June 09, 2026 | Posted By: Emma Doull
A recent federal appeals court decision offers a useful blueprint for employers navigating one of the trickiest areas of employment law: disability discrimination and retaliation claims. The case, decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, shows how careful documentation, multi-level decision-making, and prompt investigations can protect an employer when a termination or non-renewal is later challenged in court.
Whether you are an employee who believes you were treated unfairly because of a disability or an employer trying to understand what legal exposure looks like in practice, this case provides clear and instructive lessons.
Background: What the Case Was About
Nicholas Sellman, a U.S. Marine veteran with a 100% VA disability rating for PTSD, a back condition, and a sleep disorder, worked as a loadmaster instructor in Kuwait under a one-year contract with Aviation Training Consulting, LLC (ATC), a company providing training for the Kuwait Air Force.
During his employment, a second-level supervisor made disparaging remarks about Sellman’s VA disability rating, calling him a “cripple” and suggesting he had “gamed the system.” Sellman filed a complaint with human resources. The company investigated, counseled the supervisor, and the offensive comments stopped.
Around the same time, Sellman’s required flight certification lapsed, temporarily disqualifying him from a core part of his role. His immediate supervisor – not the one who made the disparaging remarks – later evaluated Sellman’s performance and rated him as “marginal” in key categories, including dependability, communication, and initiative. Based on that evaluation and the lapsed certification, ATC decided not to renew his contract. Multiple people, including vice presidents and the CEO, were involved in that decision.
Sellman sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), arguing that his disability and his HR complaint led to the non-renewal.
What the Court Decided
The Tenth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of ATC, meaning Sellman’s claims did not go to a jury. The court found that ATC had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the non-renewal: documented marginal performance and a failure to maintain a required certification. Several findings shaped the outcome.
Decision-makers genuinely believed the performance concerns were real. Even if Sellman or his colleagues had assessed his performance differently, what mattered legally was whether ATC’s decision-makers sincerely believed the negative evaluation. The court found they did, and that the evidence supported that belief.
Not everyone involved knew about the complaint or the disability. Several of the decision-makers were themselves disabled veterans and were not aware of either Sellman’s disability status or his HR complaint. Merely knowing about a complaint or disability, the court said, is not enough to create a triable fact issue about discrimination.
The “cat’s paw” theory failed. Sellman argued that even if the final decision-makers were unbiased, the supervisor who made the offensive remarks had influenced the outcome – a theory courts call “cat’s paw” liability. The court rejected this because the supervisor who made the remarks did not conduct Sellman’s performance review, and because the decision-makers had independent, documented reasons for their decision entirely separate from anything that the supervisor recommended.
USERRA does not cover disability discrimination. The court also clarified an important point: USERRA protects military veterans from discrimination based on military service, but it does not provide a cause of action for disability discrimination. If an employee claims discrimination based on a service-related disability, the ADA, not USERRA, is the appropriate legal vehicle.
What This Means for Employers
This case is instructive for any employer facing or trying to prevent discrimination claims. A few specific practices made the difference for ATC.
Investigate complaints promptly and document the results. When Sellman complained about the supervisor’s remarks, ATC investigated, took action, and confirmed the behavior stopped. Courts pay close attention to whether an employer took complaints seriously. That investigation weighed heavily in ATC’s favor.
Use multiple levels of review for termination and non-renewal decisions. Having several decision-makers, including executives at the VP and CEO levels, helped ATC demonstrate that no single person’s potential bias drove the final decision. Even smaller companies can build this protection by having HR or a senior manager independently review and document termination decisions.
Keep clear, contemporaneous performance records. Sellman’s performance evaluation, his lapsed certification, and follow-up written communications created a paper trail that held up in court. The lesson is not just to conduct reviews, but to document them in real time – including certification requirements, policy changes, and any written follow-up on performance concerns.
One area where ATC could have done better: documenting when and how its review procedures changed, and noting when an employee declines to sign a performance review. These gaps gave Sellman additional arguments to raise, even if they ultimately failed.
What This Means for Employees
For employees, this case illustrates how courts analyze disability discrimination and retaliation claims. It is not enough to show that something unfair happened or that a supervisor said something offensive. To prevail, an employee generally needs to show a connection between the protected characteristic and the adverse employment decision.
If you believe you were fired or denied a job opportunity because of a disability, or because you reported discriminatory conduct, timing matters – but it is rarely enough on its own. Courts consider whether the decision-makers knew of the protected activity, whether the stated reason for the termination holds up, and whether there is direct or circumstantial evidence linking the two.
If you are a veteran who experienced discrimination based on a service-related disability, your claims are likely better pursued under the ADA rather than USERRA. An experienced employment attorney can help you identify the right legal theory and assess the strength of your case.
The Bottom Line
This ruling reinforces a core principle of employment law: legitimate, well-documented business reasons, supported by structured decision-making, provide real legal protection. For employers, the case is a checklist for building defensible HR practices. For employees, it is a reminder of the kinds of evidence courts require and why it matters to document their experiences in real time.
Whether you are an employer trying to reduce legal risk or an employee who believes your rights have been violated, disability discrimination and retaliation claims are serious matters with significant consequences on both sides. Having the right legal guidance makes a meaningful difference.
If you have questions about a disability discrimination claim or your obligations as an employer, Hoyer Law Group is here to help. Contact us today for a confidential evaluation at www.hoyerlawgroup.com/contact/ or call us at (844) 531-0082.
Disclaimer
This blog is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice specific to your situation, please consult a qualified attorney.