Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—4th Cir.: Employee with breast cancer who resisted in-office work was not ‘qualified individual’, (Jan 15, 2026)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

“Wilson Air is not the type of intransigent employer that the ADA was designed to set straight,” said the appeals court.

An accounting assistant who was diagnosed with an aggressive form of breast cancer and began working at home during the COVID-19 pandemic, ultimately fired after she failed to return to the office on an agreed hybrid schedule and repeatedly missed work without notice, was not a “qualified individual” under the ADA, the Fourth Circuit affirmed. Over nearly three months, aviation services provider Wilson Air Center, LLC, reiterated that it wanted her to come into the office, but only as her schedule permitted. It took precautions to limit the spread of disease and excused many of her failures to communicate. The accounting assistant, however, showed up to the office for two partial days during the three-month period, often failing to warn any of her coworkers when she would be working from home or not working altogether, the appeals court found (Haggins v. Wilson Air Center, LLC, No. 24-1010 (4th Cir. Jan. 14, 2026)).

Accounting assistant. The plaintiff, according to the court, worked at Wilson Air for more than 16 years. An “Accounts Payable (Accounting Assistant),” her role was “[e]nsur[ing] correct payment to vendor[s] and assist[ing] [the] Account Manager” daily.

Paper checks. Many of Wilson Air’s payments took the form of paper checks, and vendors often sent their invoices via mail. Wilson Air also retained physical records about every supplier. For a long while, then, the accounting assistant came into the office on a regular basis to perform, among other tasks, the accounts payable and filing portions of her job.

Pandemic. That all changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Many Wilson Air employees, including the plaintiff, adopted hybrid schedules by which they worked in part remotely and in part in the office. The pandemic also caused “the number of arriving flights, fuel sales, and revenue [to] hit record lows.”

Breast cancer diagnosis. Meanwhile, the accounting assistant was diagnosed with a “very aggressive form of breast cancer.” Though she kept a hybrid workload for several months, she went fully remote during the summer due to her compromised immune system and constant need for treatment. This required reassigning her in-person responsibilities to the account manager.

Hybrid schedule. The arrangement worked well at first, but by March 2021, Wilson Air’s business had largely returned to normal. The account manager, feeling swamped with long hours, began to express frustration with his workload. He spoke to the general manager about the possibility of the accounting assistant returning to a hybrid schedule. He then messaged her and proposed that she be in the office twice a week for “4—5 hours each day... to help out with payables and other admin stuff.”

“Okay I think I can handle that,” she responded.

Not coming in. Over the next month, however, she never came into the office. Eventually, an HR supervisor messaged her to remind her about working in person. She replied that her oncologist would likely disapprove of her return. The HR supervisor told her to get a doctor’s note documenting that, and she did so shortly thereafter. Wilson Air, however, did not immediately receive it.

Despite a meeting in May 2021 with the account manager, the HR supervisor, and the general manager, in which she agreed to come in to perform accounts payable and filing tasks, she again did not come into the office. Rather, on May 17, she called the manager of HR to express her dissatisfaction with being required to work partly in person. And on the same day, Wilson Air received the aforementioned doctor’s note, dated nearly two weeks earlier.

Kept working remotely. She kept working remotely while the HR manager learned more about the specifics of her job. To that end, the HR manager met twice with the account manager, the HR supervisor, and the general manager. All three explained that many of the accounting assistant’s duties needed to be done in person and that other employees could no longer fill in for her.

Report starting next day. Consequently, on May 25, the HR manager told her she needed to report to work in person starting the next day, adding that she could wear a mask and stay in her office with the door closed.

She returned to the office the next morning, working a partial day separated by two medical appointments. The full day afterward, she worked remotely to receive an infusion. And on her next day of work, she again worked partly in the office, leaving early after fluid had continuously and visibly leaked out of the area around her breasts.

No more in-person work. That was the last time she worked in person. On June 2, she told the HR supervisor that she intended to work the day entirely from home. The HR supervisor refused, responding that she either needed to be physically present or not work at all. She thus took a sick day.

Afterward, she saw a doctor regarding the earlier leakage from her chest, scheduling surgery for the next day to fix it. She promptly told both the account manager and the HR supervisor that she would be unable to work after the procedure. Signing onto her company-issued laptop to do so, she saw a message from the account manager telling her to return the computer. According to the plaintiff, this “meant that [she] could not perform any work[-]related accounting functions from home.”

Surgery. On June 3, she had surgery and did not work at all. On June 4, the general manager texted her to ask about the surgery and her status. She responded that she “fe[lt] so much better!!!” but gave no information about when she would next resume work or return to the office. Over the ensuing weekend, she texted the account manager about the surgery and told him that she would be taking sick days until her physician cleared her to return to work. He acknowledged receipt on June 7, a Monday, and marked her as sick for the day.

