Justly Prudent files disability discrimination suit against Prince George's County

On May 8, 2026, Justly Prudent filed a civil rights lawsuit against Prince George's County, Maryland on behalf of Aisha Walker, a disabled former County employee. The Complaint alleges that the County engaged in a pattern of disability discrimination, refused to provide a single one of the workplace accommodations Walker's doctors recommended, and fired her 10 days after she submitted a written discrimination complaint to Human Resources.

Walker began working for the County's Department of Permitting, Inspections and Enforcement in December 2023. She lives with Graves' disease, an autoimmune thyroid disorder she disclosed before she was hired. In March 2024, a motor vehicle accident left her with cervical and lumbar injuries that required ongoing physical therapy and chiropractic care. Walker disclosed those injuries to the County and, with documentation from her treating physicians, asked her employer for a series of common workplace accommodations: a sit-stand desk, an ergonomic chair, the ability to take short breaks, telework during flare-ups of her autoimmune condition, and consideration for transfer to one of the open positions for which she was qualified.

According to the Complaint, the County granted none of those requests. The agency told Walker to research desk options on her own and never followed through. It rejected her telework request out of hand, even as her coworkers were permitted to telework. It declined to interview her for any of the multiple internal positions for which she applied. The interactive process the County initiated in April 2024 was never completed.

The Complaint further alleges that the County's response to Walker's accommodation requests was not limited to inaction. After Walker submitted candid feedback on a 90-day onboarding survey and began the accommodation process within the same week, the tenor of her supervisors' conduct toward her changed sharply. Walker became the only employee in her unit required to submit detailed daily work logs documenting every task with timestamps. Her telephone calls were monitored back-to-back. She was denied access to the customer-tracking system her colleagues used to manage their workload—and was then criticized for falling behind in the very metrics that system would have helped her track. She was reprimanded for asking a colleague for help, even after the colleague confirmed she had not complained. Walker, the Complaint alleges, overheard her first-line supervisor remark to the County's Human Resources liaison that "it should not take that long for her to heal from a car injury."

Walker raised concerns internally on multiple occasions. She submitted an informal complaint of discrimination to her second-level supervisor in approximately June 2024 and received a single dismissive email in response. On July 23, 2024, she submitted a detailed written complaint to a Human Resources representative within the department, identifying specific conduct, specific dates, and the supervisors involved. According to the Complaint, the substance of that confidential complaint was disclosed to the very supervisor whose conduct was the subject of it. Just 10 days after Walker's written complaint reached Human Resources, the County issued a Notice of Termination. And six days later, on August 9, 2024, her employment ended.

The Complaint alleges that the County's stated performance reasons for the firing are pretextual. Walker had received no formal written discipline, no performance improvement plan, and no documented warning at any point during her employment. Members of the public she served had submitted written commendations through the County's own customer-satisfaction process. Colleagues whose conduct was comparable to or more serious than Walker's (including disconnecting customer calls and arriving late or leaving early) were not subjected to daily work logs, back-to-back call monitoring, or termination.

The harm Walker has suffered extends well beyond the loss of her job. The Complaint alleges that her termination caused stress-related exacerbation of her autoimmune condition and contributed to a diagnosis of recurrent major depressive disorder. The financial fallout reached into her family: Walker's daughter was accepted to an Ivy League university but was unable to attend because Walker could no longer afford the cost; Walker has faced threatened foreclosure on her home; and she was forced to relocate her elderly mother, for whom she had been providing care, to a relative's home because she could no longer maintain the necessary care arrangements. To meet her financial obligations, Walker has driven for a rideshare service and taken on job-coaching work, neither of which approaches the compensation, benefits, or career trajectory she lost.

"Aisha Walker did everything an employee is supposed to do. She disclosed her conditions, she submitted medical documentation, she followed the County's accommodation process, and when that process broke down she reported what was happening through proper internal channels," said Managing Attorney Jordan D. Howlette. "The County's response was to refuse every accommodation she requested, intensify the scrutiny applied to her alone, and fire her ten days after her written complaint reached Human Resources. This lawsuit is about restoring what the County took from her and ensuring that no other disabled employee is treated this way."

The Complaint asserts claims under the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act and the Prince George's County Code for disability discrimination, failure to provide reasonable accommodations, retaliation, and hostile work environment. The case is Aisha Walker v. Prince George's County, Maryland (Awaiting Case No. Assignment), filed in the Circuit Court of Maryland for Prince George's County.