There is a pattern that shows up in these cases more often than employers want to admit, and it rarely gets framed correctly. An employee is performing well… then something changes at work- management, expectations, structure, or simply how the employee is treated. Around that same time, the employee begins experiencing medical issues, often neurological or stress-related. The employer becomes aware of it. And then the focus shifts to performance. In many cases, the stress of this increased scrutiny and disparate treatment by the employer only serves as a further exacerbating factor of the employees’ condition.
A recently filed federal case, Walsh v. Fitch Solutions, Inc. (No. 1:25-cv-06231 (S.D.N.Y. filed July 29, 2025), reflects how this plays out in practice. The broader point is not unique to that case. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission continues to see a steady volume of disability discrimination claims, many of which involve conditions that develop or worsen in response to workplace pressures.
According to the complaint against Fitch Solutions, Inc., Ms. Walsh had an established record of success, including responsibility for major client relationships, before the events at issue. The allegations describe a shift following changes in management and internal structure that affected her role, access to opportunities, and day-to-day working environment. Around the same time, she alleges that she experienced disparate treatment related to severe migraines that were directly impacted by the working environment.
The complaint alleges that Ms. Walsh communicated about the migraines and the company was put on notice of both the condition and its impact. According to the complaint, what followed, as alleged, is familiar: increased scrutiny, reframed expectations, and a growing record of “performance” issues. That sequence is where these cases are decided.
The issue is not whether an employer medically caused a condition. The Americans with Disabilities Act does not require that. The issue is what the employer does once it knows the condition exists and understands how it is affecting the employee. When the same facts can be described as both a performance problem and the manifestation of a medical condition, the distinction matters.
Courts and juries have reacted strongly when that distinction is ignored. In EEOC v. Walmart Stores East, L.P. (See 2021 WL 2560383 (2021), a jury returned a $125 million verdict, later reduced under statutory caps, after finding that changes to a long-term employee’s working conditions led to a termination tied to a known disability. The number itself is not the point. The reaction is. What the employer viewed as a routine management decision was viewed very differently once the facts were considered together.
That dynamic is not difficult to understand. Once a factfinder concludes that an employer relied on conduct shaped by a known condition, the framing of the case shifts quickly. It stops being about performance and starts being about how the employer handled information it already had.
The allegations in Walsh reflect a sequence that is frequently at issue in these cases in a more developed form. The complaint allegations describe not only the existence of a medical condition, but a condition, severe migraines, that allegedly became a focal point for disparate treatment and ultimately termination. Those are not abstract harms. They are the types of impacts that can carry through to an employee’s ability to remain in their role and continue earning at the same level over time.
That distinction matters when considering exposure. While federal law imposes caps on certain categories of damages, those limits generally apply to non-economic harms and do not extend to economic losses. Nor do they necessarily apply where parallel state law claims are asserted. Where the same set of facts reflects not only distress, but an ongoing impact on an employee’s ability to function and work, as the allegations in Walsh suggest, the potential recovery is not confined to the categories typically associated with those caps. In that context, the statutory cap is not the defining feature of the case.
The allegations in Walsh also raise a related issue that shows up frequently but is often overlooked, the role of opportunity, support, and internal structure. Performance is not evaluated in a vacuum. It is a function of the environment the employer controls. When an employee alleges that changes in the work environment affected performance, courts may examine whether the employer considered that connection.
By the time termination decisions are made, the narrative is usually locked in. The focus is on output, responsiveness, or engagement. The medical condition may still be there, and may still be affecting the employee, but it is no longer part of the employer’s explanation. It has been separated out, at least on paper. However, that separation does not always hold.
Under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (411 U.S. 792 (1973)) courts look at whether the stated reason for a decision is the real one. When performance concerns arise in direct connection with a known condition, especially one that has not been meaningfully addressed, that analysis becomes more difficult for the employer. In some cases, the two are so closely linked that they cannot be untangled in a way that favors the defense. That is where the exposure changes.
Courts and juries may show increasing sensitivity to situations where an employer knows about a condition and proceeds to evaluate performance as if it does not exist. Once a factfinder concludes that the employer relies on conduct shaped by that condition, the framing of the case shifts quickly. And while federal law imposes caps on certain categories of damages, those caps do not apply to economic losses, and parallel state law claims may allow for broader recovery. What starts as a routine performance case can become something else entirely when the allegations are viewed through that lens.
None of this turns on a single decision point. These cases are about sequences, what changed, what was known, and how the employer responded. The conditions involved are often not static. They develop over time, sometimes in response to the workplace itself. That makes the analysis less about identifying one moment and more about understanding the progression.
For employers, the more difficult cases are not the obvious ones. They are the cases where the line between performance and disability is not clearly drawn until it is being drawn by a jury.
These issues rarely present themselves cleanly at the time they are happening. By the time a decision is formally explained, the underlying reasoning has often already been set. The outcome in these cases is often determined by details that are not immediately obvious but become central once the decision is challenged.
Carey & Associates represents clients in complex workplace disputes involving discrimination, accommodation, and retaliation, and can be contacted to evaluate whether a claim exists or whether a decision can be defended. Please contact Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150 or send an email to info@capclaw.com.
