Thompson v. Microsoft, 2 F.4th 460

John Thompson, an employee with Autism Spectrum Disorder, sought workplace accommodations from Microsoft beginning in 2015 and later while serving as an Enterprise Architect (EA).
Microsoft warned some requested accommodations conflicted with EA essential duties (executive-level interpersonal, verbal, written, and presentation skills); Thompson nonetheless accepted an EA position in Austin in 2015.
Thompson’s EA performance was criticized (missed deadlines, poor written work, client requested removal); after he disclosed his autism, Microsoft temporarily removed him from the EA staffing pool and Thompson renewed accommodation requests in 2016.
Thompson asked for extensive supports (e.g., translator of verbal to written material, scribe, administrative assistant); Microsoft granted some aids (headset, specialized coach, time-management software, manager training) but refused accommodations that would shift essential EA functions to others or require full-time assistance.
Microsoft engaged in an interactive process, placed Thompson in job-reassignment when no reasonable EA accommodations were available; Thompson declined to pursue reassignment options, took long-term disability leave, and sued in 2018.
The district court granted summary judgment to Microsoft on ADA claims (failure to accommodate, discrimination, hostile work environment); the Fifth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Failure to accommodate	Thompson: Reasonable accommodations (including assistants/translators) would enable him to perform EA essential functions; Microsoft did not negotiate in good faith.	Microsoft: Requested aides would excuse essential EA duties, require hiring others, and are unreasonable; Microsoft engaged in a good-faith interactive process and offered reassignment.	Held: Requests were unreasonable because they removed essential functions; Microsoft engaged in good faith; summary judgment for Microsoft.
Disability discrimination	Thompson: Removal from EA pool and placement into reassignment were adverse actions taken because of disability.	Microsoft: Thompson was not a "qualified individual" for EA without requested accommodations; removals were not ultimate employment decisions.	Held: Thompson failed to show he was qualified or that actions were adverse employment decisions; claim failed.
Hostile work environment	Thompson: Manager’s comments and reassignment amounted to harassment based on disability.	Microsoft: Comments were isolated/insensitive but not pervasive/severe; performance criticism and reassignment are not actionable harassment.	Held: Conduct was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter employment terms; summary judgment for Microsoft.

EEOC v. LHC Grp., Inc., 773 F.3d 688 (5th Cir. 2014) (ADA discrimination/interactive-process framework)
Credeur v. La. Through Off. of Att’y Gen., 860 F.3d 785 (5th Cir. 2017) (assessment of essential functions and interactive process)
Delaval v. Ptech Drilling Tubulars, LLC, 824 F.3d 476 (5th Cir. 2016) (definition of reasonable accommodations under ADA)
Barber v. Nabors Drilling USA, Inc., 130 F.3d 702 (5th Cir. 1997) (employee must be able to perform essential job functions)
EEOC v. Agro Distrib., 555 F.3d 462 (5th Cir. 2009) (employer discretion in choosing effective accommodations)
Jenkins v. Cleco Power, LLC, 487 F.3d 309 (5th Cir. 2007) (limits on employee’s right to specific reassignment terms)
Pegram v. Honeywell, Inc., 361 F.3d 272 (5th Cir. 2004) (definition of adverse employment actions)
Patton v. Jacobs Eng’g Grp., Inc., 874 F.3d 437 (5th Cir. 2017) (hostile-work-environment severity/frequency factors)
Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) (harassment standard: severe or pervasive)
Flowers v. S. Reg’l Physician Servs., Inc., 247 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2001) (elements of ADA hostile-work-environment claim)