Many employers assume that a legitimate layoff or workforce reduction will protect them from liability.

We often caution employers not to lose the battle after winning the war.  In other words, a company must be careful not to retaliate against an employee after it has lawfully addressed the employee’s complaint or request for accommodation, which can involve substantial time and resources.

A recent Fourth Circuit decision serves as a stark reminder about this:  employers may still face significant retaliation exposure if an adverse employment action, such as firing an employee, closely follows a request for accommodation, particularly when managers respond dismissively, even where the employer had a legitimate business reason for eliminating the position.

What Happened in Billesdon v. Wells Fargo Securities, LLC?

In Billesdon v. Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, a jury initially awarded more than $22 million to a longtime Wells Fargo employee who claimed he was terminated after requesting a permanent work-from-home accommodation related to a serious medical condition.

While the Fourth Circuit ultimately reversed several aspects of the verdict, including finding that the employer reasonably accommodated the employee and did not discriminate against the employee, it still allowed the employee’s ADA retaliation claim to stand, preserving most of the massive jury award.

Put simply, while the employer won two key battles, it still lost the war.

The  highly-compensated employee had worked for Wells Fargo for nearly three decades and had a known disability involving a paralyzed bladder and colon. For years, the condition was managed informally, including periodic flexibility to work remotely when needed. After the COVID-19 pandemic shifted employees to remote work, the employee formally requested a permanent remote-work accommodation.

According to the court, management responded with skepticism, questioned the request, and discussed how to “push back” against it. Internal notes also reflected concerns about whether accommodating the employee would merely be “delaying the inevitable.” Those facts became central to the employee’s retaliation claim.

What Should Employers Take Away From This Case?

Timing is (Very) Important

The court noted that senior managers learned of the accommodation request and then, shortly thereafter, decided to include the employee in a reduction-in-force. Evidence showed that the termination process moved much faster than normal company practice.

Even though Wells Fargo presented evidence that cost-cutting and workforce reductions were already under consideration, the court concluded that the jury heard enough evidence to reasonably conclude that the accommodation request was a “but-for” cause of the employee’s inclusion in the layoff.

For employers, this underscores how closely courts scrutinize employment actions that occur soon after protected activity, particularly where the employer fails to follow its usual procedures.  It is also a warning to employers that today’s juries generally do not trust corporations and have a negative perception of their motives.  Recent studies about juries indicate that most people believe corporations lie.

An Accommodation Doesn’t Have to Be Formal to Be Effective

The Fourth Circuit held that Wells Fargo could not be liable for failing to provide a reasonable accommodation where the employee was, in fact, already working remotely throughout the accommodation process and until his termination. The court emphasized that the ADA focuses on whether an accommodation is effective, not whether it has been formally labeled or approved. And it reversed the jury, finding that there was not sufficient evidence for the jury to have found otherwise.

This portion of the decision provides useful guidance to employers managing accommodation requests during periods when temporary workplace arrangements already address an employee’s limitations.

How Managers Respond Matters

The decision also highlights the importance of maintaining a clear separation between business decisions and accommodation discussions.

Although Wells Fargo ultimately prevailed on the disability discrimination and failure-to-accommodate claims when the court overturned the jury’s verdict against Wells Fargo on those claims, the retaliation claim survived because of evidence suggesting management reacted negatively to the accommodation request itself. Internal communications, expressions of skepticism, unexplained procedural deviations, and delayed engagement in the accommodation process all became evidence supporting the jury’s finding.

Practical Steps for Employers

Employers should ensure that accommodation requests are evaluated objectively, documented appropriately, and handled by trained decision-makers who understand the legal risks associated with retaliation.

The bottom line is that employers face substantial exposure when accommodation requests intersect with layoffs, restructurings, or performance-related decisions. Even where the underlying business justification is legitimate, poorly worded communications, inconsistent procedures, or adverse actions that closely follow a request for accommodation can create significant litigation risk. Billesdon demonstrates that employers may successfully defend against disability-discrimination claims and still end up facing substantial liability for retaliation.

Accordingly, employers should review accommodation procedures, train managers on appropriate communications, and carefully document the legitimate business reasons supporting any adverse employment action involving an employee who has recently engaged in protected activity.

Jim Hammerschmidt’s practice includes a range of commercial, corporate, and employment counseling and litigation in Maryland and the District of Columbia. You can reach him at 301-841-0189 or at jrhammerschmidt@lerchearly.com