Navigating a disability while managing the demands of a high-pressure job can be incredibly challenging. It's often like walking a tightrope - constantly balancing your health needs with the expectations of your role. When that job is at a major tech company like Google, where performance is everything, it's only natural to wonder whether your rights are truly being protected.

This scenario isn't just theoretical. A major disability discrimination lawsuit against Google brought these issues into sharp focus when wrongful termination came into play. The case centered around Steven Newman, an employee who was terminated after experiencing episodes related to bipolar disorder. His experience underscores the complex intersection of employment law, disability rights, and mental health in high-stakes corporate settings. Exploring the details of this case offers meaningful insight for anyone navigating similar challenges in the workplace.

Table of Contents:

• Understanding the Context: The Steven Newman Case
• The Legal Claims: Discrimination and Retaliation Alleged
• Google's Position in the Disability Lawsuit
• Navigating the Complexities of Mental Health in the Workplace
• The Path to Resolution: Settlement in the Google Disability Lawsuit
• Key Takeaways for Employees and Employers
  • For Employees: Know Your Rights and Advocate for Yourself
  • For Employers: Compliance and Compassion
• Conclusion

Understanding the Context: The Steven Newman Case

Steven Newman was far from an average employee at Google - he was reportedly on a clear path to advancement. After joining the company in 2018, he quickly earned glowing performance reviews and received merit-based bonuses. His strong track record culminated in a promotion in May 2020, when he was named technical strategy lead for Google's G Suite. However, life presented unexpected challenges. Just two months after his promotion, Newman experienced a bipolar episode while at work. Bipolar disorder is a complex mental health condition known for causing significant shifts in mood, energy, and activity levels, making such episodes a possibility.

The lawsuit details incidents that took place during Newman's manic episodes. According to the complaint, he sent a series of emails that caught the company's attention - some of which were highly unusual due to his altered mental state. One example included an offer to purchase G Suite for billions of dollars, reflecting the symptoms of his condition at the time.

After the initial series of emails in July 2020, Newman's wife promptly informed his direct supervisor of his bipolar diagnosis. Following this disclosure, Newman took short-term disability leave - a standard and necessary step when a medical condition begins to impact job performance.

Unfortunately, another manic episode occurred three months later. During this time, Newman sent an email to a Canadian colleague that Google later characterized as threatening. However, in his lawsuit, Newman maintained that while the messages reflected his mental health struggles, they were never intended to be malicious or genuinely threatening - underscoring a central point of contention in the case.

After this second episode, Newman resumed medical leave in late October 2020. He began treatment with a specialist who directly communicated with Google, assuring the company that Newman posed no danger and was actively managing his condition with prescribed medication. His disability benefits were extended twice, ultimately continuing through January 2021.

The Legal Claims: Discrimination and Retaliation Alleged

When Newman expressed readiness to discuss returning to work in January 2021, Google informed him that an internal investigation into his conduct was still underway. Despite his full cooperation, the company terminated his employment in April 2021, citing violations of its code of conduct. No severance was offered.

This termination became the cornerstone of Newman's lawsuit, filed in May 2022. He accused Google of multiple violations under both federal and state law, including disability discrimination, failure to provide reasonable accommodations, and retaliation.

The legal foundation of Newman's claims rests primarily on two key statutes: the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). Both laws prohibit discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities, with FEHA often providing even broader protections within the state.

A core principle under both the ADA and FEHA is the requirement for "reasonable accommodation." This means employers must make practical adjustments to help an employee with a disability perform essential job functions - unless doing so would cause undue hardship. Newman alleged that Google failed to meet this obligation, raising broader concerns about the company's internal culture around disability support.

Another central issue in the lawsuit is workplace retaliation. Both the ADA and FEHA strictly prohibit employers from taking adverse actions - such as termination - against employees for exercising their legal rights, including requesting accommodations or taking protected medical leave. Newman contended that his firing was not about performance or conduct, but rather retaliation for his disability leave and mental health condition.

Google's Position in the Disability Lawsuit

Google presented a sharply different version of events. The company argued that Newman's termination was a lawful and necessary response to his actions, not his medical condition. They pointed specifically to the emails he sent during his manic episodes - especially one directed at a Canadian colleague that was interpreted as threatening violence.

