A man who was employed by a school district as a bus monitor filed a lawsuit for disability discrimination after his employment was terminated for urinary incontinence.

The evidence introduced at trial showed that he informed his supervisor when he was hired that he had congestive heart failure and was taking a diuretic drug that sometimes caused an urgent need to urinate. One day the bus monitor asked the driver to stop at a gas station so he could use the bathroom. There were no students on the bus at the time. The driver agreed, but then turned into a residential area instead of toward the gas station. The monitor repeated his request and began begging the driver to stop, but the driver asked him to wait until the next scheduled stop. The monitor involuntarily urinated in his pants. He then concealed himself behind the bus doors and finished urinating into an empty water bottle. His pants were wet, but there was no urine on the seat or elsewhere on the bus. At the next scheduled stop, the monitor helped a wheelchair-bound student board the bus, secured the wheelchair’s straps, and later released the straps when the bus reached its destination.

The monitor's employment was terminated for “unprofessional conduct” due to his actions in urinating on himself and in a water bottle while onboard a school bus. The district also claimed that he failed to protect the health and safety of the students boarding at the next stop from exposure to bodily fluids. He filed a lawsuit, alleging that his employment was terminated because of his disability. He won at trial and was awarded back pay and compensatory damages. The district appealed, and the court of appeals reversed the ruling, concluding that the bus monitor’s disability was heart failure, not incontinence, and that he was not fired due to heart failure. The bus monitor appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Texas.

The Supreme Court of Texas found that the bus monitor's employment had been terminated due to a disability and reversed the decision of the court of appeals. The district admitted that the bus monitor suffered from a disability and that he was fired due to urinary incontinence. The court held that, based on the evidence presented, the jury could have concluded that the incontinence itself was a separate disability. The court of appeals was wrong when it failed to recognize that and their decision was therefore reversed.