The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has reinstated an ADA failure-to-accommodate claim brought by a former division chief against the Ocean City-Wright Fire Control District in Florida.

Division Chief Walter Ebbert, a disabled military veteran, was hired by former Fire Chief Billy Lord in 2008. Chief Ebbert’s service-related disabilities included a traumatic brain injury that caused anxiety and attention problems during prolonged stress, as well as post-traumatic stress disorder that caused him to shut down in highly stressful situations.

Chief Ebbert disclosed his disabilities to Chief Lord when he was hired. Chief Lord accommodated those disabilities by giving Chief Ebbert additional time to complete assignments, helping him prioritize his work, and reducing stress in his work environment.

According to the court, those accommodations were effective. Chief Lord described Chief Ebbert as “an excellent employee” who “went above and beyond,” even when Chief Lord “put a lot on his plate.”

After Chief Lord retired, Chief Mark Bundrick assumed command of the district. Although Chief Bundrick continued to extend some deadlines, Chief Ebbert alleged that Chief Bundrick did not help him prioritize assignments and frequently changed the expectations associated with his work. Chief Ebbert contended that the resulting stress aggravated his disabilities and affected his productivity.

On May 14, 2020, Chief Bundrick assigned Chief Ebbert six tasks that were to be completed within 60 days. Chief Ebbert had successfully performed similar work during his tenure under Chief Lord but did not complete the six assignments to Fire Chief Bundrick’s satisfaction.

On December 9, 2021, Chief Ebbert requested accommodations from Human Resources Manager Jennifer Rimes. He told Human Resources Manager Rimes that Chief Bundrick and Deputy Chief Jeff Wagner were creating a stressful environment by “constantly moving the goalposts” and refusing to provide “a list of priorities.”

Chief Ebbert requested “a less stressful environment” and asked that Chief Bundrick and Chief Wagner answer his questions and help prioritize his assignments. On January 13, 2022, Chief Ebbert asked Chief Wagner for additional information about his assignments, including responses to questions about priorities and expected outcomes. According to Chief Ebbert, the district did not provide the requested accommodations.

Chief Bundrick terminated Chief Ebbert on March 17, 2022, citing his failure to complete the six assignments. The original 60-day deadline had passed more than a year and a half earlier.

At the time of the termination, Chief Bundrick did not know about Chief Ebbert’s disabilities. Chief Ebbert had not disclosed them directly to Chief Bundrick, and neither Rimes nor Chief Wagner (who allegedly was aware) did not inform him.

After the termination, five of the six assignments were given to Chief Ebbert’s successor, who completed some of them within approximately 90 days.

Chief Ebbert sued the district, alleging that he was terminated because of his disabilities and that the district failed to accommodate those disabilities. We covered the filing back in 2023. The federal district court granted summary judgment to the fire district on both claims, prompting Chief Ebbert to appeal.

The Eleventh Circuit agreed with the trial court that Chief Ebbert’s intentional-discrimination claim could not proceed. The court explained that Chief Bundrick could not have intentionally terminated Chief Ebbert because of disabilities about which he had no knowledge.

The court also rejected Chief Ebbert’s argument that Chief Bundrick acted as the “cat’s paw,” or puppet, of someone who knew about the disabilities. Although Chief Bundrick consulted Chief Wagner, the evidence showed that Chief Bundrick independently evaluated Chief Ebbert’s work, met with him several times, and made the termination decision based on his own assessment.

The court reached a different conclusion on the failure-to-accommodate claim.

The court explained that a failure to accommodate violates the ADA when it negatively affects the terms or conditions of employment, including when it leads to an employee’s termination. A jury could conclude that Chief Ebbert was terminated for failing to complete the same assignments for which he had requested accommodations.

The court stated:

• A reasonable juror could conclude that Ebbert could have completed the tasks if Ocean City had granted his requested accommodations.

The court pointed to Chief Ebbert’s decade of successful work under Chief Lord while receiving similar accommodations. It also noted that Chief Ebbert requested accommodations more than three months before his termination and that his successor completed some of the assignments within approximately three months.

Although the district gave Chief Ebbert deadline extensions, the record contained evidence that Chief Bundrick and Chief Wagner did not prioritize his assignments or provide clear and consistent expectations. Those were among the accommodations Chief Ebbert had requested.

The court concluded:

• A reasonable jury could find that Ocean City negatively impacted Ebbert’s conditions of employment by failing to give him the additional time, guidance, information, and prioritization that he requested or other accommodations that would be identified through an interactive process.

The Eleventh Circuit reversed summary judgment on the failure-to-accommodate claim and returned the case to the district court.

Chief Judge William Pryor joined the court’s opinion but wrote separately regarding whether Chief Ebbert’s requests were sufficiently specific and reasonable. Judge Pryor questioned whether requests for less stress, more time, better guidance, additional information, and help prioritizing assignments adequately identified an accommodation that would enable Chief Ebbert to perform the essential functions of his position.

Judge Pryor wrote that some of the requests were “likely not specific enough,” may have been unreasonable, or may not have constituted requests for accommodation at all. Because the fire district did not ask the Eleventh Circuit to affirm summary judgment on that alternative basis, the court left those questions for the district court to address.

Here is a copy of the case. BTW… Brad’s next ADA webinar, Preventing Discrimination Claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, is on November 12, 2026.