Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—W.D. Va.: Animation studio employee's ADHD accommodation claim survives, discrimination claim dismissed, (Jul 10, 2026)

By Mandavi Singh, LL.M.

The employee plausibly alleged that the employer approved his requested accommodation but terminated him before he had a “meaningful opportunity to utilize the accommodation.”

An animation studio employee plausibly alleged that his employer failed to accommodate his ADHD by terminating him five days after granting his request for additional time to complete assignments, a Virginia federal district court has ruled. Granting in part and denying in part the employer's motion to dismiss, the court dismissed the employee's ADA disability discrimination claim after finding he failed to plausibly allege that he was meeting the employer's legitimate expectations at the time of his discharge. However, it allowed his ADA failure-to-accommodate claim to proceed, concluding that the complaint plausibly alleged the employer granted the accommodation but never allowed him a meaningful opportunity to use it before firing him (Kachelries v. Steamroller Studios, LLC, No. 7:25-cv-00929 (W.D. Va. July 8, 2026)).

Animator. The employee joined the animation studio as an animator in January 2020. According to the complaint, he has ADHD, which substantially limits his executive functioning, concentration, memory, and processing of spoken information. He alleged that he informed management of his condition on multiple occasions and consistently performed his job satisfactorily. In April 2023, he received ratings of “Exceeds Expectations” in several performance categories and “Outstanding” for teamwork. Later that year, despite tensions with supervisors after raising concerns about company leadership, he was promoted to Lead Animator and received a raise effective January 2024.

Final warning. The employee alleged that after his promotion, he received a final warning for allegedly “unprofessional and disruptive” conduct, completed a subsequent project, and was then reassigned to another supervisor, where disciplinary issues resumed. In November 2024, after discussing concerns about management's handling of his ADHD with HR, he requested an accommodation in the form of additional time to complete assignments. Although the employer updated his task to reflect the additional time requested, the employee alleged, he was not given a “meaningful opportunity to utilize the accommodation.” Five days after requesting it, he was terminated for performance and conduct issues.

Lawsuit. Following receipt of a right-to-sue notice from the EEOC, he filed suit under the ADA, alleging disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation. The employer moved to dismiss only the disability discrimination and failure-to-accommodate claims.

Disability discrimination. Citing Kelly v. Town of Abingdon, 90 F.4th 158 (4th Cir. 2024), the court explained that an employee alleging discriminatory discharge must plausibly show that he was a qualified individual with a disability, was discharged, was meeting the employer's legitimate expectations at the time of discharge, and that the circumstances supported a reasonable inference of unlawful discrimination.

The court found the complaint deficient because it failed to plausibly allege that the employee was meeting the employer's expectations at the time of his firing.

Although the employee relied on his favorable April 2023 performance evaluation, his promotion and raise at the end of 2023, and his successful work on a later project, the court concluded those allegations shed little light on his performance nearly 10 months later, when his employment ended. By contrast, the complaint itself described a series of disciplinary incidents during that period, including complaints from supervisors, a final warning in January 2024, additional disciplinary issues after reassignment, and further discipline shortly before his discharge.

The court found the allegations comparable to those in Fuller v. Culpeper County, No. 3:22-cv-00058, 2023 WL 2931855 (W.D. Va. Apr. 13, 2023), where a disability discrimination claim failed despite earlier positive evaluations and a promotion because the employee later accumulated a significant disciplinary record.

The employee relied on Haynes v. Waste Connections, Inc., 922 F.3d 219 (4th Cir. 2019), Cowgill v. First Data Technologies, Inc., 41 F.4th 370 (4th Cir. 2022), and Sempowich v. Tactile Systems Technology, Inc., 19 F.4th 643 (4th Cir. 2021). The court distinguished each decision, explaining that those cases involved favorable performance evidence much closer in time to the adverse employment action and lacked the lengthy disciplinary history alleged here. Because the complaint did not plausibly establish that the employee was meeting the employer's legitimate expectations at the time of his termination, the court dismissed the disability discrimination claim.

Accommodation claim survives. To establish a failure-to-accommodate claim, the court explained, an employee must plausibly allege that he has a disability, the employer knew about it, he could perform the essential functions of the job with a reasonable accommodation, and the employer refused to provide that accommodation. The employer argued that the claim necessarily failed because it granted the employee's request by extending the time allotted for his assignment.

The court disagreed. Although the complaint acknowledged that the employer approved the requested accommodation, it also alleged that the employee was not given a “meaningful opportunity to utilize the accommodation” before his employment ended five days later. Accepting those allegations as true, the court concluded that the complaint plausibly alleged more than a nominal approval of the accommodation.

In reaching that conclusion, the court relied on Donaldson v. Trae-Fuels, LLC, 399 F. Supp. 3d 555 (W.D. Va. 2019), which recognized that employers cannot “escape liability for failure to provide reasonable accommodation by terminating employment” shortly after granting an accommodation request. The court observed that the temporal proximity here was even shorter than in Donaldson because the employee alleged he was terminated just five days after the employer approved his request for additional time.

The employer argued that Halpern v. Wake Forest University Health Sciences, 669 F.3d 454 (4th Cir. 2012) required dismissal because employers remain free to discipline employees for misconduct, even when those employees have disabilities. The court acknowledged that Halpern could ultimately support the employer's position if the evidence established that the employee was terminated solely for legitimate disciplinary reasons. However, unlike Halpern, which was decided on summary judgment after a developed evidentiary record, this case was before the court on a motion to dismiss. At that preliminary stage, the court concluded it could not determine whether the employee was discharged because of documented misconduct or because the employer chose not to honor the accommodation it had just approved. Accordingly, the court denied the motion to dismiss the ADA failure-to-accommodate claim. Finally, because the employer did not move to dismiss the retaliation claim, it remained pending.

The case is No. 7:25-cv-00929.

Judge: Cullen, T.

Attorneys: Hayden James Howlett (Silverpine Law) for James R. Kachelries. Leslie Paul Machado (O'Hagan Meyer) for Steamroller Studios, LLC.

Companies: Steamroller Studios, LLC

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge VirginiaNews