Eighth Circuit joins the majority of Federal Circuit courts holding claims of employment-based discrimination do not arise under Title II of the ADA.

On August 1, 2025, the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit announced its holding in Trambly v. Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, that “[l]ike a majority of the circuits, we conclude that claims for employment-based discrimination do not arise under Title II of the ADA.”

Trambly’s Claims.

James Trambly, an IT employee with the University of Nebraska-Kearney since 2013, was terminated after he admitted to misusing university computer equipment in violation of university policy. Trambly sued the University claiming disability discrimination in the form of hostile work environment, disparate treatment, and failure to accommodate under the Rehabilitation Act and the Nebraska Fair Employment Practices Act (NFEPA). Trambly claimed he was repeatedly denied accommodations for ADHD and that he was disciplined in retaliation for requesting accommodations. In support of his claims, Trambly presented a report from an asthma specialist when he was 13-years-old, which included under “Past Medical History,” a statement that he “carried a diagnosis of … ADHD.”

The district court denied Trambly’s motion to amend his complaint to allege a violation of Title II of the ADA as futile, concluding that Title II of the ADA does not provide for claims of employment-based discrimination. Trambly appealed, and the Eighth Circuit upheld the lower court’s decision, joining a majority of Federal Circuits which have held employment-based discrimination claims are available under Title I of the ADA, but that Title II applies to “generally available services, programs, and activities offered by state and local governments,” not employment.

The district court further found Trambly’s claims that he was subjected to threats of termination from two supervisors and received negative comments and criticisms did not meet the “materially adverse” action requirement to establish a claim of retaliation. In order to meet the “materially adverse” requirement, an action must “produce an injury or harm” that “might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making a complaint.” The 8th Circuit found the record did not support that Trambly was threatened with termination, and that Trambly’s supervisors’ alleged comments reflected “only that an employee requesting accommodation must act reasonably in communicating with supervisors,” and did not support a finding of unlawful discrimination.  Trambly’s admitted to misusing university computer equipment in violation of university policy, which constituted a legitimate reason for his termination. Trambly also failed to establish that the university disciplined other employees less harshly for similar misconduct.

The Americans with Disabilities Act, Title I and Title II.

The district court’s decision to deny Trambly leave to amend his complaint to add a claim under Title II of the ADA was upheld by the Court of Appeals.

Title I of the ADA, titled “Employment” prohibits “private employers, State and local governments, employment agencies and labor unions from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities in job application procedures, hiring, firing, advancement, compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.” 

Title II, by contrast, provides that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.”

The 8th Circuit’s opinion, authored by Chief Judge Colloton, cited the 9th Circuit’s 1999 opinion in Zimmerman v. Oregon DOJ, that “[b]y its plain text, Title II applies to generally available services, programs, and activities offered by state and local governments, and not to employment,” and that employment is not a “program or activity provided by a public entity,” nor is obtaining or retaining a job “the receipt of services.”

Conclusion