← All news
Employment Law
EEOC sues Solera Holdings, alleging it sidelined and fired a blind employee
Published 2026-10-22
The EEOC's October 20 lawsuit says Solera Holdings transferred a longtime employee to sales because of his degenerative eye disease, limited him to one product, withheld leads and excluded him from meetings and trainings, then fired him in August 2025 for the resulting performance. Filed in D. Maryland after conciliation failed.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed suit on October 20, 2026 accusing Solera Holdings, LLC, a Westlake, Texas-based vehicle lifecycle management company, of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act by denying a blind employee the same support and resources given to colleagues and then firing him.
According to the EEOC's complaint, Solera transferred the longtime employee, who worked from home in Bel Air, Maryland, from a consultant role into a sales position because of his degenerative eye disease, then limited his ability to succeed: he was allowed to sell only one product, was denied sales leads, and was excluded from meetings and trainings. The company then cited his sales performance to justify terminating him in August 2025.
'The ADA was enacted to ensure that employers do not disadvantage workers because of their disabilities,' said Debra Lawrence, regional attorney for the EEOC's Philadelphia District. Karen McDonough, acting director of the Baltimore Field Office, said employers 'cannot deny workers opportunities because of a disability.'
The case, EEOC v. Solera Holdings, LLC, No. 1:26-cv-04393, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland after the agency's pre-litigation conciliation process failed to produce a settlement. The suit is an allegation, not a finding; Solera has not publicly responded in the release.
For employers, the case underscores two recurring ADA exposure points: reassignment and performance management. Moving a worker because of a disability, then withholding the tools given to peers and counting the resulting shortfall against them, is the exact fact pattern the EEOC is litigating here.