Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—W.D. Tex.: ADA claims fail where technician’s misconduct, not disability drove discharge, (Jun 18, 2026)

By Nicholas Kaster, J.D.

The ADA does not require the employer to tolerate the employee’s misconduct merely because he happens to have a disability, even if the misconduct were related to the disability, which the employee did not clearly articulate.

Granting summary judgment against a manufacturing technician’s ADA claims, a federal district court in Texas found he could not show he was qualified for the job or that he was subject to an adverse employment action because of his disability. Nor did he establish harassment sufficiently severe or pervasive to support a hostile work environment claim. His failure-to-accommodate claim failed as a threshold matter because the employee could not show he was a qualified individual with a disability. Finally, the employee presented no evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the employer was motivated by retaliation rather than the employee’s own behavior (Gray v. Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC, No. 1:24-CV-01403-ADA(W.D. Tex. June 17, 2026)).

Unusual behaviors. The employee worked as a Technician in Manufacturing Operations, a role requiring frequent in-person communications and collaboration with other personnel in time-sensitive circumstances. He received three notices for attendance violations in 2023, the last notice constituting a “final warning.” Beginning in April 2023, his coworkers reported that the employee was engaging in unusual behaviors, including standing in a corner staring at the wall, standing in a stairwell on his phone, and wandering the hallway with headphones. On July 25, 2023, he was reported to have engaged in a confrontational outburst with another employee.

Videoed? On August 2, 2023, the employee reported that a coworker had photographed or videoed him with her cellphone and requested relocation. The employer investigated but did not find evidence on the coworker’s cellphone corroborating the employee’s allegations. The employee asked that the coworker be permanently relocated, or that an alternative adjustment be made. He also informed his supervisor that he was seeking professional help for anxiety.

The employer permitted the employee to temporarily work from an adjoining room to avoid proximity to the coworker. On September 13, 2023, he emailed his supervisor requesting to work from home or to work in unoccupied office space permanently due to “extreme stress” from his perception that he had been recorded. However, the employer’s supervisors and HR determined that his request to work from home was not feasible given the essential functions of his role requiring face-to-face communication in high-priority circumstances. Nor could the employer accommodate his request for a private workspace, as it did not have a space available that would still allow him to comply with the accessibility and face-to-face communication requirements. The employee was told that he could pursue a leave of absence if needed.

Medical leave. On October 10, 2023, another coworker reported that he had engaged in additional outbursts and had been cursing and muttering under his breath. When the employee indicated his mental health had been deteriorating since the occasion in which he believed he was being recorded, his supervisor offered to temporarily relocate his workstation, but the employee declined. He subsequently informed a new supervisor that he suffered from obsessive-compulsive disorder and required additional break time to call his doctor, which the employer accommodated. The employee then requested medical leave, which was approved. Once on medical leave, he requested several extensions, which were granted.

Termination. The employee returned to work on January 14, 2024, after which he engaged in heated interactions with employees. On January 22, 2024, he was involved in an encounter where it was reported he engaged in a confrontational, inappropriate outburst towards a coworker. The employer investigated the encounter and, relying on the accounts of multiple employee witnesses, determined that the employee engaged in a verbal outburst and had yelled, unprovoked, during a training session. On January 29, the employer fired him, citing violations of its Code of Conduct related to the January 22 encounter while on a final warning for attendance, as well as his previous behavior towards his coworkers.

The employee brought suit, asserting four claims under the ADA: (1) disability discrimination; (2) hostile work environment; (3) failure to accommodate; and (4) retaliation. The employer moved for summary judgment on all claims.

Disability discrimination. The employer argued that the employee was not qualified for his position in that he failed to meet legitimate performance expectations as to attendance and conduct. The employer identified the employee action notices regarding attendance violations, including a final warning, as well as a pattern of several confrontational outbursts. In response, the employee contended that “misconduct intertwined with a disability does not automatically eliminate ADA protection.” However, said the court, the ADA does not require the employer to tolerate the employee’s misconduct merely because he happens to have a disability, even if the misconduct were related to the disability, which the employee did not clearly articulate.

