Suchak v. Teksystems

── Suchak v. Teksystems ── Case No.: 25-6100 Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Date: March 31, 2026 Category: General Appellate Case: 25-6100 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 03/31/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT March 31, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court STEVEN SCOTT SUCHAK, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. No. 25-6100 (D.C. No. 5:23-CV-00929-HE) TEKSYSTEMS, INC., (W.D. Okla.) Defendant - Appellee. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before HARTZ, MATHESON, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Plaintiff-Appellant Steven Scott Suchak sued his former employer, Defendant- Appellee TEKSystems, Inc. (“TEK”), claiming multiple violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. TEK, a staffing agency, employed Mr. Suchak and contracted him to work temporarily as a Data Center Technician for its client, Integris Health Baptist Medical Center (“Integris”). During Mr. Suchak’s assignment, another company, Tech Mahindra, Inc. (“Mahindra”) took over as Integris’s Information Technology (“IT”) manager. In September 2020 and again in April 2021, Mahindra requested that Mr. Suchak complete Form CC-305, a * This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 2.1 and Tenth Circuit Rule 32.1.  Appellate Case: 25-6100 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 03/31/2026 Page: 2 Department of Labor form that invited him to voluntarily disclose his disability status. Mr. Suchak refused to fill out the form and filed a complaint with the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”). Several months later, Mr. Suchak’s assignment with Integris expired and his employment with TEK was terminated. Mr. Suchak sued TEK, alleging that Mahindra’s requests to complete Form CC-305 were impermissible disability-related inquiries for which TEK was liable. He also alleged that TEK retaliated against him for filing an OFCCP complaint. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of TEK on all of Mr. Suchak’s claims. Mr. Suchak now appeals. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. I. BACKGROUND A. Factual History 1 TEK is in the business of supplying temporary staffing services on a contract basis to its clients. It recruits, hires, and assigns temporary employees to work at its clients’ premises under the direction and supervision of the clients. TEK’s temporary employees are employed at will, and clients can request to discontinue the employees’ assignments at any time. 1 The following facts are, unless otherwise specified, undisputed and come from TEK’s statement of material facts provided in its motion for summary judgment. Because Mr. Suchak failed to “specifically controvert[]” TEK’s statement of material facts, the district court accepted those facts as true for purposes of summary judgment. See LCvR56-1(c). We do the same in reviewing the district court’s grant of summary