Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—4th Cir.: Johns Hopkins lab employee’s failure to explain why COVID vaccine was risky doomed ADA claim, (Jun 26, 2025)

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.

“As the district court recognized, the lab gave [the employee] ‘ample opportunities’ to explain, ‘and she continuously refused.’”

Although a systems engineer for Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab disclosed her disability—Lyme-induced immune dysregulation—when she requested a medical exemption to the lab’s COVID-19 vaccination mandate, she never explained how that limited her in a way that required an accommodation, the Fourth Circuit noted. And because she refused to let the lab contact her medical providers, she failed to show it had a duty to accommodate, the court held, affirming summary judgment against her ADA claims (Tarquinio v. Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab, No. 24-1432 (4th Cir. June 25, 2025)).

As a federal contractor, the lab was required to comply with federal guidance requiring all contractors’ employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19 absent an exemption. Accordingly, it instructed its employees to either get the vaccine or request a religious or medical exemption.

Chronic Lyme disease. The employee, who had twice been diagnosed with Lyme disease, struggled with complications her doctors attributed to “chronic Lyme disease,” including fatigue and weight loss, among other things.

Accommodation request. Claiming her condition was a form of “excessive immune activation... similar to [an] autoimmune disease,” the employee requested a medical accommodation to the vaccination requirement. In support, she submitted a 2012 blood test showing she had Lyme disease when the test was taken. She also submitted a form from her healthcare provider naming “chronic Lyme Disease [and] Lyme induced immune dysregulation” as the basis for her request.

In response, the lab told her it needed permission to access her medical records and to speak to her doctors. According to the lab’s medical officer, because Lyme disease was not a medical contraindication for COVID vaccination, he needed further explanation of her condition and why it foreclosed vaccination.

Documentation. In an email to lab personnel, the employee explained her belief that if she were to take the COVID-19 vaccine, her “body [would] go crazy due to immune chaos, and most likely [suffer] a bad outcome.” She also offered to test weekly for COVID-19 and work on-site for two-to-five days a week and remotely for the other days. The medical officer, however, told the employee that her medical documentation was nine-years-old and she needed to submit more current documentation.

The employee then sent a second email stating that her doctor strongly advised her not to take the vaccine. She again offered to test weekly and work remotely three days a week. She also provided links to two scientific papers published in 2004 and 2005 that discussed the possibility that Lyme disease could trigger chronic autoimmune disease. The papers did not, however, discuss vaccination.

Termination. When the lab again requested access to her medical records, she refused. Accordingly, the medical officer declined her accommodation request and she was fired after refusing to get vaccinated.

Lower court proceedings. The employee sued, asserting several claims under the ADA and the district court granted summary judgment to the lab on all counts.

Failure to accommodate. Stating that it was starting and ending with the employee’s failure-to-accommodate claim, the Fourth Circuit noted that the district court found she was responsible for a “breakdown” in the interactive process. According to the lower court, when she refused to sign the medical release form that would have allowed the medical officer to make an informed decision, she refused to participate in the interactive process despite the lab’s good faith efforts, which foreclosed liability.

Clarification of interactive process. Observing that the district court set aside the elements of the employee’s failure-to-accommodate claim and “abstractly assigned blame for the lapsed negotiations,” the Fourth Circuit took an “opportunity to clarify what the interactive process is and does.” Under the ADA, the court began, employers have an affirmative duty to accommodate the limitations of disabled individuals and the interactive process helps them discharge that duty.

While an employer’s obligation to engage in the interactive process is closely tied to its duty to accommodate, the interactive process also gives the employer a chance to confirm that it has a duty to accommodate, the court explained, noting further that the “ADA requires accommodating ‘known... limitations,’ not known disabilities.” Because an employer has the right to confirm whether an accommodation is needed, the ADA’s implementing regulations, the court explained, “specify that a goal of the interactive process is to ‘identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability.’”

Knowledge. Although the court pointed out that its four-part failure-to-accommodate test does not account for these nuances because the case that first introduced that test turned on the definition of disability, not on any aspect of the interactive process, the second part of the test—notice of a disability—"elides a necessary element.” To be liable for a failure-to-accommodate claim, said the court, an employer must know that an employee’s disability limits the employee in a way that needs accommodating. “Acquiring that knowledge is a central purpose of the interactive process,” the court stated.

Explaining that the interactive process is a means and not an end, the court emphasized that “Neither the employer nor the employee can rest on a breakdown in the interactive process without connecting that breakdown to an element of failure-to-accommodate liability.” If, for example, an employer were to sabotage the interactive process to avoid discharging its duty, an employee could use that to show the employer refused an accommodation. Conversely, if an employee prevents an employer from understanding their disability, the employer’s duty never arises and the claim fails.

“With that table set,” said the court, “it becomes clear what’s missing from [the employee’s] case.” While she disclosed her disability to the lab, she never explained why her disability made it risky for her to be vaccinated. Had she allowed the lab to contact her medical providers, they might have explained that her autoimmune disease was so severe she was more likely to be harmed by the vaccine than by COVID. She refused, however, to allow the lab to contact them. “Because [the employee] prevented the lab from learning why her condition required the accommodations that she asked for, she can’t show that the lab had a duty to accommodate,” said the court, affirming the judgment of the district court.

The case is No. 24-1432.

Judge: Diaz, A.

Attorneys: Francis J. Collins (F.J. Collins Law) for Sally W. Tarquinio. Jason Alexander Ross (Jackson Lewis) for Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab.

Companies: Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab

MainStory: TopStory DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge Covid19 MarylandNews NorthCarolinaNews SouthCarolinaNews VirginiaNews WestVirginiaNews GCNNews