Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—W.D. Va.: City’s termination of epileptic IT worker survives ADA and whistleblower challenges, (Nov 14, 2025)

By George Basharis, J.D.

The City of Charlottesville prevailed after showing that an IT worker’s firing stemmed from documented performance concerns rather than disability bias or whistleblowing activity.

A federal court in Charlottesville, Virginia, determined that a municipal employer did not violate the ADA or related whistleblower protections when it terminated an information technology worker after a series of performance issues, concluding that the worker failed to plausibly link the firing to disability bias or whistleblowing activity and that the complaint instead identified a nondiscriminatory basis for discharge. The court dismissed the disability discrimination claim with prejudice and rejected a newly asserted state whistleblower claim because it exceeded the scope of the court’s prior order granting limited leave to amend. The ruling emphasized that the worker’s own allegations identified performance deficiencies as a nondiscriminatory basis for termination, leaving no factual foundation to infer an improper motive (West v. City of Charlottesville, No. 3:24-cv-00027 (W.D. Va. Nov. 10, 2025)).

Employment history. The worker began serving as a technical support specialist for the City of Charlottesville’s information technology department in November 2021. The role involved staffing a helpdesk, responding to service requests from city departments, resolving or routing technical issues, performing computer repairs, and documenting service calls. The worker entered the position with prior experience in the field, including positions with the federal government and private employers.

Medical disclosures and remote-work challenges. The worker had a documented history of focal epilepsy that affected major life activities such as “sleeping and waking.” He also alleged related anxiety and depression. His first on-the-job seizure occurred shortly after he started work. He disclosed his condition to a senior department official, and after a second seizure, his immediate supervisor instructed him to work remotely until his condition “resolved.” According to the complaint, the remote assignment was difficult because the city had not arranged the necessary tools, leaving him disconnected from the helpdesk at times and preventing him from participating in training attended by a coworker who performed the same role.

Performance concerns. Within the first week of remote work, the worker received his first performance-related warning. He alleged that the concerns emerged only after he disclosed his disability and that he had previously received positive feedback. He later sought a modified 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. schedule, citing medical concerns related to early waking. He provided documentation to the HR department and was placed on paid suspension pending clearance to return to the office. Shortly after seeking the modified schedule, he received an additional reprimand and questioned whether his rights under the ADA were being respected.

When he returned to in-person work at the end of February 2022, management outlined performance expectations. Three days later, he received another formal reprimand and was placed on a performance improvement plan. Approximately two weeks after that, following a medical appointment, he learned that his employment had been terminated.

The worker filed an administrative charge and received a right-to-sue letter in early 2024. His original and amended pro se complaints asserted disability discrimination and retaliation claims under the ADA against the City of Charlottesville and several of its officials. The lawsuit sought monetary and injunctive relief, including reinstatement and the removal of disciplinary and medical information from his personnel file. The city moved to dismiss, and the court granted the motion in part, permitting amendment only as to the ADA discrimination claim against the city. The court dismissed the remaining counts with prejudice, including all claims against individual officials.

Represented by counsel, the worker filed a second amended complaint asserting ADA discrimination and retaliation claims against the city, as well as a new state-law claim for discrimination and retaliation under the Virginia Fraud and Abuse Whistle Blower Protection Act against two supervisory officials. The city and the officials sought dismissal of the discrimination claim and the state whistleblower claim.

Disability discrimination claim fails for lack of causation. The court began by outlining the governing ADA standard. A worker must allege that he is a qualified individual with a disability, that he was discharged, that he was meeting legitimate performance expectations at the time of discharge, and that the surrounding circumstances permit a reasonable inference of discrimination. Although the worker plausibly alleged that he was disabled and that he was terminated, the city disputed that he was meeting expectations, and the court found that his complaint did not plausibly link his disability to the termination decision.

An ADA discrimination claim requires allegations showing that disability was the but-for cause of termination. The court emphasized that the worker’s own pleadings identified a nondiscriminatory reason for discharge: persistent performance problems that the city began documenting after he began working remotely. The complaint acknowledged multiple reprimands, a performance improvement plan, and continuing concerns communicated by management before termination.

The worker argued that the reprimands were false, that the timing of the discipline suggested unlawful motives, and that a comment from a supervisor directing him to work remotely until his condition “resolved” amounted to discriminatory animus. The court rejected each theory. It noted that the worker did not specify which statements in the reprimand were allegedly false, nor did he allege that all performance concerns were fabricated. Even if some statements were inaccurate, the court explained that this did not support a plausible inference of discrimination, particularly where performance issues pre-dated the request for accommodation.

Regarding the supervisor’s remark about remote work, the court found no factual allegations indicating discriminatory intent. The complaint lacked any suggestion that management viewed the disability negatively or believed the worker was unable to perform essential duties. The court also noted that comparator evidence was insufficient. Although the worker and a colleague shared a job title and reported to the same supervisors, the complaint did not allege that the colleague engaged in similar conduct but received different treatment. The absence of factual allegations about shared conduct undercut the comparator theory.

The worker’s argument that the case resembled a prior decision involving explicit negative comments about a worker’s medical condition was unpersuasive. In that earlier case, management made repeated derogatory remarks, threatened termination tied directly to the worker’s disability, and disciplined the worker for conduct identical to that of a nondisabled colleague. The court found no parallel allegations here. The complaint contained no statements expressing discomfort with the worker’s disability, no explicit threats linked to his impairment, and no facts showing disparate treatment for the same conduct.

The court also explained that temporal proximity did not establish causation in an ADA discrimination claim. Although a three-month window between disclosure and termination might support an inference in a retaliation case, discrimination claims require a factual bridge connecting the protected characteristic to the adverse action. Because the complaint offered no such link, the allegation of temporal proximity was insufficient.

Without any factual allegations supporting an inference the city was motivated by disability bias, the court dismissed the ADA discrimination claim with prejudice.

State whistleblower claim exceeded scope of leave to amend. The court next addressed the inclusion of a state whistleblower claim against two supervisory officials. When granting leave to amend earlier in the case, the court authorized amendment only as to the ADA discrimination claim against the municipal employer. The order dismissed with prejudice all claims against individual officials. The worker therefore lacked permission to assert a new claim against those individuals in his second amended complaint.

Even if leave had been granted, the court explained that the whistleblower allegations would still be dismissed. To proceed under the Virginia Fraud and Abuse Whistle Blower Protection Act, a worker must plausibly allege that an employer discharged, threatened, or otherwise retaliated against the worker because of whistleblowing activity. The complaint contained only the conclusory assertion that the termination occurred in response to the worker’s “protected reports.” It did not allege any facts supporting a causal connection between the alleged reports and the termination decision.

The court noted that the purpose of the state statute is to protect individuals who report wrongdoing or abuse within governmental entities. It is not designed to recharacterize internal complaints about disability rights as whistleblowing. Because the worker did not identify any reported wrongdoing or any retaliatory response linked to such a report, the claim would have failed even if properly included.

The case is No. 3:24-cv-00027.

Judge: Yoon, J.

Attorneys: Andrea L. Shaw (Law Office of Andrew H. Shaw) for Zachary Rackovan. Thomas G. Collins (Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney) for The Pennsylvania State University.

Companies: The Pennsylvania State University

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge Whistleblowers Procedure PennsylvaniaNews