Sellman v. Aviation Training Consulting: ADA Claims Fail, USERRA Doesn’t Cover Disability

Nicholas Sellman appealed a decision from the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma after the court granted summary judgment to his former employer, Aviation Training Consulting, LLC. The appeal addressed claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. The opinion described the employment history, the internal complaint process, the performance evaluations issued during his contract period, and the basis on which management decided not to renew his contract.

Employment Background and Workplace Events

Aviation Training Consulting hired Mr. Sellman, a Marine veteran, for a one-year position as a Loadmaster Instructor in Kuwait. His duties involved both classroom and in-flight instruction. During his onboarding, he voluntarily disclosed a VA disability rating for affirmative action purposes. His supervisors for different periods were all disabled veterans.

In November 2017, Mr. Sellman told colleagues and his supervisor that his disability rating had increased. His supervisor made inappropriate comments in response. Mr. Sellman reported the comments to Human Resources, which resulted in internal counseling and no further similar remarks.

During this same period, the FAA notified Mr. Sellman that additional medical information was required before his flight certification could be renewed. His certification was necessary for his job. He worked with the FAA through early 2018 to attempt renewal. The certification expired in March 2018 and was renewed shortly thereafter.

While these events unfolded, supervisors developed a new performance review process for personnel stationed in Kuwait. Mr. Sellman first participated in a preliminary meeting reviewing accomplishments and future goals. A later formal review rated him satisfactory in some categories and marginal in others, noting concerns involving communication, initiative, and completing assignments without close supervision.

Supervisors exchanged emails discussing his performance. One noted that he ranked lowest among loadmasters and expressed that he did not wish to renew the contract, though he acknowledged that he did not have decision-making authority. Final decisions rested with company executives, who reviewed performance appraisals, earlier supervisory assessments, and the lapse in his flight certificate. They decided not to renew his contract. Management stated they were unaware of his internal HR complaint or the bases for his disability rating when they made that decision.

Proceedings in the District Court

After receiving a right-to-sue notice, Mr. Sellman brought claims alleging disability discrimination, retaliation, and discrimination under USERRA. The district court assumed that he met the minimal showing needed for the first stage of the applicable framework but found that the company had presented legitimate reasons for the non-renewal. The court then evaluated whether a factual dispute existed concerning pretext.

The decision found that the record showed the company relied on performance assessments and the lapse of a required certification when deciding not to renew the contract. It noted that the individuals who made the decision did not know about his complaint to HR. The court concluded that the evidence did not support a connection between discriminatory or retaliatory bias and the non-renewal.

The district court also concluded that USERRA did not apply to claims involving disability-based discrimination. Because the statute prohibited adverse actions based on military service rather than disability status, the claim fell outside the statute’s scope.

Issues on Appeal

On appeal, Mr. Sellman focused on whether circumstantial evidence established that biased comments or motives influenced the decision through a subordinate-bias theory. The panel reviewed whether a causal link existed between any expressed bias and the final decision. It analyzed whether management independently evaluated the relevant facts or relied uncritically on the actions of others.

The panel observed that supervisors expressed concerns about performance before the disputed comments occurred. It found no evidence that the individuals who completed the negative performance appraisal knew of any protected activity or disability-related details. It noted that the company relied on multiple independent bases when making the non-renewal decision.

Regarding the USERRA claim, the panel reviewed the statutory text. It found that the statute addressed adverse actions based on military service, not disability ratings connected to prior service. It affirmed that the statute did not provide a basis for claims alleging adverse actions stemming from disability status.

Final Ruling

The panel affirmed the district court’s decision granting summary judgment on all claims.

Labor and Employment Support

If you have questions related to workplace disputes, wage concerns, employment policies, or other labor and employment issues, our team at Whitcomb Selinsky PC assists businesses and employees navigating these matters. To learn how we support employment-related needs, visit our labor and employment page.