His sworn statements to the SSA about being unable to work proved fatal in court
A truck driver's own disability benefits application torpedoed his ADA discrimination lawsuit against his employer, a federal appeals court ruled.
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on April 9, 2026, sided with Trimac Transportation, Inc., affirming summary judgment on disability discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, and wrongful termination claims brought by Jason Schmit, a former truck driver who was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease while employed at the company's Rapid City, South Dakota terminal.
The case carries a pointed reminder for HR teams navigating the accommodation process: what employees say to one government agency can come back to haunt them in court – and careful documentation along the way can make all the difference for employers.
Schmit worked for Trimac from May 2017 to August 2021. After his Parkinson's diagnosis in December 2018, Trimac informally adjusted his duties. He was assigned to haul rock and coal, which spared him from climbing ladders or handling hoses. His trailer was washed out by a third-party service after each trip. He worked a five-day week ending by 1:00 p.m. each day, and he could "haul light" – transporting 117,000 pounds or less – when he wasn't feeling well.
Things shifted in March 2021 when Trimac brought in Gene Williams as the new Rapid City terminal manager. Williams contacted HR about Schmit's disability and the limited amount of work he could perform. HR asked Schmit to submit a formal accommodation request. He did, and in May 2021 the company approved and documented the same accommodations he had been receiving informally for two years.
That formalization would later prove critical in court.
Over the next few months, friction mounted. Schmit said Williams smirked when he raised a concern about trailer hookups he could not perform. Williams flagged to HR that Schmit was not hauling heavy when assigned heavy-duty trailers. Schmit told HR he could not predict how he would feel until he started his day around 3:00 a.m., before Williams or dispatch were available. He turned down a suggestion to switch to a lighter trailer on a regular basis because hauling heavy paid more.
In July, Schmit was reprimanded for running a stop sign captured on his dash camera. He and another driver – who did not have a disability – both received written warnings for hauling heavy on the interstate in Wyoming. That same day, Schmit emailed HR claiming there was "full-fledged targeting and harassment going on," pointing to GPS monitoring, afterhours phone calls, and being told to use an air pressure gauge for tire checks instead of the hammer test.
HR investigated and found no substantiated adverse action. Schmit was invited to share more information. He did not respond.
In early August, Williams told Schmit he needed to do things "his way" or he would get rid of him "one way or another." Disability Rights South Dakota then wrote to HR on Schmit's behalf, asking Trimac to keep the existing accommodations and add two new ones: having others perform tasks involving getting down on the ground and back up again, including pre- and post-trip inspections, and assigning Schmit exclusively to light loads. Trimac kept the existing accommodations but denied both new requests. The company said trip inspections are required by the Department of Transportation and that federal regulations hold drivers personally responsible for equipment defects. Trimac would not shift that liability to another employee. As for light-load exclusivity, HR said hauling heavy loads was an essential function of the position and that assigning only light loads to Schmit would hurt revenue, negatively impact customers, and prevent "fair and equitable" distribution of dispatches among drivers.
On August 7, Schmit removed his personal belongings from his truck and told an employee he was "done with this F'ing place." He did not report to work on August 9. Trimac emailed him on August 10 to accept what it called his resignation. Schmit says he never quit — he was waiting on a call about his truck being serviced – and emailed HR on August 12 asking if he had been fired.
Here is where the case turned decisively against Schmit.
On August 18, he applied for total Social Security disability benefits. In that application, he wrote that he became unable to work because of his disabling condition on August 7, 2021. On September 13, he submitted a Function Report where he stated he was unable to climb, could only stand for a limited time, had difficulty walking, suffered from muscle stiffness, decreased coordination, and increased tremors throughout the day. He said the inability to control his right hand, arm, right leg, and foot made it impossible to work, and that he at times experienced hallucinations and delusions from his Parkinson's medication. He swore that information was true and accurate. The Social Security Administration approved his application, finding he became disabled on August 7, 2021.
The court found that those sworn statements fatally undermined his ADA claim. To sue under the ADA, Schmit needed to show he was a "qualified individual" – someone who could perform the essential functions of his job with reasonable accommodations. But his own words to the government said the opposite. The court acknowledged that statements to the SSA do not automatically preclude a successful ADA suit, but said Schmit never adequately explained the contradiction between his sworn representations and his claim that he could still perform his job.
His hostile work environment claim also fell short. The court treated Williams's references to the "limited" amount of work Schmit could do and his threat to get rid of him as "isolated incidents" that were not "extremely serious." It separately characterized the smirking, unwanted afterhours phone calls, and discipline for failing to follow company policy and the law as "ordinary tribulations of the workplace." None of it, the court held, rose to the level of severe or pervasive harassment.
On retaliation, the four-month gap between Schmit's accommodation request and his departure was too long to establish a causal link on timing alone. And his wrongful termination claim under South Dakota state law failed because the state's highest court has expressly declined to recognize a public policy exception for discharge based on a disability.
For HR professionals, the case underscores a few realities. Formalizing informal accommodations – even when they have been working smoothly – creates a documented record that can protect an employer in litigation. A structured HR investigation, even one that finds no wrongdoing, demonstrates good faith. And when an employee's post-separation filings contradict their legal claims, that paper trail matters.
