Andre van Hall on Friday filed a discrimination claim with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against his former employer, the Denver Athletic Club, after his high-profile firing as chief executive of the historic club.

The termination of van Hall, 59, a well-known figure in Denver, was surrounded in controversy and resulted in petitioning and resignations of employees and board members — creating an atmosphere of confusion for the 128-year-old institution's 2,000 members.

"I just think (the board) decided to engage in World War III, and they know it," said Darold Killmer, van Hall's lawyer. "This is just an insanely illegal termination."

The club is Denver's premier health facility, boasting a clientele of some of the city's most influential leaders. Van Hall, CEO since 2003, lost his eyesight suddenly in 2011 because of a degenerative eye disease.

Though the club originally made accommodations that allowed him to continue his work, van Hall is alleging that his firing was because of his disability.

After a board of directors meeting Oct. 23, the board's president, Presley "Pres" Askew, handed van Hall a 30-day notification letter indicating that he would be fired unless the two parties could come to an agreement on a new contract for van Hall.

Askew and the DAC did not respond to multiple phone calls and e-mails, but their letter to club members cited concerns over "job performance" as the initial reason for termination.

"I have no doubt that his disability had something to do with it," said Killmer. "You have a guy with nine years of stellar performance, and virtually immediately there was increased scrutiny on his work to build a case against him."

The DAC board disagrees. In a letter sent to members the following day, Askew said the board had put van Hall on administrative leave over its concern with an evergreen provision in his contract. On Nov. 21, they notified van Hall that they were "terminating with cause" and were refusing him severance pay.

Van Hall's charge states that "The DAC's reasons for terminating me in the first place, and then deciding to change it from a 'without cause' to a 'with cause' termination, are false and pretextual, designed to cover up its discriminatory and retaliatory motives for firing me."