Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—E.D. Mo.: Corrections officer, accommodated despite not being regarded as disabled, cannot advance claim, (Sep 3, 2026)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

“It is not reasonable to infer that an employer will modify working conditions for an employee only if the employer regards them as disabled under the strict meaning of the Rehabilitation Act.”

Granting the Missouri Department of Corrections’ (MODOC) motion for summary judgment against the Rehabilitation Act claim asserted by a former corrections officer, a federal district court determined that although MODOC granted the officer’s request for accommodations, nothing in a letter outlining those accommodations could be read to conclude that MODOC regarded the officer as disabled or substantially limited in a major life activity. Because the officer could not prove he was regarded as disabled, he was unable to maintain a claim of disability discrimination under the Rehab Act. Even if he were able to establish his prima facie case, it would still fail with regard to comparators, as he provided insufficient evidence to show that they were not disabled or similarly situated in all respects (McDonald v. Missouri Department of Corrections , No. 2:24-cv-00361-JAR (E.D. Mo. Sept. 2, 2026)).

The plaintiff in this case began his employment as a corrections officer on November 18, 2002. At some point during his employment, he began experiencing anxiety and depression as a result of witnessing violent incidents at work. It was undisputed that his ability to carry out certain social interactions was affected by these incidents. However, the officer did not contend that his condition substantially limited his major life activities of working or interacting with others.

Accommodation request. On May 3, 2022, the officer submitted a request for reasonable workplace accommodations “due to anxiety, depression, ADHD and ADD.” He requested that he be permitted to maintain his assignment at his current post and not to be pulled from that post for other assignments. He did, however, identify additional posts where he was willing to work. His request was approved the following day.

After his accommodation request was approved, the officer was placed on vehicle patrol on several occasions. Vehicle patrol was not listed in the approved posts outlined in the accommodation letter, though the parties disputed whether this was actually considered a separate post. The officer took issue with his repeated assignment to vehicle patrol because he alleged it violated his approved accommodations. Vehicle patrol also happened to be the setting where the officer was accused of making inappropriate comments to a female coworker, which ultimately resulted in his termination.

Termination. On December 2, 2022, while on vehicle patrol with a female trainee, the officer made a series of inappropriate comments, leading to an investigation. After the investigation was launched, the officer raised concerns that his work accommodations were being ignored. An initial inquiry was conducted into the officer’s complaint, and a report recommended an upgraded investigation to determine whether a policy violation occurred. It was unclear whether an upgraded investigation was ever undertaken, and the report stated that the officer was terminated for violating MODOC’s anti-harassment policy after the inquiry into his complaint had begun due to the separate investigation that substantiated his coworker’s allegations.

Subsequently, the officer filed this lawsuit alleging disability discrimination in violation of the Rehab Act.

Regarded as. At the outset, the court found the officer’s claim failed because he could not adequately demonstrate that he was disabled or regarded as disabled by his employer, thus precluding a claim of disability discrimination under any theory. The officer had asserted that he was regarded as disabled by MODOC, that he intended to abandon his argument that he possessed any actual disabilities, and argued only that MODOC mistakenly regarded him as disabled under the Rehab Act.

Because the officer had chosen to proceed only under a theory that he was regarded as disabled, and was not actually disabled, his claim that MODOC failed to provide him reasonable accommodations lacked merit, explained the court. He could not succeed on a claim of failure to accommodate without demonstrating that he was actually disabled. The court noted that it is well-established in the Eighth Circuit that “an employer has no duty to accommodate an employee who is not actually disabled.” Fischer v. Minneapolis Pub. Sch., 792 F.3d 985, 990 n.3 (8th Cir. 2015).

Accommodations were granted. Although the officer relied on a theory that he was only regarded as disabled, he also failed to provide any evidence establishing as much in support of his discriminatory termination claim, observed the court. The officer based his theory in part on the fact that MODOC granted him workplace accommodations after he requested them to accommodate purported disabilities. Thus, MODOC must have regarded him as disabled, according to the officer. However, the court noted that the conferral of accommodations did nothing to establish the first element of his case.

“It is not reasonable to infer that an employer will modify working conditions for an employee only if the employer regards them as disabled under the strict meaning of the Rehabilitation Act,” said the court. “Holding otherwise could discourage well-meaning employers from giving accommodations to employees who are not disabled under the specific definition of the Rehabilitation Act but who would nonetheless benefit from a workplace modification, for fear of heightened obligations under federal law.”

No definitive determination. The undisputed evidence further undermined the officer’s claim that MODOC regarded him as disabled. The officer pointed to MODOC’s response to his submission of certain medical information, arguing that it had recognized him as having a disability. However, the court observed that the cited response said no such thing.

MODOC’s ADA site coordinator sent the officer a communication stating, without making any definitive determination, that the documentation submitted by the officer indicated that he may have a condition defined as a disability under the ADA and, as such, was welcome to submit an official request for accommodations if needed.

Although MODOC granted the officer’s subsequent request for accommodations, nothing in the letter outlining those accommodations stated that MODOC had concluded that the officer was, in fact, disabled or substantially limited in any major life activity. Further, though the record indicated that the officer may have subjectively experienced symptoms of anxiety and depression in social interactions, he proffered no evidence to indicate that any limitations were readily apparent to MODOC.

Finally, the record showed that the officer complained about MODOC’s alleged deviation from the approved accommodations only after the investigation into his behavior was underway. Thus, the court found the officer could not prove that he was regarded as disabled in a way that was sufficient to maintain a claim of disability discrimination under the Rehab Act.

Comparators. Despite finding that summary judgment was warranted based on the officer’s failure to establish his prima facie case, the court determined that even if his case were to proceed, he failed to adequately demonstrate disparate treatment.

Critical to the officer’s disparate treatment allegation was that he was treated less favorably than employees who were not disabled or regarded as disabled. The officer identified four comparators who received temporary suspensions despite committing allegedly similar misconduct. However, he failed to adequately demonstrate whether these proffered comparators were disabled, and instead merely noted that they did not have accommodations in place pursuant to the ADA.

“The fact of whether someone receives accommodations does nothing to establish whether they are disabled or regarded as disabled,” explained the court.

Even assuming, arguendo, that the proposed comparators were not disabled or regarded as disabled, the officer could not show that they were similarly situated in all relevant respects. The investigations of the four comparators were not undertaken by the same investigator, and there was no evidence that the same supervisor or decisionmaker imposed the resulting suspensions. Further, the proposed comparators worked in a different facility at the time of the alleged misconduct.

The case is No. 4:24-cv-00361-JAR.

Judge: Ross, J.

Attorneys: George B. Restovich (Law Offices of George B. Restovich) for Orville McDonald. Kelli Reichert, Office of the Attorney General, for Missouri Department of Corrections.

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge PublicEmployees MissouriNews