He asked for a transfer. The PIP blocked it. Then Vanguard fired him, lawsuit says
A former Vanguard case manager says the firm fired him over speed targets he could not hit because of early Alzheimer's - then refused to move him.
Robert Machell filed his complaint on May 7 in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. He accuses The Vanguard Group of disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.
Machell joined Vanguard in March 2022 as a Case Manager in the CMS Department, on roughly $66,000 a year. He had strong customer satisfaction and accuracy ratings, the complaint says. The sticking point was a metric called Case Handle Rate, which required staff to process about 3.0 cases per hour and rewarded speed over quality.
In May 2025, Machell was diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment associated with early Alzheimer's disease. The filing says the condition affects his processing speed and executive functioning, but that his physician cleared him to keep performing the essential duties of his job with reasonable accommodations.
Vanguard placed him on a Performance Improvement Plan around August 20, 2025, based primarily on his Case Handle Rate, according to the complaint. He was averaging about half the required rate. On September 15, he formally disclosed his diagnosis, handed over medical documentation, and asked for accommodations: reduced case volume, workflow help, structured job coaching, and reassignment to a role not built around speed.
This is where the case turns. Vanguard cut his Case Handle Rate target from 3.0 to 2.0 cases per hour and extended the PIP, the complaint says, but kept the speed-based framework. When Machell asked for a structured job coach or workflow analysis, he says Vanguard told him such a position "did not exist."
Machell pushed for a transfer. The filing describes Vanguard as having "numerous departments that do not rely on strict productivity metrics." His direct supervisor, Jacqueline McWilliams, acknowledged he was a strong candidate for transfer, the complaint says, and the Head of CMS Primary, Rebecca Panza, advocated for a move. The transfer never happened.
Much of the complaint focuses on the HR side. Machell alleges HR representative Dena Bailey told him Vanguard was "not considering a move to another role" and limited him to applying through competitive postings - postings he could not win, the filing argues, because his PIP status ruled him out. The result, according to the complaint: a PIP rooted in his disability was used to block the reassignment that would have accommodated it.
Machell renewed his requests on November 7 and November 19, 2025, asking again for reassignment, help getting around the PIP barrier, and adjusted productivity expectations. The complaint says Vanguard refused. On December 9, 2025, the firm terminated him, citing failure to meet productivity metrics.
At the time of his firing, the complaint alleges, Vanguard was already moving the department away from strict case-handling metrics and toward customer satisfaction and quality measures - the kind of work where, according to Machell, his ratings had been strong.
The suit also names McWilliams, Panza, Bailey, and a Senior Manager identified only as "JPP" individually under the PHRA's aiding-and-abetting provision, which lets supervisors be held personally liable for participating in discriminatory practices.
For HR leaders, the filing reads as a checklist of accommodation pressure points: a PIP that hardens after disclosure, a metric the employer knows the employee cannot meet because of disability, reassignment treated as a competitive process rather than an accommodation, and an interactive process the plaintiff says never really started.
Machell is seeking back pay, front pay, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees, with damages pleaded above $75,000. He is represented by Weisberg Law.
The allegations have not been tested in court. Vanguard has not yet filed a response, and no court has ruled on the claims.
