Boss contacts worker and apologizes for lying to him about why he was terminated

“I know Earl suffered from a bad back and that he sometimes had to sit down to relieve the extreme pain,” said Supervisor Nathan Hawkins, “but it seems that every time I saw him, he was sitting and resting rather than working.”

“Earl says his boss told him he could sit down as often as needed to rest his back as a reasonable accommodation for his disability,” said HR Director Carolyn McGill. “Earl now claims that he was discharged because of his back condition and, worse, he’s suing us for disability discrimination.”

“We didn’t terminate Earl because of his disability,” said Nathan. “We sacked him because he was unproductive and failed to handle his job duties in a timely manner.”

“Earl contends that he was told during his termination meeting that there were no problems with his work output,” said Carolyn. “He says he was instead informed that he was being axed due to budgetary constraints.”

“Yeah, unfortunately, there was some confusion about why Earl was really discharged,” said Nathan.

“I’ll say,” replied Carolyn. “According to Earl, his boss contacted him after his dismissal and apologized for lying to him about the budget problems. Apparently, the boss told Earl he was actually let go because he spent too much time talking and not enough time working. Earl claims that these shifting explanations for his discharge prove he was really let go because of his bad back.”

“Look, Carolyn,” said Nathan, “there’s no doubt we could’ve done a better job of telling Earl exactly why he was being dismissed, but I don’t think it makes any real difference. Earl has virtually no direct evidence that he was axed because of his disability.”

“Earl sees things differently,” said Carolyn. “He points out that he was terminated right after he aggravated his back while lifting a heavy load. He says he sat down to rest his back, and later that same day, he was let go without warning. Earl notes that he’d never been informed about alleged performance problems.”

“I can understand why Earl might be unhappy,” said Nathan, “but we just couldn’t afford to keep him on the payroll.”

“Earl also points out that we hired someone to replace him right after he was discharged,” said Carolyn. “He claims that if budget-related problems were the real reason for his unexpected dismissal, we wouldn’t have replaced him so quickly.”

“I can understand why Earl is upset about losing his job and why he would sue us,” said Nathan, “but his argument is weak. We should fight this lawsuit.”

Result: The company lost. The court refused to toss out the case, saying a jury should decide whether the man was really fired because of his disability.

The shifting reasons offered for the employee’s dismissal were a red flag for the judge. First, the crew member was told he was being discharged because of budgetary considerations. Later, however, his boss called him and apologized for lying about his firing, saying he was really sacked for spending too much time talking and not enough time working. In the eyes of the court, the shifting explanations for the termination potentially indicated that the real reason for his discharge was bias linked to his bad back.

Furthermore, the employer hired someone to take the staffer’s position shortly after he was fired, casting considerable doubt on the organization’s claim that he was dismissed due to budget constraints, decided the court.

Cite: Vega v. Amurcon Realty Co., U.S. District Court, W.D. Virginia, No. 6:24-cv-00020, 11/6/25.

(From the January 16, 2026, issue of HR Manager’s Legal Alert for Supervisors. To start your no-obligation trial subscription to the publication right now, please click here.)