Toni Works v. Nancy Berryhill, 686 F. App'x 192

Works, disabled with seizure disorder from 1985, was hired in 2002 into SSA's probationary program for disabled employees.
Her duties as a management assistant required in-office presence and data/workload analysis.
During 2002–2003, supervisors noted attendance and performance concerns; some socializing and leave were reported.
She suffered seizures in January, February, May, and July 2003, taking substantial disability-related and other leave.
Warner approved leave but noted ongoing issues with completing assignments and with attendance.
SSA terminated Works on August 8, 2003 for repetitive failure to complete work and excessive unscheduled leave; district court granted summary judgment for SSA; this appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Discrimination claim: Was Works a qualified individual under the Act?	Works was qualified; she could perform duties when present.	Excessive absenteeism prevented performance of essential functions; not qualified.	No; Works not a qualified individual due to inability to regularly attend work.
Retaliation claim: Was it preserved for review on appeal?	Challenge to retaliation ruling preserved in opening brief.	Claim abandoned; not preserved under Rule 28.	Abandoned; no review of retaliation.

Reynolds v. American National Red Cross, 701 F.3d 143 (4th Cir. 2012) (standards for prima facie discrimination and disability claims under the Act)
Hooven-Lewis v. Caldera, 249 F.3d 259 (4th Cir. 2001) (Rehabilitation Act/ADA standards; pretext and accommodation analysis)
Tyndall v. National Education Centers, Inc. of Cal., 31 F.3d 209 (4th Cir. 1994) (definition of “qualified individual” and essential functions; location of work)
Wilson v. Dollar General Corp., 717 F.3d 337 (4th Cir. 2013) (absence and inability to perform essential functions; leave rationales)
Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231 (4th Cir. 1999) (Rule 28 abandonment and preservation of claims on appeal)
A Helping Hand, LLC v. Baltimore County, 515 F.3d 356 (4th Cir. 2008) (preservation of issues under Rule 28)