A Las Vegas call center worker with a prosthetic leg was told to “get your a** on-site or find another job” despite repeated requests for disability accommodation, sparking a federal lawsuit that could reshape how companies handle return-to-office mandates for disabled employees.
Story Highlights
- John Waudby, an amputee with a prosthetic leg, sued former employer Foundever after being forced back to office despite disability accommodation requests
- Company allegedly ignored multiple ADA accommodation requests and subjected Waudby to hostile ultimatums before terminating him
- Case highlights growing legal tension between rigid return-to-office policies and federal disability protection laws
- EEOC has recently emphasized employer obligations to engage in interactive accommodation processes for disabled workers
When Pandemic Flexibility Meets Disability Reality
John Waudby thought he had found the perfect job when Foundever hired him as a remote call center worker in October 2020. The Las Vegas resident, who uses a prosthetic leg, thrived in the work-from-home environment that the pandemic had normalized across corporate America. For over three years, he performed his duties successfully without stepping foot in an office. Then came October 2023, when everything changed.
Foundever announced a blanket return-to-office policy effective January 2024. No exceptions, no negotiations. Every employee had to report to their assigned workplace or face consequences. For most workers, this meant adjusting commutes and saying goodbye to sweatpants. For Waudby, it meant excruciating pain and a battle for basic accommodation under federal law.
The Accommodation Requests That Fell on Deaf Ears
Between October and November 2023, Waudby submitted multiple formal requests to continue working remotely as a reasonable accommodation for his disability. The Americans with Disabilities Act requires employers to engage in an “interactive process” with disabled employees seeking accommodations, exploring solutions that don’t create undue hardship for the business. Foundever’s response was radio silence.
When January 7, 2024 arrived, Waudby had no choice but to comply with the mandate. He dragged himself into the office, prosthetic leg causing him significant pain throughout each workday. His requests for accommodation continued to be ignored. Eight days later, he reported receiving threats from management about his accommodation requests. Again, the company failed to respond to his concerns.
From Ultimatum to Termination
The situation reached a breaking point when a training director allegedly delivered the crude ultimatum that would later become the lawsuit’s headline: “get your a** on-site or find another job.” This wasn’t just poor management communication; it was potentially illegal retaliation against a disabled employee seeking legally protected accommodations.
By April 1, 2024, Foundever terminated Waudby without stated cause. The timing wasn’t lost on anyone familiar with employment law. An employee requests disability accommodations, faces hostility, then gets fired months later? That’s textbook retaliation territory. Waudby filed his federal lawsuit in October 2024, claiming disability discrimination and retaliation violations.
Why This Case Matters Beyond One Worker
Waudby’s lawsuit represents more than individual grievance; it’s a test case for how post-pandemic workplace policies intersect with disability rights. The EEOC has recently settled similar cases and issued clear guidance: employers cannot simply ignore accommodation requests because they prefer uniform policies. They must evaluate each situation individually.
Employment law experts emphasize that while companies generally have the right to require office attendance, that right isn’t absolute when disability accommodations are involved. The failure to engage in good-faith discussions about accommodations, especially when remote work has been proven feasible, creates significant legal liability. Companies watching this case should take note: rigid enforcement without consideration for disabled employees isn’t just ethically questionable—it’s legally dangerous.
Sources:
King Spry – EEOC Weighs in on Return-to-Office Mandates
Brandon J. Broderick – Is It Legal for Employers to Demand Return to Office Policy
The Independent – Return-to-Office Discrimination Lawsuit
FBM – Return-to-Office Mandates: Best Practices and Minimizing Litigation Risks
