A former worker claims he was wrongfully terminated after his employer refused to accommodate his disabilities and treated him differently than female colleagues. The lawsuit was filed by Abdur-Raheim A. Braddox in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on March 3, 2026, naming Hampton Roads Workforce Development Corporation, doing business as Hampton Roads Workforce Council, as the defendant.
According to the complaint, Braddox began working as a Maritime Career Planner for the organization on or about February 18, 2025. He disclosed multiple disabilities at the time of hiring, including chronic pain, traumatic brain injury, herniated discs, migraines, depression, anxiety, and significant visual impairments such as blurred vision. Braddox asserts that these conditions substantially limit major life activities and qualify as disabilities under federal law.
The filing states that Maritime Career Planners had primarily worked remotely since at least early 2023 and during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, following an executive order issued by President Donald Trump on January 20, 2025—which created a new Department of Government Efficiency—Braddox alleges that management changed its policy due to concerns about federal funding. According to Braddox’s account in the complaint: “Defendant’s Director… informed the then-current roster of Maritime Career Planners that they would no longer be allowed to work from home full time due to ‘politics’ and that they would have to work at the office.”
Despite this change in policy for most employees in his role, Braddox claims that one female colleague was permitted to continue working remotely full-time because she lived on Virginia’s Eastern Shore. He further alleges that throughout his employment he repeatedly requested reasonable accommodations related to his vision impairment—such as larger-font documents—but these requests were denied or dismissed by supervisors.
The complaint details several incidents where Braddox says he was treated differently than similarly situated female co-workers. These include being required to work outside regular hours without pay and being made to sign documents not required of others. On April 2, 2025, he was cited for wearing a hat or “do-rag” at work—a violation he claims was not enforced against female or transgender colleagues.
Braddox also describes being transferred against his wishes from Newport News to a more distant office location in Hampton on April 8, 2025. He says this transfer worsened his anxiety and chronic pain due to increased travel demands. When asked in May 2025 to attend a weekend job fair despite medical restrictions requiring rest days, Braddox provided documentation but soon after received disciplinary action for alleged insubordination.
In June 2025, after consulting with healthcare providers, Braddox formally requested permission to work from home full-time as an accommodation for his disabilities—a request supported by additional medical documentation but ultimately denied by Human Resources. Shortly thereafter he reports being threatened with termination by a Human Resources representative.
The complaint alleges that management sought grounds for dismissal by questioning co-workers about him and disclosing protected health information without consent. On July 21, 2025—after months of disputes over accommodations—Braddox was terminated for allegedly being unable to perform essential job duties.
Braddox brings three counts against Hampton Roads Workforce Council: discrimination based on disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act; retaliation for engaging in protected activity such as requesting accommodations; and discrimination based on sex under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The complaint asserts: “Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff with regard to the terms and conditions of his employment… based upon his sex… in that it treated Plaintiff differently than similarly-situated female comparators.”
He seeks back pay; reinstatement or front pay; economic damages; compensatory damages; non-economic damages; punitive damages; nominal damages; attorneys’ fees; court costs; and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court.
The case is represented by attorney Steven B. Wiley of Wiley Law Offices PLLC (VSB No. 474531). The case number is 2:26-cv-00210.
Source: 226cv00210_Braddox_v_Hampton_Roads_Workforce_Development_Corporation_Complaint_Eastern_District_Virginia.pdf
