Employees often anticipate when termination may be approaching and may raise performance-related explanations or concerns for the first time. While employers may want to move quickly, these situations often require a more deliberate approach. Taking the time to investigate, document concerns, and follow proper procedures can help ensure that the termination decision is legally defensible.
In the case of Miller v. Regions Bank, No: 2:24-cv-01324, (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, July 21, 2026), ex-employee claimed Regions Bank failed to accommodate her attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and then illegally fired her for taking medical leave. Miller worked for the bank as a compliance administrator and said in her 2024 suit that she informed her manager that she had ADHD in April 2022. She told her manager about the condition during a meeting where she was presented with a performance improvement plan that aimed to address her time management skills, as well as concerns that she often interrupted her colleagues during meetings.
Miller submitted an accommodation request with the company in June 2022, asking that she be relieved from her monitoring and testing duties because of her ADHD, but her request was denied because those job functions were essential tasks for her role. Miller subsequently received warnings for her performance and said she was given an unrealistic set of tasks to complete before her FMLA leave began in July 2022, which lasted through October 2022.
After she returned from leave, Miller was given a final warning about unfinished tasks that were not completed before her leave commenced, which the bank said left it at risk. The bank then fired Miller in March 2023, after she allegedly provided incorrect information on a call with hundreds of associates. In addition, management learned that she hadn't resolved a potential regulatory issue before taking FMLA leave. Miller then filed suit.
The court pointed out that while ADHD can, if sufficient evidence is presented, constitute a disability under the ADA. However, an ADHD diagnosis does not automatically mean that an individual is substantially limited in a major life activity. She had to produce evidence in the form of a “record of impairment” that her ADHD substantially limits a major life activity. Miller did not in this case. Miller claimed that her ADHD impacted her concentration at work and that she “has offered medical evidence and testimony supporting such limitations,” but there appeared to be no evidence to support that statement.
The court further stated that assuming she was disabled under the law, the bank did not discriminate against her. The court wrote that “[u]nder the ADA unlawful discrimination includes ‘not making reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability’ unless doing so ‘would impose an undue hardship’ on the employer. However, Miller’s idea of a reasonable accommodation was to eliminate essential functions of the job. The court found it was an unreasonable accommodation. Miller even admitted that her monitoring and testing responsibilities occupied 40% “or more” of her time since 2019.
Finally, the court dismissed Miller’s retaliation claims both under the ADA and FMLA. Specifically to the FMLA retaliation, there was no temporal proximity because the termination occurred five months after she returned. It was not immediate. Also, Miller did not show that “but for” her taking FMLA leave, she would not have been subject to the challenged adverse actions (which were considered de minimis).
The takeaway for HR is simple: understand and document the essential functions of a job and do not get taken back when an employee out of the blue claims disability in performance issues. Have the interactive discussion but remember it is the employer who decides on the accommodation, if any. If an employee is not performing even with a reasonable accommodation, document why. Termination, after talking to legal counsel, should be able to follow.
Source: Law360 7/21/26