The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) protects “qualified individuals” with a disability from job discrimination, and imposes upon employers the duty to reasonably accommodate such individuals. But what happens when, even after the employer offers such accommodation, the employee still is unable or unwilling to perform her essential job functions? The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently addressed this issue in the case of Haggins v. Wilson Air Center, LLC (4th Cir. 1/14/26). In its published decision which praises the employer for its accommodation efforts, the Court held that an employee who cannot attend work to perform her position’s essential functions – or at least timely notify her employer that she cannot attend – is not a “qualified individual” with a disability under ADA.
Wilson Air is a private aviation services provider. It employed Deanne Haggins for over sixteen years as an Accounting Assistant. Haggins regularly performed her job duties on-site at the company’s office until the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, at which time the company’s business slowed considerably. Many employees, including Haggins, were placed on hybrid schedules where they worked partly on a remote basis and partly at the office. Meanwhile, Haggins was diagnosed with breast cancer, and after several months of keeping a hybrid workload she went to full remote status due to her compromised immune system and need for constant medical treatment. This required the company to reassign Haggins’ in-office duties to the accounting manager.
As business levels returned to normal, the accounting manager’s workload became excessive. The company asked Haggins to return to a hybrid schedule, and Haggins initially agreed to work two days per week in the office. However, over the next month she failed report to the office. The company again requested Haggins to report for in-office work, but she failed to comply except for partial days on two occasions. After taking sick days and undergoing surgery, Haggins was released by her doctor to return to work. Yet Haggins neither reported to work nor notified her supervisors that she would be out sick again. The company sent emails to Haggins inquiring about her return to work status, and she failed to respond. Consequently, Wilson Air terminated Haggins’ employment for job abandonment.
Haggins subsequently filed suit in Federal District Court against Wilson Air on claims of disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation under the ADA. The court granted the company’s motion for summary judgment, and Haggins appealed this decision to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Recognizing that employers are entitled to “considerable deference” in determining what job functions are essential to their business, the Fourth Circuit acknowledged that Wilson Air’s flexibility to offer full remote work to Haggins during the pandemic could not be sustained after the company’s business levels returned to normal and Haggins was needed to perform duties in the office. Even then, according to the Court, the company “frequently went beyond the ADA’s baseline in trying to accommodate Haggins” by offering her a hybrid work schedule which gave her the freedom to choose the days she would come into the office. Her ultimate refusal to accept that offer, or to otherwise communicate with the company about her return to work status, meant that Haggins “could not show up for work to perform her position’s essential functions.” As such, she was not a “qualified individual” with a disability under the ADA. Thus, the Court affirmed summary judgment in favor of Wilson Air regarding Haggins’ disability discrimination and failure to accommodate claims. (Summary judgment on her retaliation claim was affirmed on other grounds.)
The Fourth Circuit’s practical analysis of the facts in this case should be encouraging to employers who must navigate the complexities of ADA compliance. This process involves not only a careful analysis of the individual employee’s particular need for accommodation, but also the requirements of the business and the limits of what can reasonably be provided under the circumstances. Of course, employers have the right to decide what job functions are necessary and essential to their operations, and employers are not obligated to modify or reassign such essential functions when considering an individual’s request for accommodation. As part of the interactive process, employers should seek information from employees regarding their ability to perform essential job functions (with or without reasonable accommodation). Such information may indicate whether the employee is a “qualified individual” with a disability as of the time of the request.
Employers are urged to consult with experienced employment counsel when reviewing requests for accommodation under the ADA and other applicable laws.
