TAMPA – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleges a Florida electrician violated federal disability laws by refusing to hire a man with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and provide him with a reasonable accommodation during the hiring process.
The EEOC filed its lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, April 30.
The commission alleges defendant Red Royal Electric Inc. – a company that provides electric services to residents of Pinellas, Hillsborough, and Pasco counties – violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Civil Rights Act.
The EEOC’s filing aims to “correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of disability and to provide appropriate relief” to the charging party, who is unnamed.
The EEOC is a federal agency charged with the administration, interpretation, and enforcement of the ADA.
Prior to the lawsuit’s filing, the charging party filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC. On July 1, 2025, the commission issued a letter of determination to Red Royal, believing it discriminated against the charging party in violation of the ADA.
The commission claims it “attempted to conciliate” with Red Royal. However, in an Aug. 20, 2025 letter, the EEOC advised Red Royal that it was unable to secure an “acceptable” conciliation agreement.
The charging party, a man with ADHD, has taken medication to help manage his symptoms for more than 10 years. He has an associate’s degree in electrical construction and has experience as an electrician assistant and electrician apprentice.
On Jan. 8, 2025, he applied for an apprentice electrician job with Red Royal through a posting on the Indeed.com website.
Two days later, he received a message from a Red Royal representative, asking for a preliminary phone interview.
During the phone interview, the charging party allegedly was asked if he could pass a drug test. The man indicated the test would come back positive because he was on prescription medication for his ADHD. However, he asked that if he could provide a copy of his prescription, he would be able to pass the test.
At the time, the man also allegedly disclosed that he had recent hip surgery and was not cleared to return to work but expected to be cleared at his next doctor’s appointment, within a week or two.
Immediately after the interview, the EEOC lawsuit claims the man received a message from the Red Royal representative, through the Indeed messaging portal, stating, “Not a good match. On ADHD meds, recent hip surgery, etc.”
“This message was the only information Charging Party received about why he was not hired,” the commission’s filing states. “Red Royal did not request that Charging Party take a drug test as part of the hiring process.”
The EEOC argues that the charging party could perform the essential functions of the position with or without an accommodation.
“Charging Party requested the accommodation of being permitted to provide his prescription to pass the drug test,” the lawsuit states. “Red Royal did not allow Charging Party to take the drug test or provide a copy of his prescription.”
The commission seeks a permanent injunction enjoining Red Royal from engaging in any employment practice that discriminates on the basis of disability; order Red Royal to carry out policies that provide equal employment opportunities for those with disabilities; and order the company to institute a training program to ensure compliance.
The EEOC also seeks an order making the charging party whole by providing back pay with pre-judgment interest and compensation for past and future pecuniary losses, and an order for Red Royal to pay the charging party punitive damages.
