Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—D. Md.: Employee’s inability to perform job’s essential functions while teleworking dooms Rehab Act claim, (May 14, 2025)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

She alleged that while she was authorized to work remotely between February and August 2022, she was able to work only ten days in May and otherwise required leave due to her disability.

A former assistant director of admissions at the University of Maryland, Baltimore School of Nursing (UMB) who had her teleworking privileges revoked after having been granted FMLA leave and repeated unpaid leaves for her medical condition, and was eventually terminated after failing to return to in-person work, did not plausibly allege claims of failure to accommodate and retaliation under the Rehabilitation Act, a federal district court ruled in dismissing her claims without prejudice and leave to amend. The court also tossed her parallel claims under the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act (MFEPA) due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Perkins v. University of Maryland, No. RDB-24-1688 (D. Md. May 12, 2025)).

FMLA leave. The employee began working as assistant director of admissions for UMB on September 14, 2021, at which time all staff were allegedly allowed to work remotely. She alleged that in January 2022, she developed a serious health condition related to workplace stress that impaired her ability to return to in-person work at the office. In February, she told her supervisor about her health condition and her need to remain out of the office. Shortly thereafter, UMB approved her request for FMLA leave until April 29. At some point during her leave, UMB asked staff members in her department to return to in-person work.

Unpaid leave under ADA. Upon the termination of her approved period of FMLA leave, the employee requested further FMLA leave. On May 3, UMB denied her request, stating that she had exhausted her FMLA leave entitlement in the applicable 12-month period. However, the employer provided her an ADA accommodation of unpaid leave from May 10 until July 5.

Telework ended. With UMB’s approval, she returned to telework on a reduced schedule of twenty hours per week on July 6. However, on July 14, she learned from the IT department that that her remote access had been removed and she was required to return her telework equipment because personnel in her department were no longer permitted to work from home. She unsuccessfully attempted to raise these issues with HR, and on August 1, an administrator advised her that her telework accommodations had concluded and instructed her to contact her supervisor to schedule a return-to-work date.

Another unpaid leave. At some point thereafter, the employee was hospitalized for something unrelated to her remote working conditions. She informed UMB of the hospitalization and provided a medical certification stating her serious health condition required her to work remotely for an additional two weeks. Instead, UMB granted an ADA accommodation of another unpaid leave of absence until August 12. When that leave ended, UMB denied her request for two more weeks of unpaid leave followed by temporary telework and required that she return to work in person. She failed to do so, and UMB eventually terminated her on October 1, 2022.

MFEPA claims. As an initial matter, the court dismissed the employee’s MFEPA claims on the basis that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over those state law claims on sovereign immunity grounds. The court granted UMB’s motion to dismiss without prejudice, but also without leave to amend since there was no set of facts that she could allege that would afford the court jurisdiction over those claims.

No failure to accommodate. The court next held that UMB was entitled to dismissal as to the employee’s Rehabilitation Act non-accommodation claim since she failed to plausibly allege that she could perform the essential functions of her job with her requested telework accommodation. The court emphasized that according to her complaint, while she was subject to remote work, she still required two unpaid leaves of absence due to her serious health condition—one two-month unpaid leave between May and July 5, 2022, and one two-week unpaid leave in August 2022. These unpaid leaves occurred immediately following her two-month FMLA leave between February and April 29, during which period her position was subject to remote work.

In sum, she alleged that while she was authorized to work remotely between February and August 2022, she was able to work only ten days in May and otherwise required leave due to her disability. Thus, the employee was not able to perform the essential functions of her job with the reasonable remote-work accommodation, and her assertion that her job was capable of remote performance because her department worked remotely between 2021 and 2022 did not overcome her own allegations that she could not perform her work remotely.

Revocation of telework not adverse. The employee alleged that UMB unlawfully retaliated against her both by revoking her telework accommodation on July 14 and by terminating her on October 1. However, courts in the Fourth Circuit have held that an employer’s refusal to allow a telework arrangement, without more, does not constitute an adverse action. Therefore, the court only considered her claim that that her discharge was retaliatory.

No causal connection. Finally, dismissal was warranted as to this retaliatory discharge claim due to the employee’s failure to sufficiently allege a causal relationship between any protected activity and her termination. The only facts that she alleged to suggest a retaliatory motive was the timing of events. And while she pointed to the seven-week gap between her request to telework on August 12 and her termination on October 1, the Fourth Circuit has found that a lapse of two months is insufficient by itself to show causation. Moreover, because UMB had knowledge of her request for a disability-related accommodation when it allowed her take unpaid leave on May 10, five months elapsed between its knowledge of her protected activity and her termination.

The case is No. RDB-24-1688.

Judge: Bennett, R.

Attorneys: Tiffani Sterrette Collins (Collins Legal Group) for Yasmin Perkins. Courtney Morgan Watkins, Office of the Attorney General, for University of Maryland School of Nursing.

Companies: University of Maryland School of Nursing

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge Retaliation Procedure PublicEmployees MarylandNews