The employer also contended that the employee could not perform the essential functions of his position that require in-person collaboration. Essential functions under the ADA extend beyond technical proficiency, the court noted. The employer provided unrebutted evidence that the technician position he occupied was highly collaborative and required frequent, time-sensitive communications with other personnel. The employee provided no competent summary judgment evidence to the contrary from which a jury could infer that he was qualified for his position, said the court.

Moreover, the court found that the employee failed to show he suffered an adverse action because of his disability. The employer contended that it terminated the employee both for violations of its Code of Conduct as well as his previous behavior towards his coworkers while on a final warning for attendance. The employee did not set forth any contrary evidence. His subjective belief that this was not the real reason for his termination was insufficient to demonstrate a causal link between his protected activity and the adverse employment action. Nor did the employee identify any similarly situated, nondisabled peer who engaged in similar conduct and was not terminated.

Hostile work environment. The employee’s hostile work environment claim was based on: (1) the incident in which he perceived the coworker to be recording him; (2) coworkers grunting and stomping near his workspace; (3) A coworker calling him a “pervert” on one or two occasions after his return from medical leave; and (4) a single comment from his supervisor telling him to “find more work” and expressing what he perceived to be doubts about his disability. Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the employee, the court found that no reasonable juror could find that these incidents were “sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment.” Thus, the employee failed to establish harassment sufficiently severe or pervasive to support a hostile work environment claim.

Moreover, the employee failed to establish that the alleged harassing conduct was related to his medical condition. He did not set forth any evidence that his coworkers were aware of his medical conditions so as to establish any connection.

Failure to accommodate. The employee argued that the employer failed to accommodate his mental health condition by “categorically” denying his request to work from home, by denying his request to work in an unoccupied space, and by “requiring” that he return from medical leave on January 14, 2024, after he submitted documentation from his healthcare provider requesting an extension of his leave.

As a threshold matter, the employer asserted that the employee was not a qualified individual with a disability. The court agreed. An essential function of the technician position is “significant face-to face communication under high priority circumstances.” As a result, technicians work from one large room specifically to communicate quickly and avoid delays. The employee did not address how he would be able to perform these essential functions from a remote environment or a private office but rather argued that he was qualified because he met production targets throughout his employment. Because he was not a remote worker during these times that he alleged he met production targets, the employee failed to address the crux of the employer’s argument. The court found that he failed to present evidence from which a reasonable jury could find him qualified under the ADA.

Furthermore, the employee failed to establish that the employer did not provide any reasonable accommodation. The employer presented competent and unrebutted evidence that its Director of Manufacturing did not “categorically” deny his request to work from home but rather assessed his requested accommodation in connection with the essential functions of his specific position and determined that it could not grant the accommodation. This iterative process is all that is required under the ADA, said the court.

Finally, the employee contended that the employer failed to accommodate him by denying his final leave extension request. But the court found that it was the employee’s own failure to communicate that interfered with the interactive process, thereby making him responsible for the breakdown.

Thus, no reasonable jury could find that the employer failed to reasonably accommodate the employee, the court held.

Retaliation. To establish a case of unlawful retaliation, there must exist a causal connection between alleged protected activity and the adverse employment action. At this stage, said the court, the appropriate inquiry is whether the employer had a reasonable basis for its nondiscriminatory and nonretaliatory reason for terminating the employee and then acted in conformity. The employee presented no evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the employer was motivated by retaliation rather than the employee’s own escalating behavior, including no evidence of a nondisabled comparator who was permitted to engage in the same or similar repeated conduct without termination. As such, his retaliation claim failed.

The case is No. 1:24-CV-01403-ADA.

Judge: Albright, A.

Attorneys: David S Gray, II, pro se. Caitlin Patricia Hilton (Ogletree Deakins) for Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC.

Companies: Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Retaliation Discharge TexasNews