145 F.4th 922
8th Cir.2025Background
- James Trambly was employed by the University of Nebraska-Kearney as a help desk associate, later promoted to workstation support specialist.
- After several years of positive performance, Trambly's job performance declined notably from 2017 onward, with issues documented by supervisors.
- Trambly was terminated in February 2019 after he violated university policy by removing a hard drive without authorization during an internal investigation.
- He sued the University’s Board of Regents, alleging disability discrimination and retaliation under the Rehabilitation Act, ADA, and Nebraska Fair Employment Practices Act (NFEPA).
- The district court granted summary judgment for the Board, concluding no genuine dispute of material fact existed on Trambly’s claims. Trambly appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disability Discrimination (ADHD) | Trambly is disabled (ADHD) and experienced a hostile work environment, disparate treatment, and lack of accommodation | Trambly lacked current evidence ADHD substantially limited a major life activity; insufficient factual allegations | For Defendant; no sufficient evidence Trambly met the statutory definition of disability |
| Discrimination Based on New Disabilities | In response to summary judgment, Trambly raised immune suppression, asthma, and Crohn's disease | Claims not in initial complaint; lacked notice under Rule 8(a) | For Defendant; only ADHD properly pleaded |
| Retaliation for Requesting Accommodations | Trambly was threatened, received negative evaluations and comments, and was terminated after accommodation requests | No sufficient evidence that adverse actions were causally linked to protected conduct; legitimate non-retaliatory reason for termination | For Defendant; no causal nexus shown between protected conduct and adverse action |
| ADA Title II Claim (Amendment) | Sought to amend complaint to add Title II ADA employment-based claim | Title II does not provide for employment discrimination claims; such claims arise under Title I | For Defendant; amendment would be futile, Title II inapplicable |
Key Cases Cited
- Gorman v. Bartch, 152 F.3d 907 (8th Cir. 1998) (explaining that ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and NFEPA legal standards are interchangeable)
- Kirkeberg v. Canadian Pac. Ry., 619 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2010) (explaining summary judgment review standard and disability standard)
- Orr v. Wal-Mart Stores, 297 F.3d 720 (8th Cir. 2002) (comparing NFEPA and ADA legal standards)
- Stewart v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 196, 481 F.3d 1034 (8th Cir. 2007) (setting out the standard for retaliation under the ADA)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (defining material adversity for retaliation claims)
- WireCo WorldGroup, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 897 F.3d 987 (8th Cir. 2018) (on the scope of claims properly raised in a complaint)
- Brown v. Conagra Brands, Inc., 131 F.4th 624 (8th Cir. 2025) (plaintiff must plead factual allegations about disability's impact)
- Zutz v. Nelson, 601 F.3d 842 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for denial of leave to amend based on futility)
- Zimmerman v. Or. Dep’t of Just., 170 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 1999) (Title II of the ADA does not cover employment discrimination)