Dive Brief:
- The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed most of a worker’s Americans with Disabilities Act and North Carolina Equal Employment Practices Act claims against Wells Fargo on Friday — more than two years after a jury found for him on all claims and awarded him $22.1 million (Billesdon v. Wells Fargo Securities, LLC).
- Only the ADA retaliation claim should survive, the court determined, tossing out jury findings for the worker on failure to accommodate as well as disability discrimination under both the ADA and North Carolina law. It vacated entirely the worker’s punitive damages and emotional distress awards and trimmed a back pay award, leaving a little over $4.23 million in back pay. However, it allowed a $14 million front pay award to stand.
- While it is rare for a court to overturn a jury’s decision, it is not unprecedented. The 5th Circuit vacated a $25 million jury award against Omni Hotels Management Corp. in late 2024, for example, resulting in a retrial that ultimately swung in the employer’s favor.
Dive Insight:
The case involved a sales managing director who worked for Wells Fargo Securities for nearly three decades. For years, the worker managed a disability — a paralyzed bladder and colon — that eventually required him to have frequent and urgent access to the bathroom. While the office was closed during the COVID-19 pandemic and as the company was considering a return to office, he requested an accommodation to work from home “permanently,” so he would not require permission every time his symptoms flared.
A few months later, the company terminated him as part of a planned reduction in force.
While Wells Fargo contended the worker’s termination was due to a previously planned reduction of some of the “most expensive” sales managing directors to relieve the company’s expenses, the plaintiff provided evidence that could have swayed a reasonable jury to conclude it was retaliatory, the court found.
For example, while the worker had previously been told he would receive a “stellar” performance review, he was downgraded from “exceeds” to “meets” expectations after his accommodation request. The senior managers also “reacted to his request with skepticism and dismissiveness,” the court noted, and questioned what they would need to do to push back against the request.
On the other hand, the court found that despite the jury’s finding, the plaintiff presented no evidence that Wells Fargo refused to provide a reasonable accommodation. “Had [the plaintiff] been required to endure even one day in the office, his injury would have been clear,” the 4th Circuit said. “But here, it is undisputed that [he] worked from home during the relevant period.”
When Wells Fargo closed the worker’s accommodation case, it was because the company decided workers would still be permitted to work remotely for a period. He was told he could open a new case when the company set a definite return-to-office date, the appeals court pointed out.
While an RTO date was set a few weeks before he was terminated, the worker did not file a new case in that time.
The court also determined the worker’s disability discrimination charges could not be supported by evidence, because they required him to prove that disability, not his protected action, resulted in the termination.
Yet “for two decades the disability was known and accommodated, and it never slowed his rise from intern to managing director,” the court said. “The evidence of animus begins when the request arrives. That sequence supports retaliation, not status discrimination.”
One judge dissented in part from the others, arguing the plaintiff did provide sufficient evidence he was discriminated against for his disability. In particular, she said, the plaintiff showed the manner of termination was “irregular” and unusually fast. He also showed his managers demonstrated “hostility” toward his disability, she found.
Wells Fargo declined to comment on the decision, and an attorney for the plaintiff did not respond to a request for comment by press time.