A verbal warning before. A firing this time. He says the timing tells the real story
He came back from leave and asked for help. Days later, a veteran engineer says, the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond fired him.
Jonathan Seifert spent more than 30 years in IT and joined the Richmond Fed in 2016 as a channel engineer, according to a complaint filed June 16, 2026, in the US District Court of Colorado. The filing says he oversaw the bank's entire Treasury network, infrastructure that processes more than $20 trillion a year in Treasury securities. He earned promotions, awards and strong performance ratings, the complaint says.
Then his family was hit by crisis. The filing describes both of Seifert's sons suffering serious mental-health struggles over several years. In February 2024, the complaint says, he walked in on his youngest son attempting to take his own life and saved him. The trauma led Seifert to take leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act to care for his own mental health. He was later diagnosed with PTSD, anxiety, depression and ADHD, according to the filing.
What happened next is the heart of the case. The complaint says Seifert emailed the bank's human resources team on February 1, 2025, to again request reasonable accommodations for his disabilities before returning to work. Three days later, on February 4, he showed up and was placed on administrative leave pending an internal investigation, the filing says. On February 14, he was fired.
The bank's stated reason, according to the complaint, was that Seifert had used his work phone while in Mexico. The filing says he had used it there before - once around 2022 or 2023, and again in December 2024 to wish his team a Merry Christmas - and that the earlier instance drew only verbal counseling, not termination. Bank policy permitted personal use of the phone, the complaint says.
Seifert alleges the phone explanation was "pretextual" and that the bank fired him because of his mental-health disabilities and recent disability leave. He claims the bank treated him less favorably in the discipline process than employees who had not taken disability leave or asked for accommodations, and that firing him over conduct once handled with a verbal warning was disproportionate.
He brings four counts: disability discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and matching claims under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. He is seeking reinstatement, back pay, front pay, and economic and non-economic damages, plus attorneys' fees.
For HR leaders, the shape of this case is familiar. A long-tenured employee asks for accommodation. Days later, adverse action follows. The complaint leans on that timeline - three days to administrative leave, ten more to termination - to argue the firing was retaliation.
It also points to the gap between how the conduct was handled before and how it was handled this time. A work-phone slip that once earned a verbal warning, the filing says, became grounds for dismissal after Seifert returned from leave and renewed his accommodation request.
The lesson for anyone running an HR function is not subtle. When discipline lands right after a protected request, the timing alone can support a retaliation claim. Consistency is the other half. If comparable conduct drew a light touch in the past, escalating it now invites exactly the question this complaint raises - what changed, and why now.
The allegations have not been tested in court. The Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond has not yet filed a response, and no court has ruled.
