His supervisor had already approved every accommodation he requested
A legally blind engineer with a PhD alleges he was let go on his first day of work.
The EEOC filed a federal lawsuit on September 25 against Houston-area real estate developer Majestic Developers, alleging the company terminated a drainage engineer - or refused to complete his hire - within hours of learning he was legally blind.
The engineer holds a Bachelor of Science degree, a master's degree, and a PhD in engineering, according to the complaint filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas. In mid-November 2024, a job recruiter identified him as qualified for Majestic's Drainage Engineer II role and referred him to the company.
A senior drainage engineer at Majestic interviewed him remotely on or about November 12, 2024, the complaint states. Six days later, the company offered him the job by letter. He signed and returned it the next day.
The role was based in Houston. It was exclusively an office job - occasional visits to other offices for meetings, but no field work.
At the time, the engineer was living in Atlanta and working in an academic research position at Spelman College that was winding down and set to expire at the end of March 2025. He disclosed that position to Majestic before his start date, the complaint alleges.
He relocated his family from Atlanta to Houston for the job.
On January 2, 2025 - his first day - the engineer arrived at Majestic's Stafford, Texas office using a white cane. He met with the senior engineer and disclosed his vision impairment, the complaint states. He asked for a handful of adjustments: a Windows computer with a large monitor, permission to tweak some settings on his computer for easier reading, closing the blinds in his office to cut the glare, and the ability to use his own video device for reading hard-copy documents. He also asked to bring in someone at his own expense to help him get to the occasional external meeting.
None of it was unusual. The senior engineer told him the computer equipment he needed was standard at Majestic and already available, according to the complaint. She offered him an office without direct sunlight. He accepted. She instructed IT to start setting up his workstation.
There was also the question of his Spelman College position. The engineer told the senior engineer he was still technically employed there, though he was no longer performing work, the complaint states. He offered to resign immediately if Majestic required it. The senior engineer checked with the company's engineering lead, who said the short-term overlap would not be an issue as long as the engineer worked 40 hours a week in the office, according to the complaint.
Then everything changed.
After that meeting, the senior engineer met separately with the engineering lead, the complaint states. She came back and told the engineer that Majestic could not "hire him."
When he asked why, she said it was because he had a second job, the complaint alleges. He offered again to resign from Spelman immediately. She declined. Then she gave a different reason - Majestic did not have the projects to support his position. The complaint notes another drainage engineer was set to start at the company very shortly.
The engineer was removed from the office, the complaint states. The EEOC alleges this happened just hours after the engineering lead learned of the engineer's disability and need for accommodations.
That same day, both the senior engineer and the engineering lead emailed the recruiter who had placed the engineer, telling the recruiter they were letting him go due to his outside employment, the complaint states.
The recruiter responded by telling the engineering lead that the engineer was no longer working in the research position and there was no conflict with the Majestic job, according to the complaint. The recruiter also pointed out the engineer had relocated his family from Atlanta to Houston based on the company's offer.
The engineering lead sent a follow-up email, the complaint alleges. According to the filing, the engineering lead wrote: "We have other concerns about [the engineer's] ability to perform his tasks without any assistance. I was told that he would need special computer and printing needs along with a special office space. Please talk to Ali on his requirements. Unfortunately Majestic will not be able to accommodate the requirements."
The complaint notes that earlier that same day, the senior engineer had already confirmed the computer equipment was standard and available, and had identified a suitable office.
The EEOC alleges Majestic violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to accommodate the engineer and by terminating or refusing to hire him because of his disability. The complaint alleges the reasons Majestic gave were "false and/or a pretext for discrimination."
Before filing suit, the EEOC went through its standard enforcement process. It issued a Letter of Determination on April 13, 2026, finding reasonable cause to believe the ADA had been violated, the complaint states. The agency tried to resolve the matter through conciliation - an informal negotiation process - but was unable to reach an agreement with Majestic. It issued a Notice of Failure of Conciliation on July 2, 2026.
The EEOC is seeking back pay, front pay if reinstatement is not practical, compensation for out-of-pocket losses including relocation costs, damages for emotional distress, and punitive damages.
For HR teams, the fact pattern in this complaint is worth studying closely. The filing describes accommodations that were assessed, approved, and set in motion by one manager - then reversed within hours after a second manager became involved. That kind of internal disconnect on disability accommodations, if proven, is precisely the sequence the EEOC builds enforcement cases around.
The allegations in the complaint have not been tested in court, and no judge has made any findings or rulings on the merits.
