My experience shows why an informal accommodation request must be taken seriously

By Bradley J. Burt

Wisconsin law does not require an employee to recite “magic words” before an employer must consider a disability accommodation. That principle is especially important when an employee identifies a physical limitation, proposes a simple workplace adjustment, and continues trying to perform the job.

I believe my former employer failed that test.

I worked as a film instructor for a Wisconsin organization whose public mission emphasizes disability inclusion, individualized instruction, employability, and independence. I entered the position through a complex employment plan involving Wisconsin’s Division of Vocational Rehabilitation. On May 2, 2025, DVR formally determined that I had maintained employment for at least 90 days, met my employment goal, and was successfully employed.

Approximately five weeks later, I was discharged.

The events between those dates deserve careful examination.

A request does not require legal terminology

When my DVR counselor requested wage verification, I approached the organization’s founder about obtaining a paystub. During that interaction, I also explained that reaching the office telephone within the required short interval was difficult because of my knee. I asked that the phone be permitted to ring longer.

The requested change was straightforward. Management could have extended the interval, moved the charger, provided another handset, established rotating coverage, allowed voicemail, or discussed another workable solution.

According to my recollection, no meaningful accommodation discussion followed.

Management subsequently instructed employees that the telephone had to be answered within two rings and could never reach voicemail during open hours. The phone was expected to remain on a charger so it would not be lost, even though employees worked in different areas and were also expected to supervise and remain engaged with program participants.

The resulting problems were not mine alone. In a contemporaneous team exchange, multiple employees reported answering calls only to hear silence or discover that another person had simultaneously answered. Management therefore had written notice that the telephone arrangement was confusing or malfunctioning.

Nevertheless, telephone communication later became part of the controversy surrounding my discharge.

Management-side lawyers have explained the governing rule

The legal principle is not obscure. In a public employment-law article, attorneys Storm Larson, Douglas Witte, and Brian Goodman explained the Wisconsin Court of Appeals’ decision in Wingra Redi-Mix Inc. v. Labor & Industry Review Commission.

Their article states that employees need not use “magic words” to place an employer on notice of a potential accommodation need. It also explains that when an employer has facts reasonably indicating a disability, it cannot simply disregard a request because medical proof was not initially supplied. The employer may seek verification and discuss effective alternatives.

Larson and attorney Jennifer Mirus subsequently wrote in Wisconsin Lawyer that employers must act in good faith when addressing workplace accommodation requests. Their article uses a hypothetical receptionist experiencing escalating workplace stress to illustrate the legal danger of noticing an employee’s medical difficulty but proceeding to termination without adequately exploring accommodation.

That hypothetical bears an uncomfortable resemblance to my experience.

These publications do not decide my pending case, and the authors made no admission concerning my employer. They do, however, accurately describe the legal principles that should govern every Wisconsin workplace.

A system problem should not become an individual accusation

I was hired to teach film, not to serve as an untrained receptionist. Before my arrival, the organization had hired employees to perform secretarial or reception functions. I allege that telephone responsibilities were later placed on program staff without a written script, defined call-routing authority, crisis-escalation procedure, or meaningful confidentiality training.

Some calls involved upset clients, guardians, program rules, scheduling, and sensitive questions. Employees were expected to answer immediately while supervising participants, including individuals who could become behaviorally escalated. Supervisory help was not always available.

One disputed call concerned a client challenging the organization’s headphone and age-appropriate-content expectations. I attempted to communicate the expectation that content remain appropriate because younger campers would soon be present. I deny telling a parent that the client was viewing pornography.

I understand that management later attributed that inflammatory statement to me. I maintain that the allegation was based on secondhand information rather than a recording or firsthand observation by the decision-maker.

An employer should investigate an accusation before using it to end someone’s livelihood. That means identifying what was allegedly said, obtaining the employee’s response, reviewing available records, and considering whether inadequate training or contradictory instructions contributed to the situation.

Disability inclusion is tested during difficult moments

A public commitment to disability inclusion is meaningful only when it influences internal employment practices.

An inclusive workplace does not need to excuse misconduct or abandon legitimate performance expectations. It does need to communicate those expectations clearly, respond to disability-related limitations, investigate allegations fairly, and consider practical measures before imposing discharge.

My pending administrative case will determine whether unlawful discrimination occurred. The employer disputes my account and is entitled to present its evidence. I am equally entitled to have the complete chronology examined rather than being defined by unsupported or incomplete allegations.

The central question extends beyond one employee and one organization:

When a worker identifies a disability-related barrier and asks for a modest change, will the employer respond collaboratively—or allow that barrier to become the stated reason for termination?

Wisconsin law favors the first approach. Wisconsin workers deserve employers willing to practice it.

Author’s note: This commentary describes the author’s personal experience and allegations in a pending administrative employment matter. No final determination of discrimination has been made. Client identities and sensitive program information have been omitted.