According to Google, these actions violated its established code of conduct, providing a legitimate, non-discriminatory basis for termination. This defense was intended to counter allegations of disability discrimination and retaliation by emphasizing that the dismissal was rooted in conduct, not the underlying mental health condition.

As the case moved forward, Google filed a motion for summary judgment - a legal request asking the court to rule in its favor without proceeding to trial. The company argued that the key facts were not in dispute and that no reasonable jury could conclude it acted unlawfully.

A pivotal part of Google's legal argument, as reported by Wired, was the claim that the company was not required to simply hope Newman wouldn't repeat the behavior. Google asserted its right to enforce workplace policies - even when the behavior in question stems from a disability - especially if it's perceived as threatening. This highlights the difficult balance employers must strike: while acknowledging an employee's condition, they are still tasked with maintaining a safe and compliant work environment.

Navigating the Complexities of Mental Health in the Workplace

Cases like the disability lawsuit involving Steven Newman and Google shine a light on the complex challenges mental health conditions can pose in the workplace. Disorders such as bipolar disorder are often episodic, leading to unpredictable shifts in behavior and communication. This creates difficult scenarios not just for the individual affected, but also for coworkers and management navigating how to respond.

One of the greatest ongoing challenges is the persistent stigma surrounding mental health. Many employees hesitate to disclose conditions like bipolar disorder out of fear - fear of being misunderstood, judged, or discriminated against. This reluctance can make it harder to access the support or accommodations the law requires employers to provide.

A key legal and practical challenge for employers is distinguishing between conduct that genuinely violates workplace rules and behavior that stems from a disability and may require accommodation. It's not always a clear line. For instance, is an emotional outburst a disciplinary issue or a symptom of a mental health condition that calls for understanding and flexibility? The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) require that employers carefully and thoughtfully make these distinctions.

Central to both laws is the concept of the "interactive process" - a collaborative, good-faith dialogue between employer and employee aimed at understanding the employee's limitations and identifying potential reasonable accommodations. This process demands mutual transparency and can be especially challenging when mental health symptoms fluctuate or impair communication.

It's also essential to recognize that not all disabilities require the same accommodations. For example, a hard-of-hearing employee might need assistive technology, while a Deaf employee - particularly someone from the Black Deaf community who may face additional systemic barriers - might require a qualified sign language interpreter. Tailoring accommodations to individual needs is not just best practice - it's the law.

Thorough documentation is critical throughout this process. Employees should provide medical documentation to support their accommodation requests, while employers must carefully document each step of the interactive process, decisions made, and the reasoning behind any adverse employment actions, such as termination. Clear records, including internal communications, can be crucial if legal scrutiny arises.

Finally, proper training for managers and HR professionals is vital. They must be equipped to recognize signs of distress, respond to disclosures with sensitivity, understand legal obligations, and engage meaningfully in the interactive process. Even well-intentioned missteps can lead to legal consequences - especially in industries like tech, where there's growing emphasis on inclusivity and mental health awareness.

The Path to Resolution: Settlement in the Google Disability Lawsuit

Rather than proceeding with what could have been a lengthy and costly trial in federal court, Steven Newman and Google opted for alternative dispute resolution. In June, both parties participated in a settlement conference overseen by U.S. Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore - a structured process designed to facilitate negotiation and potential resolution.

That effort proved successful. Newman and Google reached a settlement agreement, prompting the court to cancel all upcoming hearings, including those related to Google's motion for summary judgment. This effectively brought the legal proceedings in this particular disability discrimination case to a close.

As is common in employment law disputes, the terms of the settlement remain confidential. Neither party is required to disclose specifics such as financial compensation or other resolution details. Confidentiality helps both sides move forward without further public scrutiny or debate over the case's particulars.

Disability discrimination settlements reflect compromise. They do not necessarily imply guilt or wrongdoing by the employer, nor do they confirm every claim made by the employee. Instead, they represent a mutual decision to resolve the matter outside of court, avoiding the expense, uncertainty, and public exposure of a trial.

