His settlement said 'voluntary resignation.' His old inbox told a different story
A former Ascension data scientist says his ex-employer flagged him as "terminated" in an auto-reply that ran for over two years.
Michael Joyce filed suit in federal court in Austin on May 9, 2026, alleging that Ascension Health Alliance retaliated against him by leaving a custom auto-reply on his old work email account announcing he had been fired - more than a year after he and the health system had confidentially settled an earlier discrimination claim.
Joyce worked as a lead data scientist at Ascension from May 2019 to June 2023, based in Austin, Texas. After his departure, he filed an EEOC charge in December 2023 alleging disability discrimination and a hostile work environment, and raised concerns about his supervisor, Associate Vice President Ryan Orlowski.
In March 2024, the two sides signed a confidential agreement. Per the settlement, Ascension agreed to treat his exit as a voluntary resignation. All reference inquiries were to be routed through The Work Number, a third-party employment verification service that would share only his job title and dates of employment.
According to the filing, Joyce learned around June 20, 2025, that someone at Ascension had set up a custom auto-reply on his old work email. The message, the complaint says, read in part: "I regret to inform you that I am no longer with Ascension as my employment has been terminated." It directed urgent inquiries to Orlowski's work email.
Joyce alleges that Ascension's IT policy automatically transfers a departing employee's email permissions to their supervisor, and that Orlowski had "both the motive and the means" to set up the message. The auto-reply, he says, ran for more than two years. He claims to personally know several industry colleagues who received it.
The complaint contrasts his situation with what it describes as Ascension's standard practice - generic auto-replies that did not mention how someone left and were typically switched off about three months after exit.
Joyce's lawyer flagged the message to Ascension on September 5, 2025. According to the filing, the company responded on November 19, 2025, saying "the out of office message has now been terminated" and that it was "investigating the origin of the out of office message." Joyce says he has heard nothing further.
He filed a second EEOC charge in January 2026, this time alleging retaliation, and received a right-to-sue notice on February 9, 2026.
For HR leaders, the case puts a spotlight on the back end of the offboarding process. Settlement terms about how a separation is described - voluntary resignation versus termination - depend on the controls that sit behind them. The complaint draws on Burlington Northern v. White, where the Supreme Court said a retaliatory action is one that might dissuade a reasonable employee from filing a discrimination charge. It also cites the Fifth Circuit's 2023 ruling in Hamilton v. Dallas County, which broadened what counts as an adverse employment action under Title VII.
Two practical pressure points stand out. First, defaulting a departing employee's email access to their direct manager - standard in many IT setups - can become a problem if that manager was named in the underlying complaint. Second, even a well-drafted reference protocol routed through a third party can fall apart if a legacy email account is still talking to the outside world.
Joyce is seeking back pay, reinstatement or front pay, compensatory and punitive damages, attorney's fees, and court costs. He has also brought a Texas state law defamation claim, arguing that the auto-reply was a false statement that hurt him professionally.
The allegations have not been tested in court. Ascension Health Alliance has not yet filed a response, and no court has ruled on the claims.
