Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—D. Md.: Court tosses sexual harassment claims against WMATA, Rehab Act claim survives, (Mar 23, 2026)

By Ursula Furi-Perry, J.D., MBA

A supervisor’s comments about smiling, demeanor, and workplace relationships were not sexual in nature and lacked any explicit or implicit sexual component.

A fired transit employee may not proceed with her quid pro quo sexual harassment or hostile work environment claims, though she may be able to substantiate wrongful termination under the Rehabilitation Act. A Maryland federal district court granted summary judgment against the sex discrimination claims, holding that a supervisor’s comments about smiling, demeanor, and workplace relationships were not sexual in nature and lacked any explicit or implicit sexual component. Evidence presented, however, could lead a reasonable jury to conclude that the stated reasons were not the true basis for the plaintiff’s termination (Ways v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, No. TJS-25-69 (D. Md. Mar. 19, 2026)).

Curriculum development specialist. The plaintiff worked as a curriculum development specialist for the defendant, a public transit authority from May 2023 to May 2024. The employee, who has type 1 diabetes, alleged that her termination resulted from unlawful sexual harassment and disability discrimination. She claimed that her direct supervisor made comments suggesting that if she wanted workplace benefits such as remote work or support for her ideas, she needed to “smile more,” improve her demeanor, and pay more attention to upper management. She interpreted these statements as quid pro quo sexual harassment contributing to a hostile work environment. She further alleged that when she did not comply with these expectations, she was terminated.

Professionalism? The employer disputed these claims, asserting that the supervisor’s comments were related to workplace professionalism and were not sexual in nature. The employer also maintained that the employee had ongoing performance and behavioral issues, including missed deadlines, poor communication, and unprofessional conduct. Although the employee acknowledged that she sometimes exhibited unusual behavior, she attributed it to episodes of low blood sugar related to her diabetes. The employer relied on a mid-year evaluation and termination documents identifying performance deficiencies as the basis for discharge; however, the evaluation also rated the employee as “on-target” overall, creating some internal inconsistency. The employee did not directly refute the performance criticisms but argued that they were either exaggerated or tied to her disability.

Lawsuit. She filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, alleging quid pro quo sexual harassment and hostile work environment based on sex, as well as wrongful termination under the Rehabilitation Act. After discovery, the employer moved for summary judgment on all claims.

Sexual harassment. The court granted summary judgment for the employer on both sexual harassment claims. As to the quid pro quo claim, the court found that the employee failed to establish that she was subjected to unwelcome sexual conduct based on sex. The supervisor’s comments about smiling, demeanor, and workplace relationships were not sexual in nature and lacked any explicit or implicit sexual component, the court held. “Plaintiff provides no evidence that she treated [the supervisor’s] comments as unwanted. There is no evidence Plaintiff complained of the statements, reported the comments, or even discussed her concerns with [the supervisor]. At most, she simply ignored his requests,” the court noted in its opinion.

As to the hostile work environment claim, the court emphasized that the conduct must be both based on sex and sufficiently severe or pervasive. Here, the comments were gender-neutral and, at most, reflected workplace criticism or personality conflict. There was no evidence that the supervisor treated the employee differently because of her sex, and the conduct did not rise to the level of objectively hostile or abusive. “Although Plaintiff may have subjectively perceived the work environment to be abusive, none of the relevant considerations for determining objective hostility establish a severe or pervasive environment,” the court explained. “First, Plaintiff cannot recall the frequency of [the supervisor’s] comments. Second, the only alleged conduct at issue pertains to comments about Plaintiff’s demeanor at work and a suggestion that she pay more attention to her supervisor. These comments may be considered rude or demonstrate personality conflicts, but they do not meet the high bar of ‘severe or pervasive’ conduct that Plaintiff has the burden to establish.”

Disability discrimination. However, the federal district court denied summary judgment on the disability discrimination claim under the Rehabilitation Act, holding that the employee established a prima facie case: she had a recognized disability, there was a factual dispute as to whether she was qualified for her position, and there was evidence suggesting a possible connection between her disability and her termination. Notably, the employer’s own evaluation both criticized her performance and rated her as “on-target,” creating credibility issues.

Moreover, though the employer articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for termination, the employee presented sufficient evidence of pretext. Internal emails showed that supervisors may have been attempting to justify the termination after the fact, and there was also limited documentation of prior discipline. Taken together, these inconsistencies could lead a reasonable jury to conclude that the stated reasons were not the true basis for termination, the court concluded, and as genuine disputes of material fact remained, the disability claim may proceed to trial.

The case is No. TJS-25-69.

Judge: Sullivan, T.

Attorneys: Christopher J. Smith (Law Offices of Christopher J. Smith) for Erica Ways. Michael Kelly Guss for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority.

Companies: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

Cases: Discrimination SexDiscrimination SexualHarassment DisabilityDiscrimination PublicEmployees MarylandNews