0 write-ups, 1 disclosure, no promotion: Norris v U.S. Steel

Zero. That's how many times James Norris was counselled for his job performance at a U.S. Steel mill in Illinois, according to the court's summary of undisputed facts. He still ended up barred from the next job grade up, after he told his supervisor he was dyslexic.

On 13 March 2026, a federal magistrate judge in the Southern District of Illinois let two of his three claims go to a jury and threw out the third (Norris v. U.S. Steel Corp., case 3:23-cv-3148-MAB). The split is the useful part for anyone deciding how to describe their dyslexia at work.

This is a ruling on a motion for summary judgment. It is not a verdict, and I found no trial result.

What happened to Norris

U.S. Steel hired Norris on 6 January 2020 as a utility person at its Granite City Works hot strip mill. On 13 February 2021, after finishing training for a higher-grade job that involves identifying and writing numbers, he told his supervisor he was dyslexic. The supervisor's own email recorded that Norris feared repercussions.

On 30 July 2021, a Return to Work form restricted him from "precise recording and/or tracking of numbers/letters." That restriction kept him out of the higher grade, which paid more. It was less than six months after he disclosed.

In August 2022, his doctor wrote that she saw no reason he couldn't complete the necessary tasks. The restriction stayed. The court noted the company ran no functional test and did no follow-up after that letter.

Telling your employer about dyslexia can change what they let you do, even when your record shows no problems.

The two claims that survived

The first surviving claim is disparate treatment: being treated worse because of dyslexia. The court found a genuine dispute about whether the restrictions came from the diagnosis rather than from a business reason. It pointed out that Norris's stated worry concerned one function, while the restrictions were indefinite and plantwide.

The second is retaliation. A reasonable jury could find the restrictions followed from his request for accommodation, on the "but for" standard that applies to ADA retaliation. The same two claims survived under the Illinois Human Rights Act.

The court also found the company's reasons open to challenge as pretext. It said the company relied on the diagnosis itself after his own doctor confirmed he could do the work, and that no evidence showed other workers got similar restrictions for similar concerns.

A restriction that rests on your diagnosis instead of on evidence of how you work is something a court will examine closely.

The claim that failed, and why it matters to your decision

The failure-to-accommodate claim was dismissed under both the ADA and Illinois law. The court reasoned that Norris had presented evidence he could do the main duties of the job without accommodation, so the employer's duty to accommodate was never triggered. It also found he hadn't identified a reasonable accommodation that would work in a fast-paced industrial setting.

Read that carefully. Norris's own evidence that he could do the work was good for his discrimination claim, because it made the restriction look baseless. The same evidence sank the accommodation claim, because it suggested he needed nothing.

This is the decision you face when you disclose. You can say "I can do this job," which protects your record. You can say "I do this part better with this change," which creates a duty to talk about the change. One sentence can do both jobs if you word it well.

Say what you can do and name the specific change that helps, so an employer can't read your confidence as a request for nothing.

Option one: disclose and say you need nothing

This keeps things quiet. It also leaves you with no accommodation claim if a task becomes hard later, because you told your employer the opposite, in writing, with a date.

In Norris, the doctor's letter and the clean record helped him win the right to a jury. They didn't stop the company imposing restrictions in the first place. Saying you need nothing doesn't stop an employer deciding for you.

Option two: disclose and ask for one named change

This creates a paper trail on the one thing that matters: what would help. It starts the process the EEOC calls the interactive process, where you and your employer talk through options. It also exposes you to the retaliation risk Norris alleges, which is why the dates matter.

The ADA claim in Norris failed partly because no workable accommodation was named. Employers in fast-paced settings want specifics: which task, what change, what it costs. Our ADA accommodations guide lists changes that other dyslexic workers have asked for.

A named, small, specific request gives you something a court can enforce; a vague wish doesn't.

What this ruling can't tell you

Summary judgment decides whether a case gets to a jury. It doesn't decide who is right. U.S. Steel contested the claims, and a jury could still side with the company.

The facts also come from one workplace with a union contract and a safety-driven culture around numbers. A desk job with a different manager might play out differently. Treat Norris as a map of the risks, not a forecast.

Use the ruling to plan your paper trail, and don't read it as a promise that disclosure ends badly or well.

The call: five moves if you're US-based

Here is what the evidence implies. This reflects US federal law (the ADA) and the Illinois statute in this case; other states differ.

First, write your disclosure as ability plus need. For example: "I'm dyslexic. I read figures accurately when they're on a printed checklist, and I'd like checklists rather than verbal lists." Our disclosure guide has more wording.

Second, if a restriction appears after you disclose, ask in writing which task it covers, what evidence it rests on and what functional test would lift it. The court noted that U.S. Steel ran no such test.

Third, ask your clinician for a letter that says what you can do and what helps. Norris's letter didn't end the restriction on its own, so send it with a request for a test, not instead of one.

Fourth, keep your performance record. No write-ups and good training results were the backbone of his case. Date your own notes whenever your duties or pay opportunities change.

Fifth, know the deadline. The EEOC says you generally have 180 calendar days from the act to file a charge, extended to 300 days where a state or local agency enforces a similar law (eeoc.gov). Illinois has such an agency, but check your own state.

The strongest position is a dated record that says you can do the job and that names the change that helps.

What if you work in the UK?

Different law, different trigger. Under the Equality Act 2010 (sections 20 and 21), the duty to adjust arises when a rule or practice puts you at a substantial disadvantage compared with non-disabled people. It doesn't depend on proving you can't do the job without help. UK readers can check funding in the Access to Work calculator, and ACAS offers free advice.

The wider lesson holds on both sides of the Atlantic. Disclosure changes how others see you, and the evidence you build afterwards decides how that plays out. More recent rulings are in the article archive.

The short version

Norris disclosed dyslexia in February 2021, was restricted from number-tracking work by July 2021, and never had a performance counselling. On 13 March 2026, his discrimination and retaliation claims survived summary judgment and his accommodation claim didn't.

Describe what you can do and name one specific change. Keep your record clean and dated, and ask for a test if someone restricts you on the strength of a diagnosis alone.