Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—4th Cir.: Account exec’s request for indefinite leave after c-section injury not a reasonable accommodation, (Jul 24, 2025)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

At the time of her termination, she had been absent for six months and could not provide an approximate return-to-work date due to the tentative need for future surgery months later.

A former Nexstar account executive who took her full FMLA leave, followed by twelve weeks of short-term leave, after she suffered a serious injury while delivering her twins via c-section, and was then terminated after she was unable to provide an estimated future return to work date, failed to revive her lawsuit alleging violations of the West Virigina Human Rights Act (WVHRA) and the FMLA. In an unpublished opinion affirming summary judgment on all counts, the Fourth Circuit determined that she failed to seek any accommodation that was reasonable on its face since her communications with the company made clear that she was requesting unpaid leave for an indefinite period and was unable to work at all, even remotely. Moreover, there was no evidence suggesting a causal nexus between her FMLA leave and termination (Coffman v. Nexstar Media Inc., No. 23-2253 (4th Cir. July 22, 2025, unpublished)).

Pregnancy complications. The employee began working at a Nexstar news station in February 2020, and in 2021, she became pregnant with twins. Near the end of her pregnancy, she was diagnosed with placenta previa and placed on bedrest. After about eight weeks of remote work, she delivered twins via c-section on February 23, 2022, and began 12 weeks of FMLA leave.

Internal injuries during C-section. She suffered complication during her c-section, and after an initial surgery to repair her ureter, was given a nephrostomy bag to drain her urine. This caused severe pain and restricted her ability to stand, walk, and drive. When her supervisor inquired about her recovery, she explained that she was “in and out of the hospital” with “constant kidney infections and pain” and would need another surgery.

Contact with HR. She began receiving post-FMLA short-term disability benefits on March 10, which were set to expire on June 27. When an HR assistant called on June 28, she confirmed that she was still unable to return to work and remained on short-term disability since she still had the nephrostomy tube. She also referred her to her lawyer and sent a text stating: “Please do not contact me regarding a return to work date when I have been classified as unable to return and still have short-term disability plus bonding leave.”

Subsequent email. On July 28, the employer sent her a letter requesting her return-to-work date, noting: “A directive not to contact you is not acceptable.” On August 4, she responded that she was “still under intense care” and had another surgery scheduled for August 8. She added that her recovery time would be about four-to-six weeks followed by a potential surgery in October.

Terminated. On August 15, the employer terminated her by email, effective August 19, stating: “Since you have been off work since February 23, 2022 and given the critical nature of the Account Executive position, we can no longer hold your job.”

Lower court proceedings. The employee sued, alleging several claims under the WVHR and FMLA retaliation. The district court granted summary judgment to the employer on all claims.

Indefinite leave not reasonable. The district court found that the employee failed to present a reasonable accommodation that was reasonable on its face. The Fourth Circuit agreed, stating, “[a]t bottom, indefinite leave is not a reasonable accommodation, and, here, unpaid leave amounted to indefinite leave.” Though the employee argued that any level of uncertainty was not meaningful, the parties’ exchange that occurred a month after her original June 27 return-to-work date passed clearly communicated an indefinite period of recovery as she relayed that she might recover in about four-to-six weeks, but a tentative follow-up surgery remained scheduled. Thus, while she was not required to provide a precise return date, the issue was whether she could return at any point in the near future.

Nor was paid leave. For the same reason, her contention that she should have been provided paid parental leave also failed. And while the employee argued that she was terminated while she was still receiving disability benefits so that she would not be eligible to receive paid parental leave under the employer’s policy, which required her to first exhaust her short-term leave, “[t]he employee cannot use Nexstar’s refusal to provide one unwarranted accommodation (additional unpaid leave) to bolster her need to receive a second (paid parental leave),” the Fourth Circuit explained.

Unable to work, even remotely. Finally, even if she had requested to return to remote work, which the employer denied, she failed to demonstrate that she was able to work at all—either in person or remotely. She pointed only to evidence that she was able to work remotely before giving birth, and her communications after her c-section did not suggest her inability to work was limited to in-person work. She also admittedly remained on short-term disability up to her termination—a benefit that “is provided to employees who are classified as completely unable to work.” And because she failed to demonstrate the existence of a reasonable accommodation, the employer could not be held separately liable for failing to engage in the interactive process.

Not “qualified,” no protected activity. Summary judgment was also warranted as to her disability discrimination claim since she could not show was a qualified individual with a disability who could perform the essential functions of her job with reasonable accommodation. The Fourth Circuit also affirmed dismissal of her WVHRA retaliation claim. While the district court may have erred in finding that she needed to request a “reasonable” accommodation in order to engage in protected activity, a requirement courts have disputed, the employee waived that issue by failing to contest it.

No FMLA retaliation. Finally, the Fourth Circuit agreed with the district court that she could not demonstrate a causal link between her FMLA leave and termination. The employer undisputedly permitted her to take her full FMLA leave plus an additional 12 weeks of leave after it expired, resulting in a three-month gap between the end of her FMLA leave and ultimate termination. And while she pointed to a statement from her supervisor during her early pregnancy that the company was “trying to keep [her] off of FMLA,” she conceded that, at the time, she also wanted to wait to use her FMLA leave.

The case is No. 23-2253.

Judge: Per curiam.

Attorneys: Mark Alan Atkinson (Atkinson & Frampton) for Leanna Jean Coffman. Andrew F. Maunz (Jackson Lewis) for Nexstar Media Inc.

Companies: Nexstar Media, Inc.

Cases: Discharge DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Retaliation MarylandNews NorthCarolinaNews SouthCarolinaNews VirginiaNews WestVirginiaNews