Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—D. Md.: Nursing home LPN, allegedly harassed, reassigned, and fired after leg amputation, survives motion to dismiss, (Oct 8, 2025)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

After the amputation, which was due to an adverse reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine, her supervisors allegedly ignored her complaints that coworkers kept parking in her handicap spot, and that one remarked that she should not wear a dress due to her prosthetic leg.

A licensed practical nurse (LPN), who claimed that after she returned to her employment at a nursing home following an above-the knee amputation of her right leg, her supervisors repeatedly changed her position, withheld training, overworked her, and ignored her emails about her coworkers’ alleged ridicule and harassment, survived her employer’s motion for partial dismissal of her ADA and state law claims of hostile work environment, disparate treatment, and failure to accommodate. A federal magistrate judge explained that while two years passed between her amputation and her ultimate firing, she alleged a pattern of discriminatory decisions as well as that her supervisors ignored her repeated complaints (Dailey v. Elkton SNF, LLC, No. 1:25-cv-1828-JMC (D. Md. Oct. 2, 2025)).

Amputation after COVID-19 shot. While working at the nursing home, the LPN suffered an adverse reaction to two Covid-19 vaccine injections. As a result, she underwent an above-the-knee amputation of her right leg in March 2022. She took FMLA leave to recover, during which time she underwent physical therapy and was fitted with a prosthetic leg.

Job changes. When she returned to work on July 19, the employer allegedly granted her reasonable accommodations that allowed her to transition into a role where she was not required to perform the physically demanding functions of her job. However, less than a week after her return, she received a letter stating that her role was being changed to part-time practical nurse. Then in May 2023, her status changed again to a full-time minimum data set coordinator.

Harassment at work. She also claimed that her coworkers frequently parked in her handicap parking space and yelled at and derided her when she asked them to move. In one instance, a coworker asked her, “why would you wear a dress with that?”, referring to her prosthetic leg. In 2024, she reported the harassment to her supervisors via email on January 31 and February 12, but received no response.

Another job change. In March 2024, she was forced to accept reassignment to the role of “infection prevention and control/quality assurance” (IPC/QA), after being told she would be discharged if she refused. Her new duties were outside of her expertise, and she emailed her supervisors multiple times expressing her concerns. After one email, she received a warning for failing to complete a task she was not informed she was responsible for performing. Her supervisors also allegedly told her to attend virtual training courses while she was actively working, making it impossible for her to do so. Despite her physical limitations, the job also required her to routinely work 12-hour days.

The new job also required her to maintain personnel files, and she discovered the facility only had files from 2018 onward and that her own file was missing. When she informed her supervisors, they allegedly instructed her to get rid of the files because, “the state will feed on what is there.” She again complained via email on July 12. That same day, she was suspended pending an investigation into her purported insubordination. On July 22, she was terminated.

The LPN sued, alleging ADA and the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act (MFEPA) claims of disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation. The employer moved to dismiss all but her retaliation claims.

Timeliness. At the outset, the court rejected the employer’s bid to dismiss or strike any acts alleged to have occurred outside the ADA’s 300-day limitation period or the MFEPA’s two-year period. First, she alleged a series of position changes which constituted the same series of alleged discriminatory acts. Moreover, she claimed that at least one harassing act which contributed to the hostile work environment occurred within the respective limitations periods.

Harassment based on disability. The court also rejected the employer’s contention that her hostile work environment claim must be dismissed because she failed to plausibly allege that the harassment was based on her disability. While the parking-lot incident presented “a close question,” it could be reasonably inferred at the pleading stage that “but for” her disability (accommodated by reserving the handicap space), coworkers would not have yelled at and derided her when she asked them to move their cars. The same reasoning applied to her allegations that the employer repeatedly changed her position, withheld training, overworked her, and ignored her emails about the alleged harassment. Similarly, she specifically alleged that the coworker’s remark about her dress specifically referred to her prosthetic leg.

Severe and pervasive. The LPN also plausibly alleged this conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive. Though she did not state how many times the parking-lot incidents occurred, she claimed that multiple “employees” “frequently” used her handicap space. At the pleading stage, it could be reasonably inferred that this kind of conduct would be humiliating for a recent amputee. She also alleged as one specific example the coworker’s remark about her dress and that she received no response to her two complaints about the work environment. Finally, the pattern of discriminatory conduct “reached a boiling point” from January through July 2024, after she complained about the harassment.

Inference of bias. Turning the employee’s disparate treatment claim, the court rejected the employer’s contention that discriminatory intent could not be inferred since she failed to allege that a particular decisionmaker harbored discriminatory animus. Rather, other allegations supported such an inference. In terms of temporal proximity, while two years passed between her amputation and her discharge, she alleged a pattern of discriminatory decisions. First, less than a week after she returned to work and learned her status had changed to part-time practical nurse. Then one month after complaining of harassment in early 2024, she was told she would be fired if she did not accept the IPC/QA role. Finally, she was fired shortly after she complained about the lack of training and assistance. Beyond this temporal proximity, she alleged that her supervisors ignored her complaints regarding her handicap space and the dress remark.

Failure to accommodate. Finally, her failure to specify when she was initially granted or requested accommodations was not fatal to her failure to accommodate claim at the pleading stage. Notably, she asserted that when she initially returned to work, she was provided an accommodation that would “allow her to transition into a role where she was not required to perform the physically demanding functions of her job.” And while her email complaints in early 2024 about her lack of training did not explicitly state that she was improperly accommodated, she asserted that she “unequivocally complained of discriminatory mistreatment.” Rather than engaging in an interactive process to clarify her complaints, her supervisors failed to respond. “Moreover, allegations of working 12-hour days, adapting to a variety of new job tasks, and being prevented from using her handicap space, plausibly interfered with an accommodation that seeks to prevent her from performing physically demanding functions of her job,” concluded the court.

The case is No. 1:25-cv-1828-JMC.

Judge: Coulson, J.

Attorneys: Robin R. Cockey (Cockey Brennan and Maloney) for Shirley Dailey. Stephen M. Silvestri (Jackson Lewis) for Elkton SNF, LLC and Elkton Health Holdco LLC.

Companies: Elkton SNF, LLC; Elkton Health Holdco LLC

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge Procedure MarylandNews