The Americans with Disabilities Act is not an entitlement statute. This means that in order to be a qualified protected individual under the law, an employee must be able to perform the essential functions of the job, with or without reasonable accommodation. A new decision from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (which includes North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia) reminds employers that they can condition continuing employment on a disabled employee’s ability to complete those essential functions.

In Haggins v. Wilson Air Center LLC, the plaintiff was an accounting assistant who developed an aggressive form of breast cancer. The employer allowed her to work a fully remote schedule for an extended period due to her compromised immune system. However, over time this remote arrangement began to cause issues for the company due to the plaintiff’s inability to perform critical in-person functions. The employer proposed and the plaintiff initially agreed to a hybrid schedule where she would come into the office for limited periods to handle work that could not be performed remotely. The employer proposed isolating her from co-workers while in the office to help avoid issues with her immune system.

Despite her agreement, the employer claimed that the plaintiff never worked the in-person hours agreed upon. She responded that her doctor objected to any non-remote work but delayed providing any confirmation of this advice. According to the employer, she repeatedly failed to work from the office when scheduled and also did not notify her manager that she would not be in that day. The employer eventually terminated her based on repeated failure to report to work without advance notice. She sued, alleging failure to accommodate and retaliation under the ADA. The district court granted summary judgment for the employer and the plaintiff appealed this decision to the Fourth Circuit.

The Fourth Circuit affirmed this dismissal, concluding that the plaintiff was not a qualified individual under the ADA. The court noted that the plaintiff could not perform some of the essential functions of the accounting job that required in-person work. The plaintiff alleged that an appropriate hybrid schedule would have allowed her to perform these functions, but the Fourth Circuit explained that the employer had offered this accommodation and that the plaintiff failed to follow through.

The Fourth Circuit’s decision was influenced by the employer’s patience in dealing with the plaintiff. In several instances, the employer did not discharge or take disciplinary action against the plaintiff when she failed to report to work or provide advance notice of her inability to work due to medical reasons. Throughout this process, the employer demonstrated considerable sympathy and understanding of the plaintiff’s situation, providing leave and workplace modifications that exceeded ADA requirements. The termination decision was eventually made once the plaintiff stopped communicating with her employer. This decision demonstrated the benefits of working with disabled employees and exploring alternatives before making any final decision regarding their employment status.

For more information, please contact me or your regular Parker Poe contact. Click here to subscribe to our latest alerts and insights.