A U.S. appeals court has reinstated an Americans with Disabilities Act discrimination charge in a case where a company official allegedly sought reasons to fire a worker after he had already decided to terminate her because of her disability.

Nicole Burton began working at Austin, Texas-based Freescale Semiconductor Inc., a microchip designer and manufacturer in 2009, through a staffing agency, Abilene Texas-based Manpower of Texas. L.P., according to Monday’s ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans in Nicole Burton v. Freescale Semiconductor Incorporated; Manpower of Texas L.P., et. al.

In March, 2011, Ms. Burton inhaled chemical fumes while on the job, and subsequently reported chest pains and heart palpitations, which led to her filing a workers compensation claim from Manpower, according to the ruling.

About two weeks later a Freescale official decided to terminate Ms. Burton, with the “last straw” allegedly being she was caught using the Internet, although there was conflicting evidence about whether he knew about it when he decided to terminate her.

Before the actual termination, Manpower asked for supporting documentation for its reasons for terminating Ms. Burton, and Freescale supervisors “began generating retrospective ‘documentation’ and (in contrast to previous practices) meticulously cataloging Burton’s every shortcoming,” said the ruling.

A Manpower supervisor was then told to terminate her “based on four discrete incidents, at least two of which occurred after the decision to terminate her had already been made,” said the ruling.

Ms. Burton filed suit charging discrimination under the ADA and retaliation under the state workers compensation statute. The U.S. District Court in San Antonio, dismissed the case on the basis the defendants had asserted legitimate reasons for her termination.

A three-judge panel unanimously reinstated the ADA discrimination charge. “Purported examples of post-decision poor performance … are not evidence of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for (Ms. Burton’s) termination,” says the ruling.

“There is direct evidence that, after deciding to fire Burton, Freescale (with Manpower’s participation) acted to create an exculpatory paper trail,” said the panel in concluding Ms. Burton “has produced substantial evidence of pretext.”

The court upheld dismissal of the retaliation claim because, it said, Manpower, not Freescale, had provided her workers comp coverage and there is no evidence the staffing agency acted with a retaliatory motive.