Terri Cowgill v. First Data Technologies, Inc., 41 F.4th 370

Terri Cowgill worked as a call-center representative for First Data from 2004 until her termination on September 15, 2015; she had a largely positive disciplinary and performance history.
After a January 2015 car accident Cowgill sought and First Data approved intermittent FMLA leave (physician note: reduced schedule 4 hours/day, 3–5 days/week; leave intermittent to address flare-ups); Cowgill recertified leave in August 2015.
In February 2015 Cowgill received a Final Written Warning (FWW) for attendance; she notified HR that some absences were FMLA and the FWW was withdrawn.
In August 2015 Cowgill was placed on a 90-day Improvement Action Plan (IAP) after a July call was reviewed as call-avoidance; she received limited coaching. In September 2015 a subsequent call review led to termination for call avoidance.
Cowgill filed an EEOC charge alleging ADA discrimination (failure to accommodate, discipline, discharge); later sued in district court for ADA failure-to-accommodate, ADA disability discrimination, and ADA/FMLA retaliation. The district court dismissed the retaliation claim and granted summary judgment to First Data on the ADA claims.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment on failure-to-accommodate and the dismissal of retaliation but vacated and remanded summary judgment on the ADA disability-discrimination claim, finding genuine factual disputes about causation and pretext.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Failure-to-accommodate (ADA)	Cowgill requested a reduced schedule (4 hrs/day, 3–5 days/week) and First Data failed to implement a concrete reduced schedule.	First Data approved intermittent FMLA leave and Cowgill took leave when needed; she never requested a permanent or fixed reduced schedule to be put on the roster.	Affirmed for First Data: court concluded the approved intermittent FMLA constituted the requested accommodation and no refusal occurred.
Disability discrimination (termination)	Termination closely followed accommodation requests and withdrawn discipline; comparators were treated better and IAP procedures were not followed, showing pretext.	First Data: legitimate nondiscriminatory reason—termination for repeated call avoidance after IAP.	Vacated and remanded: genuine disputes exist whether Cowgill met legitimate expectations, temporal proximity and comparator evidence raise inference of discrimination and pretext.
Retaliation (ADA/FMLA)	Cowgill contends termination was retaliatory for seeking accommodation and FMLA leave.	First Data: Cowgill failed to exhaust administrative remedies; EEOC charge did not allege retaliation.	Affirmed for First Data: retaliation claim not reasonably related to EEOC charge and was unexhausted.

Wilson v. Dollar Gen. Corp., 717 F.3d 337 (4th Cir. 2013) (elements of an ADA failure-to-accommodate claim)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Jacobs v. N.C. Admin. Off. of the Cts., 780 F.3d 562 (4th Cir. 2015) (close temporal proximity can support inference of causation)
Haynes v. Waste Connections, Inc., 922 F.3d 219 (4th Cir. 2019) (employee meets employer expectations standard for prima facie case)
Sempowich v. Tactile Sys. Tech., Inc., 19 F.4th 643 (4th Cir. 2021) (recent positive employer evaluations can create issue whether employee met expectations)
Laing v. Federal Exp. Corp., 703 F.3d 713 (4th Cir. 2013) (comparators and relevance to pretext inquiry)
Cook v. CSX Transp. Corp., 988 F.2d 507 (4th Cir. 1993) (similarity of comparators in discrimination analysis)
Merritt v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc., 601 F.3d 289 (4th Cir. 2010) (employer may be viewed as seeking a pretextual reason to terminate)