Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—D. Md.: Verizon office technician who suffered migraines cannot advance claims, (Oct 30, 2025)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

She was largely absent from the workplace for a large swath of a three-year period and was fired after refusing to engage in 27 calls from Verizon field technicians.

Granting summary judgment against the ADA discrimination, retaliation and hostile work environment claims brought by a former Verizon office technician, a federal district court in Maryland determined that her inability to satisfy the attendance requirements of her position, which was explained to her as an essential function of her job, rendered her non-qualified under the ADA. Further, although the employee complained about her company-provided headset, which may have explained why she refused to answer 27 calls, this was not evidence of pretext, as an employee may be terminated for misconduct even if the misconduct is related to a disability. Her HWE claim also failed as she was largely absent over the period of alleged harassment (Spraggins v. Verizon Services Corporation, No. MJM-22-1546 (D. Md. Oct. 28, 2025)).

Beginning in 1999, the employee worked as a central office technician (COT) for Verizon. Her duties involved working on a computer in a network operations center responsible for assisting field technicians. At some point during her employment, she was diagnosed with migraines.

Disability leave. From July 10, 2016, through May 27, 2017, the employee was out on short term disability leave due to pain and numbness radiating from her right hand up to her neck.

Accommodation request form. When the employee was medically cleared to return to work in May 2017, she submitted a partially completed accommodation request form in which her health care provider indicated that overhead lights and focusing on a computer is a problem for long periods and would likely trigger migraines. The provider requested that the employee receive leave for doctor’s appointments for one to three days per migraine episode, be given a closed office space or be allowed to work remotely, and to allow the employee self-paced work. The form was missing medical authorization documentation to allow Verizon to contact the employee’s medical provider. Despite repeated requests to supply this information, the employee failed to do so.

Between August 23 and September 1, 2017, the employee and Verizon exchanged emails regarding her accommodation requests. Verizon explained that it could not turn off the lights or provide her with a private office, but it could install light filters and anti-glare screens, which it ultimately did.

Additional leave. The employee was out on SPD leave from September 6 through November 2, 2017. When she returned to work, she failed to report to her desk and did not comply with instructions to do so. She then received a three-day suspension. Additional suspensions followed because the employee refused to perform her job duties.

On January 17, 2018, the employee filed an administrative charge of discrimination alleging disability discrimination and retaliation. She then requested a leave of absence from January 17 through March 2, which Verizon granted. Prior to her return, Verizon informed her that her cubicle would be relocated to the darkest corner of the room where the lights would be turned off.

Instead of returning to work on March 5, the employee used paid and unpaid time off to remain out of work for all but one full day and four half days through April 2018. She then took STD leave from April 2018 through March 5, 2019. When she returned to work, Verizon granted her request for a “partial day restriction” in accordance with its collective bargaining agreement. Instead of returning to work on her partial schedule, the employee took vacation days each Monday, Wednesday, and Friday until April 15, 2019. She received further suspensions and discipline for failing to perform her job duties.

Transfer, termination. On April 21, 2019, the employee’s team was transferred to Silver Spring. She requested further accommodations in her new work space, including a request for a headset with a band that would go around the back of her head. She then took additional leave and received further disciplinary measures before her termination on June 28, 2019, a decision that was made after it was discovered that she refused to engage in calls with field technicians on 27 separate occasions. Subsequently, she filed this lawsuit alleging discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment under the ADA.

Failure to accommodate. First, the court addressed the employee’s claim for Verizon’s alleged failure to accommodate by not providing her with the type of telephone headset she preferred. Verizon argued the employee was not a “qualified individual” under the ADA and, even if she was, it had reasonably accommodated her. The court agreed, finding this claim failed as a matter of law.

The employee could not show that Verizon “refused” to make reasonable accommodations for her disability as it was consistently responsive to her requests and regularly provided her with other accommodations, despite her refusal to engage in the interactive process and to provide Verizon with a requested medical authorization form. Any denied accommodations were not feasible and were therefore unreasonable, explained the court.

As to the employee’s request for a different type of headset, Verizon established that this type of headset was incompatible with its system in Silver Spring. Nevertheless, Verizon was in the process of finding an acceptable headset at the time the employee was fired.

Absences. Further, the employee’s extended absences left no genuine dispute that she was incapable of performing the essential functions of her job, with or without reasonable accommodation, and there was no evidence that providing her with her preferred headset would have improved her attendance, said the court.

Although Verizon accommodated many of the employee’s absences, it was not required to accept her pattern of unexcused absences after she returned to work full-time in May 2019. “Verizon is not to be penalized for its willingness to accommodate Plaintiff beyond what the ADA requires,” said the court.

In sum, continued the court, there was no genuine dispute that the employee was not “willing and able” to appear for work as scheduled on any consistent basis, to perform her assigned work, or to follow procedures for unscheduled absences. Her inability to satisfy the attendance requirements of her position rendered her non-qualified under the ADA, and Verizon was entitled to summary judgment against her failure-to-accommodate claim.

Retaliation. Turning to the employee’s retaliation claim, she contended that was terminated after filing an EEOC complaint and Verizon’s proffered reason for terminating her employment was pretextual.

Assuming without deciding that the employee could establish a prima facie case for retaliation, the court determined that Verizon proffered a legitimate, nonretaliatory reason for the employee’s termination—her failure to engage in 27 phone calls over a consecutive two-day period. The employee failed to present any evidence to show that this proffered reason was pretextual.

Although the employee had complained about the configuration of her headset and this may have explained why she refused to engage in the phone calls, this could not be used as evidence of pretext. The ADA is not violated when an employer terminates an employee for misconduct, even if the misconduct is related to a disability, explained the court. Accordingly, Verizon was granted summary judgment against the retaliation claim.

HWE. Finally, the court addressed the employee’s claim for a hostile work environment. The employee alleged that she (1) endured reprimands and suspensions; (2) was not provided with a proper headset; (3) received calls on days she was not scheduled to work; and (4) was monitored or followed through the workplace. Verizon contended the employee was not “qualified” under the ADA and could not show severe or pervasive harassment. The court agreed with Verizon.

First, the court determined that this claim failed as matter of law because the employee could not show that she could perform the essential functions of her position, with or without accommodations. Second, even she was a qualified individual for ADA purposes, the alleged harassment did not rise to the level of objectively hostile treatment sufficient to support such a claim, explained the court.

The employee’s claim was supported only be series of supervisory actions and decisions of managers spread out over a period of three years. The challenged reprimands and suspensions were in response to the employee’s failure to follow directives, and any workplace monitoring was not shown to be based on the employee’s disability. In addition, the phone calls on days that she was not scheduled to work amounted to six calls over five days, none of which the employee answered. Finally, the failure to provide her with her preferred headset could not be said to be harassment.

Given that the employee was largely absent from the workplace over the three-year period she alleged a hostile work environment, she could not sustain this claim and summary judgment was granted in favor of Verizon.

The case is No. MJM-22-1546.

Judge: Maddox, M.

Attorneys: Ikechukwu K. Emejuru (Emejuru Law) for Vonnetta Spraggins. Daniel Zev Herbst (Reed Smith) for Verizon Services Corp.

Companies: Verizon Services Corp.

Cases: Discrimination DisabilityDiscrimination Discharge Retaliation MarylandNews GCNNews