91 F.4th 158
4th Cir.2024Background
- Laura Tartaro-McGowan, a clinical manager with Inova Home Health, LLC, was terminated after refusing to perform direct patient care field visits due to chronic knee arthritis, particularly during a COVID-19-induced staff shortage.
- She requested accommodation under the ADA to be fully exempt from direct patient care but was instead offered the option to select field visits she felt capable of performing, which she rejected.
- Tartaro-McGowan was ultimately terminated after failing to make any field visits and clearing out her office; another staff member who refused field visits was also terminated.
- She sued Inova Home Health for failure to accommodate, discrimination, and retaliation under the ADA; the district court granted summary judgment to defendants on all claims.
- On appeal, she argued that direct patient care was not an essential job function during the emergency, and that the offered accommodation was inadequate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to Accommodate | Accommodation to fully exempt from patient care was required | Offered reasonable accommodations short of full exemption | No reasonable jury could find the accommodation was unreasonable; affirmed |
| Discrimination under ADA | Discharge was based on disability and not meeting essential duties | Discharged for not meeting legitimate expectations/warnings | Plaintiff not meeting employer's expectations; no inference of disability |
| Retaliation under ADA | Firing closely followed request for accommodation | Legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for discharge | No evidence of pretext; affirmed summary judgment for defendant |
| Essential Job Function (Summary Judgment) | Jury should decide if direct care was essential | Undisputed that care was required during staff shortage | Assumed not essential, but reasonableness of accommodation dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Elledge v. Lowe’s Home Ctrs., LLC, 979 F.3d 1004 (4th Cir. 2020) (employer discretion in choosing among reasonable accommodations)
- Reyazuddin v. Montgomery Cnty., 789 F.3d 407 (4th Cir. 2015) (no right to employee's preferred accommodation so long as employer's is reasonable)
- Rohan v. Networks Presentations LLC, 375 F.3d 266 (4th Cir. 2004) (prima facie ADA discrimination requirements)
- Jacobs v. N.C. Admin. Off. of the Cts., 780 F.3d 562 (4th Cir. 2015) (burden-shifting and pretext in ADA retaliation)