involved the chief, the firefighter, and a consultant, the firefighter attempted to raise those same communication and expectation issues. The consultant responded that the firefighter was causing problems and undermining the new chief’s authority.

PIP and reading thereof. The chief prepared a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) for the firefighter which he presented to him at a “Chief’s Meeting” on February 27, 2020, without prior warning. The firefighter was surprised and uncomfortable when the chief began to read the PIP to him aloud at the meeting. He twice asked the chief to stop and to allow him to take the PIP to read to himself and respond, but the chief continued to read the PIP aloud.

Distraught. When the chief read a section of the PIP that required the firefighter to be at the station during all days and all business hours, the firefighter became distraught because he understood that requirement revoked his leave to attend weekly therapy sessions for PTSD during work hours. Obviously agitated and shaking, he excused himself from the meeting. After the meeting, however, the chief drafted a memo that questioned the firefighter’s state of mind after the PIP meeting. The firefighter responded to a text from the chief that evening, saying that he made it home safely but was not “okay.”

Suspension and fitness exam. The next day, the chief informed the firefighter that he was suspended from the department because of his reaction to the PIP. He ordered the firefighter to have a fitness for duty (FFD) evaluation.

Grievance. The evaluation was scheduled, and the firefighter submitted a grievance to the chief challenging the PIP and the ordered evaluation. The chief, in turn, thought he was out of line by filing the grievance and notified him that there was no grievable issue.

Return to finish listening to reading of PIP, and discharge. The chief required the firefighter to return and finish listening to the chief read the PIP. The firefighter attended his scheduled FFD evaluation but would not release the results to Durham while his grievance was pending. The chief, in turn, fired the firefighter on March 19, 2020, because he did not submit the results of the FFD evaluation, and the town administrator notified him the next day that his grievance was not valid.

Lawsuit. He sued, alleging disability discrimination and retaliation in violation the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and New Hampshire law. Durham moved for summary judgment.

Disability discrimination. Denying summary judgment against his disability discrimination claims, the court found that a reasonable jury could conclude that the firefighter made requests for reasonable accommodation, and that the chief “was very familiar with [his] condition and knowingly provoked [his] PTSD response during the PIP meeting by surprising him with the PIP and reading it aloud in a confrontational manner.” Though the extent of the chief’s knowledge and understanding of the firefighter’s limitations due to PTSD might be partially disputed in the context of the accommodations he requested, that issue was a matter for trial, not summary judgment. Likewise, the facts underlying the town’s business necessity defense—in response to the firefighter’s allegation that the FFD evaluation was discriminatory—were also both plainly disputed and material.

Retaliation. The firefighter’s retaliation claim also survived the motion for summary judgment. A reasonable jury, the court said, could find on the record that the firefighter made requests for reasonable accommodation, was using a reasonable accommodation already in place, and complained about discriminatory conduct. There was no dispute that the town imposed adverse employment actions against him, including termination. The timing of these events and the evidence of the chief’s unusual familiarity with his disability—and the chief’s possible use of the firefighter’s disability against him—could support findings in the firefighter’s favor on the ADA retaliation claim.

The case is No. 23-cv-327-SM-TSM.

Judge: McAuliffe, S.

Attorneys: Gregory L. Silverman (Law Offices of Gregory L. Silverman) for John Powers. K. Joshua Scott (Jackson Lewis) for Town of Durham, New Hampshire.

Companies: Town of Durham, New Hampshire

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Retaliation Discharge PublicEmployees NewHampshireNews