Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—D. Md.: Maryland federal court tosses hostile work environment, retaliation claim against the NAACP, (Oct 1, 2025)

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

The plaintiff’s record reflected numerous absences and tardiness during his probationary period.

The NAACP was entitled to summary judgment against the hostile work environment and retaliation claims of a former information technology specialist who was allegedly subjected to a supervisor’s disparaging comments about the plaintiff’s ADHD medication, a Maryland federal court found. The plaintiff’s record reflected numerous absences and tardiness during his probationary period, and the employer articulated a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for termination: the plaintiff’s unsatisfactory attendance (Dewonou v. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, No. MJM-23-921 (D. Md. Sept. 29, 2025)).

IT specialist. The plaintiff was hired by the NAACP in March 2022 as an Information Technology Specialist. Initially remote, his position became in-person in April 2022, and a month later, he was assigned a new supervisor.

ADHD diagnosis disclosed. The plaintiff disclosed his ADHD diagnosis to the supervisor, who subsequently made disparaging remarks about his medication, referring to it as “cocaine” and “crack,” both privately and in front of co-workers. The plaintiff found this behavior humiliating and complained to HR representatives, including the Interim VP of People and Culture and the VP of IT. He requested accommodations such as hybrid work or relocation within the office, but was instead given ADA forms to complete, which he did not return.

Attendance issues. Meanwhile, the plaintiff developed an extensive record of tardiness and absences during his probationary period. The NAACP employee handbook emphasized that attendance and punctuality were essential functions of employment, particularly during the first six months. The plaintiff missed multiple days of work due to illness, family emergencies, or personal matters, and was frequently late, with supervisors noting concerns from early in his tenure. HR and management documented numerous attendance violations, ranging from missed meetings to un-notified absences and extended lunches.

Discharge. On August 1, 2022, his direct supervisor reported the plaintiff’s attendance and performance problems to HR and recommended termination. A vice president, after consulting senior management and reviewing payroll and attendance records, decided to terminate the plaintiff’s employment. He testified that ADHD played no role in the decision, and that poor attendance was the sole reason.

Lawsuit. The plaintiff filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, alleging a hostile work environment under the ADA, based on the supervisor’s repeated derogatory comments and antagonistic behavior, and retaliation, claiming that his termination resulted from his complaints about discrimination. The NAACP filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff was not a qualified individual under the ADA because he failed to meet essential attendance requirements, and that his termination was based on legitimate, non-retaliatory grounds.

Hostile work environment. As to this claim, the court focused on the threshold question of whether the plaintiff was a “qualified individual,” noting that under Fourth Circuit precedent, regular and reliable attendance is an essential function of most jobs. The plaintiff’s record reflected numerous absences and tardiness during his probationary period, with little dispute over the underlying facts. The Court noted that while some absences could be attributed to disability, the plaintiff failed to complete the ADA accommodation process. Without demonstrating the ability to perform essential job functions with or without reasonable accommodation, he could not be deemed qualified under the ADA. The plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim failed at the first element, warranting summary judgment for the employer, the federal district court held.

Retaliation. This claim likewise failed. Even assuming that the plaintiff engaged in protected activity by complaining about Lucas’s comments, the NAACP articulated a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for termination: his unsatisfactory attendance. To show pretext, the plaintiff argued that his direct supervisor’s animus and influence tainted the decision, citing overheard comments, but the Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that the vice president, not the supervisor, made the final decision to fire the plaintiff after independent review and consultation. Under Hill v. Lockheed Martin, liability does not extend to supervisors who merely influence but do not make the actual decision. Moreover, the plaintiff offered no evidence that the stated reason was false or that retaliation was the but-for cause of termination.

The case is No. MJM-23-921.

Judge: Maddox, M.

Attorneys: Ikechukwu K. Emejuru (Law Offices of Ikechukwu K. Emejuru) for Kokouvi Dewonou. Alison N. Davis (Littler Mendelson) for National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Inc.

Companies: National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Inc.

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Retaliation MarylandNews