79 F. Supp. 3d 591
E.D. Va.2015Background
- Smith was Strayer University Loudoun Campus LRC Manager from 2007 until terminated Dec. 29, 2012; LRC staffing changes in 2012 led to extended evening hours.
- Smith asserted long‑standing seizure and anxiety disorders and claimed she informed Dean Corbi in 2012 that she could not work nights; she worked 1–10 p.m. shifts from Nov. 5–Dec. 29, 2012.
- On Nov. 6, 2012 Smith was placed on a 30‑day Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) for deficient presentations, customer service, and timekeeping; she submitted an informal accommodation request Dec. 4 and a formal request with medical documentation Dec. 18, 2012; the request was denied Dec. 20.
- Smith filed an EEOC charge June 18, 2013 (requested dual filing); she sued under the ADA asserting failure to accommodate, hostile work environment, discriminatory termination, and retaliation.
- The court applied the 300‑day limitations period (Virginia is a deferral state) and on summary judgment denied Strayer’s motion as to Count One (failure to accommodate) but granted summary judgment for Strayer on Counts Two (hostile work environment), Three (wrongful termination), and Four (retaliation).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to accommodate (Count One) — whether Smith was a "qualified individual" who could perform essential functions with accommodation | Smith: her seizure/anxiety disorders made night shifts medically unsafe; requested day shift would allow adequate sleep and avoid triggers | Strayer: evening work was an essential function of the LRCM and accommodating would impose operational hardship | Court: genuine factual dispute whether night work was an essential function; denial of summary judgment on Count One |
| Hostile work environment (Count Two) — whether workplace conduct was severe/pervasive disability‑based harassment | Smith: schedule changes, PIP, reassignment of staff, and denial of accommodation created hostile environment | Strayer: challenged acts are routine employment actions and not sufficiently severe or pervasive | Court: no objective evidence of severe or pervasive harassment; summary judgment for Strayer on Count Two |
| Wrongful termination/discrimination (Count Three) — whether termination was because of disability | Smith: termination was disability‑motivated / PIP pretextual | Strayer: legitimate nondiscriminatory reason — poor performance documented in reviews and PIP; Smith was not meeting expectations | Court: undisputed record of poor performance at termination; Smith failed to make prima facie showing; summary judgment for Strayer on Count Three |
| Retaliation (Count Four) — whether accommodation request caused adverse action | Smith: request for accommodation was protected activity and termination followed closely thereafter | Strayer: Smith filed formal request after PIP began and after she knew job was in jeopardy; no causal connection | Court: temporal proximity insufficient in context of prior documented poor performance; summary judgment for Strayer on Count Four |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (Sup. Ct. 1973) (framework for burden‑shifting in discrimination cases)
- Wilson v. Dollar General Corp., 717 F.3d 337 (4th Cir. 2013) (elements for failure‑to‑accommodate ADA claim)
- Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (Sup. Ct. 2002) (discrete acts vs. continuing hostile‑work‑environment and time‑bar rules)
- Fox v. General Motors Corp., 247 F.3d 169 (4th Cir. 2001) (standard for objective and subjective hostile‑work‑environment showing)
- St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (Sup. Ct. 1993) (role of employer’s articulated nondiscriminatory reason and plaintiff’s burden to show pretext)
- Martinson v. Kinney Shoe Corp., 104 F.3d 683 (4th Cir. 1997) (seizure disorder qualifies as a disability under the ADA)