Brian Lee says his employer relabeled his ADHD symptoms as “performance deficiencies” and terminated him a result. The employer, Red Hat, says it was simply managing a struggling employee. A federal court is about to sort out who’s right.
Lee, a senior software engineer, went to work for Red Hat because of its reputation as neurodivergent-friendly and inclusive. He disclosed his ADHD to his supervisor shortly after being hired in 2022. In October 2024, he received a written warning for collaboration, communication, and timeliness issues. He was later pulled off a major project. He also learned his “evolving performer” rating made him ineligible for a bonus he says he wasn’t warned about.
He complained internally and to the EEOC. Red Hat investigated and found nothing. Then things got worse. In April 2025, the company granted some accommodations — dedicated focus time, remote work — but denied others, including extra time on tasks. In July, he was fired for not meeting the goals of his performance improvement plan.
Four claims followed in Lee’s lawsuit: failure to accommodate, disability discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful discharge.
These are allegations. Red Hat hasn’t even answered yet, and nothing has been adjudicated. But the fact pattern — an employee discloses ADHD, performance issues surface later, and now everyone is fighting about which one caused the other — is instructive regardless of how this case comes out.
Disclosure of a disability doesn’t freeze an employer’s ability to manage performance. It does, however, trigger obligations that should not be skipped.
1. The interactive process is not optional once accommodation is requested. Grant what you can support with evidence; if you deny a request, document why it’s not reasonable or why it doesn’t address the actual limitation — not just because it’s inconvenient.
2. Separate the disability from the deficiency. If an employee’s ADHD manifests as missed deadlines or communication gaps, address the underlying limitation through accommodation before you discipline the symptom.
3. Warn before you attach consequences. If a performance rating carries hidden financial teeth — like bonus ineligibility — the employee needs to know that before the rating, not after.
4. PIPs need teeth and clarity. “Immediate and sustained improvement” is a vague standard that plaintiffs’ counsel will happily pick apart. Define the metric, not the adjective.
None of this means you can’t hold an employee with ADHD to the same bar as everyone else. In fact, you should do exactly that, as lowering standards is its own trap. But you have to get to that bar honestly and through a documented interactive process, not by relabeling a disability as an attitude or performance problem.
