Wonasue v. University of Maryland Alumni Ass'n, 984 F. Supp. 2d 480

Background

Sylvia Wonasue, UMAA executive manager, sought to work from home or take leave in mid-January 2010 after an ER visit that diagnosed hyperemesis of pregnancy, hypokalemia, and dehydration; ER discharge papers advised bed rest and potassium supplementation but included a work release stating “return to work 01/15/2010 — restrictions: None.”
On January 15, 2010 Wonasue told supervisor Danita Nias she was pregnant, had been sick, had been to the hospital, and that the doctor advised bed rest; she offered the ER paperwork which Nias refused to review and denied the work-from-home request, emphasizing the need for a full-time in-office assistant.
Wonasue resigned on January 19, 2010 and later had further pregnancy complications and a physician-ordered bed rest extending months after her resignation.
Wonasue sued UMAA and Nias asserting claims under the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, Maryland employment-discrimination law (failure to accommodate, discriminatory/constructive discharge), Rehabilitation Act retaliation, and FMLA interference; some claims were previously dismissed or withdrawn, leaving Counts I–IV and VIII at summary judgment.
Defendants moved for summary judgment unopposed; the court must still determine whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on the submitted record.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Wonasue had a "disability" under ADA/Rehab Act/Maryland law	Pregnancy complications (hyperemesis, ER treatment, doctor-advised bed rest) substantially limited major life activities, so she was disabled	Pregnancy and routine morning sickness are not disabilities; ER released her to work without restrictions and any impairment was temporary and non-limiting	Court: No disability shown at time of request/resignation; summary judgment for defendants on Counts I–III (ADA, Rehabilitation Act, Maryland law) granted
Failure to accommodate / discriminatory constructive discharge	Nias denied reasonable accommodation (work from home / leave), changed duties and schedule, forcing constructive discharge	Employer denied a request but did not force intolerable conditions; no physician-ordered bed rest at the time; resignation was voluntary	Court: Plaintiff failed to show constructive discharge; failure-to-accommodate/discharge claims require a disability — summary judgment granted for Counts I–III
Retaliation under the Rehabilitation Act (Count IV) — adverse action element	Denial of work-from-home or leave and Nias’s warning about full-time office commitment were materially adverse and could deter protected activity	Denial was not an adverse employment action and did not foreclose other accommodations	Court: Triable issue exists — denial plus warning could be materially adverse; employer offered no non-retaliatory reason for denial; summary judgment denied as to Count IV
FMLA interference (Count VIII) — eligibility/coverage and harm	ER diagnosis (hyperemesis) qualifies as serious health condition; UMAA (or integrated employer with UMCP) employed sufficient staff to be an FMLA-covered employer; denial prejudiced her	UMAA had fewer than 50 employees so was not covered; impairment was not a serious health condition; no harm because Wonasue quit the next day	Court: Employee’s condition qualified for FMLA; factual issues about integration/employer size preclude summary judgment on coverage, but plaintiff showed no prejudice during employment period — interference claim dismissed (summary judgment granted as to Count VIII)

Key Cases Cited

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard and burdens)
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (retaliation: materially adverse standard)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Doe v. Univ. of Md. Med. Sys. Corp., 50 F.3d 1261 (Fourth Circuit: elements for ADA/Rehabilitation Act employment claims)
Rohan v. Networks Presentations, LLC, 375 F.3d 266 (definition of disability under ADA/Rehabilitation Act)
Pollard v. High’s of Baltimore, Inc., 281 F.3d 462 (what constitutes a substantial limitation for major life activities)
Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc., 535 U.S. 81 (FMLA remedies and prejudice requirement)
Honor v. Booz Allen & Hamilton, Inc., 383 F.3d 180 (constructive discharge standard)