Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—M.D.N.C.: University lawyer advances retaliation claim, (Apr 16, 2025)

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

The lawyer had not shown she was a “qualified individual” for her employment, but plausibly alleged a protected activity in her formal accommodation request, an adverse action in her termination, and a causal connection between the two.

A university lawyer for North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University who was not allowed to work remotely and was ultimately terminated sued her former employer, claiming ADA discrimination and retaliation. The lawyer suffered from multiple physical and mental health conditions including knee pain, optic strain, migraines, gastrointestinal issues, hearing loss, depression, and anxiety, but no formal accommodations were documented. A North Carolina federal district court dismissed the discrimination claim, holding that the lawyer had not plausibly alleged that she was a “qualified individual” for her employment. However, the court allowed the retaliation claim to proceed, noting that she had plausibly alleged a protected activity in her formal accommodation request, an adverse action in her termination, and a causal connection between the two. (Girardeau v. North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University, No. 1:24-cv-388 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 11, 2025)).

The plaintiff began working as Associate General Counsel at North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University in January 2022.

Informal accommodations. Throughout the lawyer’s employment, she suffered from multiple physical and mental health conditions, including knee pain, optic strain, migraines, gastrointestinal issues, hearing loss, depression, and anxiety. Initially, the university allowed her to work remotely three days a week and informally provided several accommodations, such as font enlargement, ergonomic equipment, flexible deadlines, and scheduled breaks. However, these were not formally documented.

Return to office. When the university announced a return to full-time in-office work in August 2022, the lawyer submitted her first formal accommodation request, noting that returning in person would make it “substantially more difficult to manage her medical limitations,” asking to work remotely four days per week, to be provided with a second laptop, and to receive help with notetaking.

Termination. Shortly after submitting this request, the lawyer suffered a panic attack at a work event and was subsequently denied her request for short-term full-time remote work. Days later, she was verbally reprimanded for two work incidents involving forgetfulness and issued a formal written warning on August 19. By August 23, she was terminated.

Subsequently, she filed this suit asserting claims for ADA disability discrimination and retaliation, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. She also sought punitive damages. The employer filed a motion to dismiss.

Qualified individual. First addressing the ADA disability discrimination claim, the employer argued that the lawyer had not plausibly alleged that she was a “qualified individual” for her employment. The court agreed.

Noting that the lawyer did not allege any counter-facts—such as praise, positive reviews, or bonuses—tending to show that she actually was meeting her employer’s expectations in spite of the “verbal admonish[ments]” and “written warning,” the court dismissed this claim.

Retaliation claim. However, the court allowed the lawyer’s retaliation claim to proceed, holding that she had plausibly alleged a protected activity in her formal accommodation request, an adverse action in her termination, and a causal connection between the two. The court emphasized the short temporal gap between her request and her firing—20 days—as well as the fact that the same supervisors involved in her accommodation request participated in her termination. It rejected the employer’s argument that her performance issues necessarily broke the causal chain, reasoning that multiple “but-for” causes can exist, and that it was too early in the case to require rebuttal of a non-retaliatory explanation. The lawyer had stated a plausible claim for retaliation under the ADA, though the court held that she may seek only equitable remedies such as reinstatement or back pay.

The lawyer conceded that her claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy should be dismissed, and that she was not entitled to seek punitive damages for any claim. Accordingly, the employer’s motion to dismiss was denied in part and granted in part.

The case is No. 1:24-cv-388.

Judge: Osteen, W. Jr.

Attorneys: Artur Davis (HKM Employment Attorneys) for Arnetta Girardeau. Lindsay Vance Smith, North Carolina Department of Justice, for North Carolina Agricultural & Technical State University.

Cases: Discrimination DisabilityDiscrimination Discharge PublicEmployees RemediesDamages Retaliation NorthCarolinaNews