One manager allegedly replied he 'did not do accommodations'
One worker asked for an ergonomic chair. Another asked to wear a boot on a swollen foot. A third, who used a wheelchair, asked to sign paperwork electronically instead of travelling to the office.
All were denied, according to a federal complaint filed on September 25.
The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has taken legal action against GSK Research, Inc. and KGS Research, Inc. - two companies that operate Las Vegas call centers under the name VRI Research - alleging they systematically refused to accommodate workers with disabilities, then fired them. The complaint, filed in the US District Court for the District of Nevada, covers five workers and spans conduct from 2018 to 2024.
The EEOC alleges the two companies function as a single employer, sharing the same call center locations, the same workforce, and common management. Their interviewers make outbound calls, read scripts to respondents, and enter survey data - desk-bound work that, the filing notes, each of the five workers could perform with modest accommodations for their disabilities.
The pattern, according to the complaint, started early.
The first worker was hired in August 2018 as an on-site interviewer. She had degenerative osteoarthritis and a weakened spine that made sitting for long stretches painful. The complaint says she repeatedly asked for a lumbar-supporting chair, a footrest, and an ergonomic workstation, and provided a doctor's note.
Nobody discussed the request with her. The filing says the company's HR official was not aware of any federal or state law requiring the employer to accommodate medical conditions. Without the accommodation, the worker could not complete full shifts and was unable to work for the defendants as of June 2019.
A second worker, also hired in August 2018, had muscular dystrophy that caused spasms, tightness, and pain. She asked for something simple - short breaks of two to three minutes, three or four times per shift, to stand and stretch when her muscles seized up. She brought a doctor's note.
Supervisors denied the request, the filing says, telling her breaks would show "preferential treatment." When a supervisor explained the accommodation to a general manager, the complaint alleges the manager responded that he "did not do accommodations" and said the worker would be fired if she took breaks. The filing says he then transferred her to a less convenient call center location over her objections. She was terminated in February 2019.
The third worker joined in April 2020 and injured her knee in September 2021, causing her leg and foot to swell. She asked to wear a slipper or boot to work. The complaint says the employer denied the request, again citing "favoritism," and did not offer her the option of working from home - even though the company employed remote interviewers.
Instead, the filing alleges, she was forced onto unpaid leave until she no longer needed the accommodation. She returned in October 2021. Months later, she requested bereavement leave after the death of a family member. The complaint says the employer granted the leave - then terminated her the next day, citing "excessive absences." The filing notes the company did not have an absence policy.
The fourth worker, hired in March 2022 as a remote interviewer, was restricted to a wheelchair due to leg damage from a head injury and severe blood infection. He completed training successfully and received no performance counselling, according to the filing. But the complaint alleges the employer then required him to travel to the office to sign new hire paperwork - and later, to physically collect his paychecks - denying his requests to handle both electronically or by mail. The filing says the employer threatened to terminate him if he did not pick up his paychecks in person. He was fired in June 2022.
The fifth worker, hired in February 2024 as a remote interviewer, had depression with psychosis. The complaint says he was a strong performer who won the company's high-survey-volume award multiple times. During a May 2024 performance review, the filing alleges, a manager told him he sounded "brain dead." When the worker explained his voice inflection was related to his disability, the complaint says supervisors continued to mock him.
Overwhelmed, he asked if he could step out to manage his stress. According to the filing, the supervisors told him they "accepted his resignation." He insisted he had not resigned and wanted to keep working. The employer terminated his system access that same day.
The EEOC's complaint brings claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act - the federal law requiring employers to provide reasonable adjustments for workers with disabilities - for failure to accommodate, disability discrimination, and retaliation. The agency alleges the conduct was intentional and done with "malice or with reckless indifference" to the workers' rights. It seeks a permanent injunction, back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, and an order requiring the defendants to overhaul their accommodation policies.
The complaint also alleges the defendants had no ADA policies from at least 2018 to 2020, and have not trained employees or management - including HR staff - on how to handle accommodation requests since at least 2018.
For HR teams, the case spells out what a total failure of the accommodation process looks like in practice - and the kind of federal enforcement action it can attract.
The allegations in the complaint have not been tested, and no court has made any findings or rulings on the claims.
