Lawsuit claims manager used PIPs, intro periods and disability issues unfairly
Charter Communications is facing a lawsuit that challenges how it used performance reviews, PIPs and disability accommodation with three engineers in Colorado.
Filed on February 2, 2026, in the US District Court for the District of Colorado, the case is brought by three engineers, Fida Altidi Muhammad, Arvind Kumar Kopparapu and Oyebode Kazeem Majekodunmi, against Charter Communications Companies. The filing alleges discrimination based on race, national origin, age and disability, along with retaliation and claims related to performance management and internal guidelines.
According to the lawsuit, all three men worked for Charter in Greenwood Village, Colorado. Charter is described as a Delaware corporation with principal offices in Stamford, Connecticut, operating in approximately 32 million customers in 41 states, and having its Colorado offices located at 6399 S. Fiddlers Green Circle in Greenwood Village. The plaintiffs state that Charter was their employer for purposes of Title VII, the ADA, the ADEA and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and that they were Charter employees.
The filing describes Fida as a 40-year-old naturalized citizen of the United States from Pakistan, an engineer and resident of Parker, Colorado, with a documented speech disability. He is alleged to have first worked for Charter as a contractor and then, from April 11, 2022, as a full-time employee in an engineer role. The complaint says he consistently achieved targets, received positive feedback from peers and executives, and was recognized as a top performer.
Arvind is described as 40 years old, of Indian national origin, a resident of Aurora, Colorado, and employed under an H1B visa. The complaint states he worked as an engineer and later as a Principal Engineer, leading teams and receiving acknowledgment for his responsibilities.
Kazeem is described as an immigrant from Africa, currently seeking asylum in the United States. According to the filing, he worked as an engineer with Charter and received favorable reviews and praise from coworkers and supervisors.
The lawsuit alleges that, after a change in reporting structure, the plaintiffs came under the supervision of Jonathan Levine. It states that Levine subjected Arvind to a Performance Improvement Plan and that, within a short period, all three plaintiffs were placed on PIPs. The complaint further alleges that, during Levine’s supervision, non-Caucasian employees were placed on PIPs and that no Caucasian employees under his supervision were placed on PIPs.
For Fida, the filing states that he was ultimately terminated from employment after being placed on a PIP. It alleges that Charter will assert his speech disability as part of the justification for ending his employment, and that expert medical evidence will show he could “communicate effectively” despite documented limitations. The complaint claims Charter did not provide accommodations for his disability and instead relied on his communication limitations compared to the general population.
The plaintiffs also point to Charter’s Management Guidelines and related documents addressing an Initial Introductory Period, progressive corrective action and PIPs. The lawsuit alleges that all three plaintiffs were transferred to a new position under Levine in the middle of July 2024 and that all three were placed on PIPs within 30 days of this transfer, despite language about expiration of the Initial Introductory Period.
The filing includes retaliation claims, asserting that the plaintiffs raised objections to what they believed were discriminatory, retaliatory and unfair employment practices, and that they continued to experience adverse treatment and, for each of them, actions related to termination of employment.
The plaintiffs seek economic damages, including back pay and lost fringe benefits, reinstatement or front pay and benefits, compensatory and other damages, pre‑ and post‑judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
The case is at an early stage. The court has not ruled on the merits, and none of the allegations have been proven. For HR leaders, the filing presents a detailed challenge to how a large employer allegedly handled PIPs, introductory periods and disability-related communication needs.
