Yes, you can be fired—but only if wearing that gear is truly essential to the job and no reasonable accommodation is possible. That’s the hard lesson learned in Stevens v. City of Oneonta, No. 24-2334, 2025 WL 1466186 (2d Cir. May 22, 2025), where the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a pro se Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) claims. “Pro se” means that the employee made the mistake of representing himself.
Matthew Stevens, who worked as a Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator, had sarcoidosis and could not wear a respirator. The problem? The City of Oneonta required respirator use when handling hazardous chemicals—something the job regularly involved. Stevens asked to shift those duties to other workers, but the City refused and fired Stevens, who sued for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and wrongful termination. Both the District Court and the Second Circuit agreed: that because the respirator use was essential, and shifting tasks wasn’t reasonable, there was no disability discrimination.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals emphasized that in considering disability discrimination and failure to accommodate claims, “Courts must give considerable deference to an employer’s judgment regarding what functions are essential for service in a particular position.” Id. at *1.
Best Workplace Accommodation Lawyer Blogs on Point:
- ADA Does Not Require Perfect Accommodation Be Given
- Can I Pick The ADA Accommodation I Want?
- ADA: What Is A Central Job Function?
Was It a Mistake To Represent Himself Without a Lawyer?
In short: yes. Stevens went pro se, meaning he chose to represent himself. That decision likely cost him. Despite being smart and passionate about his work, Stevens misunderstood key legal standards and failed to follow important procedural rules. For example, he did not authenticate his audio evidence, and he contradicted himself in deposition testimony. Worse, he denied every fact in the City’s summary judgment motion—without offering usable counter-evidence.
Courts try to be lenient with pro se litigants, but as the District Court emphasized, “a pro se plaintiff, like any other party, must come forward with evidence in admissible form.”
In fact, Stevens undermined his own ADA claim by conceding a critical point: “Stevens does not dispute that mixing dangerous chemicals was part of his job and that he is unable to wear a respirator.” Id. at *1. With that one-two punch—admitting that handling hazardous chemicals was a central function of his role, and that he could not meet that requirement—he effectively doomed his case.
A good employment lawyer might have contested whether those chemical duties were truly “essential,” especially since Stevens insisted they took just 15–20 minutes, twice a month. That’s a total of only six hours per year. A lawyer could have used expert witnesses, OSHA records, testimony from similarly situated employees, or staffing comparisons from other municipalities to argue that these duties were marginal—not core. A skilled advocate might have argued the City’s refusal to consider reallocation was not just unreasonable—it was a pretext for disability discrimination or even wrongful termination.
Best Disability Discrimination Attorney Blogs on Point:
- EEOC: Another Reason Why Not To Go It Alone
- One More Reason Representing Yourself In Employment Discrimination Cases Is Bad
- Should I Handle My Disability Discrimination Case By Myself? No
Can You Still Be Qualified If You Need Some Help Doing The Job?
Sometimes. The ADA allows for reasonable disability accommodations, which can include reassignment of minor tasks, flexible schedules, or even extra equipment. But the keyword is reasonable. In Stevens, the City had five total employees running an entire wastewater facility. Letting Stevens skip respirator-required tasks or leave work at will for chest pain meant other employees would have to pick up his slack—potentially while the plant ran unattended.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that was not reasonable.
“Having someone else do part of a job may sometimes mean eliminating the essential functions of the job,” the District Court noted. Id. at *1. That’s not accommodation—that’s job restructuring, and the ADA doesn’t require it.
Best Wrongful Termination Law Firm Blogs on Point:
- Yes, You Can Be Fired for Marijuana Use—Even If You Have a Disability
- Disabled Employees Must Be Able To Do Central Function Of Job
But What About Job Descriptions? This One Didn’t Mention a Respirator!
True. The job posting didn’t say “must wear a respirator.” But that didn’t help Stevens. The Court explained that what matters is the reality of the job—not just what’s on paper. Testimony from city officials and OSHA regulations made it clear: working with hazardous chemicals was a routine task, and respirator use was non-negotiable.
Stevens tried to argue that chemical transfers only took 15–20 minutes and happened twice a month. But even if that’s accurate, courts still viewed the task as a regular and essential part of the job. That was enough to make respirator use non-negotiable.
A skilled employment attorney might have challenged this finding more effectively by gathering comparative evidence about how other cities staff similar jobs, producing expert testimony to contest the necessity of respirator use in those brief windows, or pressing for a more rigorous evaluation of whether the accommodation would truly cause undue hardship. Instead, Stevens—acting pro se—relied on personal assertions rather than structured legal arguments or admissible evidence. That left the Court with little choice.
Who Is The Best Lawyer To Fight Disability Discrimination At Work?
Can pro se employees win ADA and disability discrimination cases? They can—but it’s very hard. Stevens’ case is a cautionary example about the risks of going it alone. He misunderstood what counts as a disability under the ADA, misjudged the burden of proof, and failed to provide admissible evidence. The Court was not unsympathetic—but it couldn’t overlook the legal holes.
If you think your employer fired you because of a disability—or refused to accommodate your medical needs—talk to an employment attorney immediately. Spitz, The Employee’s Law Firm, is one of the largest firms in the United States focused solely on employee rights. Fighting for workers is all we do.
We offer free consultations, a no-fee guarantee, and a team of experienced attorneys ready to handle your case with skill and compassion. Whether your claim involves disability, wrongful termination, or workplace discrimination, we know how to dig into the facts and fight for your rights.
Contact Spitz, The Employee’s Law Firm today.
Employment Lawyer Disclaimer
This employment law blog provides general information about workplace disability rights and ADA protections as well as job accommodations. It is not legal advice. Every case is different, and you should speak directly with an attorney to understand your rights. Reading this disability and wrongful termination blog does not create an attorney-client relationship. No outcome is guaranteed. This employee’s rights blog is a legal advertisement. Contact Spitz, The Employee’s Law Firm to speak with the best employment law attorneys about your disability discrimination or wrongful termination case.