A coworker made the same request, followed the rules, and kept his job
A lead engineer lost his disability bias case after refusing to park where told - and skipping the medical form his employer required.
On July 30, 2026, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the defendants, closing a dispute that came down to a question HR teams face often: what happens when an accommodation request stalls because the paperwork never comes back?
The engineer worked for Velociti Services and was assigned to support MC Realty Group in the UMB Bank buildings in Kansas City. He had his ankle replaced in 2001, which affected his ability to run, stand, or sit still for long, and he held a permanent disabled parking placard from the state.
His building assignment changed in June 2022, but his assigned parking spot stayed at the old location. He asked to park at the new building instead. His employer sent him its "Reasonable Accommodation Request Medical Certification" form and told him the paperwork was needed before any accommodation could be "discussed [] or arranged."
He never returned it. He said his regular doctor was on leave and a stand-in would not fill out the form. He eventually submitted only his handicap placard renewal, which carried no medical documentation of his disability or its limits. His stated restrictions were "not pushing snow manually" and parking close to where he worked.
The company repeatedly told him to use his assigned spot. He refused, saying his placard let him "park in any space." After a final warning and a suspension, the company fired him in September 2022 for insubordination. A second engineer who made the same request but followed the policy kept his job.
The court found the breakdown in the interactive process - the back-and-forth an employer and worker are meant to have over accommodations - was the employee's doing, not the employer's. Without medical detail, the court said, the company "could not provide an appropriate accommodation."
The engineer pointed to comments from his managers and the HR director as proof of bias, including one that his walking for the job but not for parking "sound[ed] ridiculous," and another that "the ADA is dead in the water" without the form. The court read these as frustration, not discriminatory intent, and noted none of them touched the firing.
For HR leaders, the ruling shows how documentation can decide an accommodation case. The employer requested medical certification, set deadlines, offered a meeting, applied its parking policy evenly, and kept its reason consistent - and that record carried the day.