No call, no show. On June 8, she neither reported to work nor notified anyone that she would be out sick again. Rather than resorting to discipline, the account manager emailed her at her personal address to express concern over the unexplained absence and ask her to “[p]lease let [[him]] know what is happening with [[her]] situation.”

There was no response. June 9, and much of June 10, passed without any word from her.

Letter from doctor. She did contact her doctor on June 8 to send a note to Wilson Air. It read “[The accounting assistant] underwent a medically necessary surgery on Thursday 6/3/21 and needs to be out of work for recovery until Thursday 6/17/21.” The letter was dated June 9, and Wilson Air received it on June 10.

Upon receiving the note, the HR supervisor convened with the HR manager. The HR supervisor again opted against discipline, believing the better course was to reiterate the importance of communication. To that end, she sent the plaintiff another email stressing the need to keep her in the loop regarding absences from work. She also asked her to “[p]lease contact [[the HR supervisor]] on Wednesday of next week so that [they] can plan for [the accounting assistant’s] return the following day.”

Discharge. She still did not contact the HR supervisor, however. Nor did she work at all on June 17 or notify anyone about taking another sick day. The HR supervisor and HR manager accordingly met once more to discuss the matter, agreeing on her termination. The HR supervisor notified her by email that she had been discharged for “job abandonment,” or repeatedly missing work without warning.

Wilson Air did not hire a full-time replacement. It instead enlisted temporary, in-person work from a third-party agency as needed. Eventually, it moved all accounting functions to its corporate headquarters.

Lawsuit, decision below, and appeal. Almost one year later, she sued Wilson Air. In relevant part, she alleged the employer failed to make a reasonable accommodation for her, discriminated against her because of her breast cancer, and retaliated against her for complaining to HR, all in violation of the ADA. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Wilson Air, and she timely appealed to the Fourth Circuit.

“Qualified individual.” The appeals court initially observed that “No matter the type of discrimination alleged” under the ADA, “the employee must show first that she is a ‘qualified individual.’” First, even when an employee cannot perform a job on its face, she may still be a qualified individual if a “reasonable accommodation” enables her to so perform. Second, regardless of any accommodation suggested by the employee or offered by the employer, the claimant must be able to do the job’s “essential functions.” And third, implied in the definition of a “qualified individual” is a reciprocal obligation between the employee and employer to engage in a good faith, collaborative search for a reasonable accommodation.

Not qualified. The former accounting assistant argued that if Wilson Air had given her the reasonable accommodation of a hybrid schedule that it had promised, she would have been able to perform her job’s essential functions, thus making her a qualified individual under the ADA.

The court was unpersuaded. “Wilson Air did not renege on the parties’ compromise for a hybrid schedule. [The accounting assistant] did.” Over and over, the Fourth Circuit observed, Wilson Air expressed openness to her working in the office part-time and teleworking for the rest of her hours. And each time, she purported to accept yet failed to follow through. Over nearly three months, Wilson Air reiterated that it wanted her to come into the office, but only as her schedule permitted. It took precautions to limit the spread of disease, and it excused many of her failures to communicate. And she showed up to work for only two partial days in the three-month period, often failing to warn any of her coworkers when she would be working from home or not working altogether. She therefore did not “land within the ADA’s definition of a ‘qualified individual.’”

Retaliation. Her retaliation claim fared similarly. She argued that Wilson Air retaliated against her under the ADA by discharging her one month after she lodged a complaint to HR about the employer’s hybrid-work mandate, but she failed to show a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action, according to the appeals court. “Wilson Air went out of its way to support and accommodate her struggle with breast cancer,” the Fourth Circuit said, “resorting to termination only after excusing nearly a calendar quarter of [the accounting assistant’s] broken promises about returning to the office and failures to communicate her schedule.” The email formally discharging her “confirms as much,” concluded the court. “In it, [the HR supervisor] explained that [the accounting assistant] had missed over two weeks of work and repeatedly failed to notify Wilson Air when she would return, even after being expressly asked to do so.”

Although there was only a one-month interim between her alleged protected activity and discharge, “Wilson Air went well beyond the ADA’s obligations in trying to work things out for [her], continuously attempting to reach a compromise in which she could fulfill her job’s essential, in-person functions without threatening her health or obstructing her medical treatment,” the Fourth Circuit found. “That is accommodation, not retaliation.”

The judgment of the district court was accordingly affirmed.

The case is No. 24-1010.

Judge: Wilkinson, J.

Attorneys: Ralph Thomas Bryant, Jr. (Law Offices of Ralph Thomas Bryant, Jr.) for Deanne M. Hall Haggins. Proloy K. Das (FordHarrison) for Wilson Air Center, LLC.

Companies: Wilson Air Center, LLC

MainStory: TopStory DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge MarylandNews NorthCarolinaNews SouthCarolinaNews VirginiaNews WestVirginiaNews GCNNews