For companies like Google, settling can be a strategic choice - minimizing legal fees and avoiding reputational damage tied to high-profile litigation involving disability discrimination. For individuals like Newman, it provides a clear resolution and spares the emotional toll of protracted legal battles. Unlike procedural dismissals, settlements often offer a sense of closure.

However, settlements also mean that the underlying claims - including serious allegations about disability rights and workplace treatment - are not examined in open court. While Google maintained it was not at fault, critics may argue that private settlements can allow systemic issues to remain hidden. Still, the company can now shift focus to broader public commitments, such as promoting inclusion and supporting diverse talent.

Key Takeaways for Employees and Employers

The resolution of this Google disability lawsuit offers important takeaways for both employees navigating disabilities and employers managing diverse workforces. It serves as a powerful reminder that internal company policies and practices must be closely aligned with legal obligations - especially when it comes to supporting employees with disabilities.

Understanding your legal protections is essential. Start by familiarizing yourself with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and your state's specific anti-discrimination laws - like California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). These laws protect qualified individuals with disabilities from workplace discrimination and provide the right to request reasonable accommodations that support job performance.

Effective communication is key - but it should be strategic. If your disability affects your ability to work, make a formal accommodation request. Doing so can trigger important legal protections. Be sure to provide medical documentation that clearly outlines your condition, explains how it impacts your work, and suggests specific accommodations - whether that's specialized tools, flexible scheduling, or even access to training materials like instructional YouTube videos.

Keep thorough records. Document all communication with HR, supervisors, and anyone else involved in your accommodation process or medical leave. Save emails, notes from meetings, and any written responses - especially if you experience delays, pushback, or what feels like negative treatment. These records can be vital if a dispute arises. As attorney Hall told Wired, documentation played a critical role in her own experience, even though every situation is different.

Make sure you understand your rights under leave laws such as the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), your state's equivalent, or your company's short-term disability policy. Following proper procedures when requesting and taking protected leave helps ensure your job is legally protected during that time. Skipping steps or missing deadlines can weaken your case if issues arise later.

Be alert to red flags. If you're disciplined or terminated soon after disclosing a disability or asking for accommodations, that could indicate potential discrimination or retaliation. In such cases, it's wise to consult an employment attorney with experience in disability rights.

Finally, if you belong to a marginalized group - such as being a Black Deaf employee - be aware of how intersectional discrimination can show up in subtle or overt ways. Clearly communicate and document your accommodation needs, such as requiring a qualified sign language interpreter. If you experience microaggressions, exclusion, or feel your concerns are being dismissed, note these incidents as well. Your experiences matter, and the law is designed to protect your right to a fair and supportive workplace.

Conclusion

The settlement in the Steven Newman disability lawsuit against Google brings one case to a close, but it underscores a much larger, ongoing conversation in today's workplaces. It sheds light on the very real challenges employees with disabilities - especially those managing mental health conditions - face in trying to balance their well-being with the demands of their careers. At the same time, it serves as a powerful reminder to employers of their legal responsibilities and ethical obligations.

Cases like this push both companies and society to confront tough questions around stigma, accommodation, and equitable treatment. While the confidential settlement doesn't set a legal precedent, the story itself carries weight. It calls for honest reflection on how workplaces respond to mental health, the importance of lawful and compassionate HR practices, and the need to build a culture that replaces assumptions with understanding.

Ultimately, protecting employee rights and creating truly inclusive work environments goes far beyond checking legal boxes. It's about acknowledging the human experience at the heart of every employment relationship. Discrimination disputes that involve wrongful firing like this should serve not just as cautionary tales, but as catalysts for progress - pushing organizations to move past mere risk avoidance and toward genuine inclusion. In the long run, building a supportive, legally sound, and empathetic workplace benefits everyone - from the executive spokesperson delivering polished public statements to the individual employees showing up and contributing every day.

If you or a loved one has been wrongfully terminated due to a disability or discrimination, it is strongly advised that you seek the counsel of an experienced Los Angeles wrongful termination lawyer. At Kingsley Szamet Employment Lawyers, we have been defending employees for 27 years and have secured $300 million in settlements and verdicts. Let our attorneys help you - simply fill out the form on this page to schedule your free consultation.