Fourth Circuit Holds That Uncertainty in Return to Work Date is Unreasonable Request for Indefinite Leave

Introduction

This past summer, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit — a federal appeals court that governs West Virginia, Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, and South Carolina — considered a tale as old as time: An employer, Nexstar Media, was sued by a former employee, Leanna Coffman, who was fired while out on leave. As is often the case, there was much more to this tale, requiring an untangling of rights and obligations arising under West Virginia’s state antidiscrimination law (co-extensive with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)) and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). As human resources professionals know too well, navigating the panoply of overlapping and distinct responsibilities that arise under the ADA and FMLA is no easy feat. At the intersection of the ADA and FMLA is the question that often confounds employers: What happens when an employee cannot return to work after the period of 12 weeks of FMLA leave is exhausted? And if additional leave is given, how much is reasonable as an accommodation under the ADA? The Fourth Circuit addressed these questions and reaffirmed that employers do not have an obligation to provide indefinite leave as a reasonable accommodation.

Facts

Coffman served as an account executive at Nexstar. In 2021, she became pregnant with twins and was diagnosed with placenta previa, necessitating bedrest. Nexstar approved her request to work remotely during this period. On February 23, 2022, Coffman delivered twins by cesarean section and commenced a 12-week FMLA leave. During the procedure, she experienced ureter damage that required multiple surgeries and resulted in significant pain and mobility limitations. Coffman asserted that she requested remote work accommodations between mid-April and May, which was disputed by Nexstar. Coffman’s FMLA leave concluded on May 17, but she continued to receive short-term disability benefits.

As of June 28, Nexstar had not received medical clearance for Coffman to return to work. When contacted regarding her availability, Coffman reported she was not yet able to resume work and asked Nexstar to refrain from further inquiries about her return. On August 4, Coffman notified Nexstar of a scheduled surgery on August 8, which would require four to six weeks of recovery, with the possibility of an additional procedure in October. Indeed, the best estimation Coffman could offer about her return to work date was that she would “probably” be released to work in “September or October.” On August 15, following nearly six months of absence, Nexstar terminated Coffman’s employment.

Coffman sued in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, alleging three West Virginia Human Rights Act (WVHRA) violations — failure to accommodate, discriminatory discharge, and retaliatory discharge — and one FMLA claim for retaliatory discharge. Nexstar sought summary judgment on all counts, which the District Court granted, citing Coffman’s ongoing inability or unwillingness to work despite six months of leave and her failure to show any reasonable accommodation existed that would have permitted her to perform her job duties. Coffman appealed.

Indefinite Leave is Not a Reasonable Accommodation

The Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the employer on all counts. In doing so, the Court first unpacked Coffman’s failure to accommodate claim under the WVHRA. The Court observed that a failure to accommodate claim must be predicated on the existence of a reasonable accommodation that the employer allegedly failed to provide. Here, none of Coffman’s proposed accommodations (unpaid leave, paid parental leave, and remote work) were reasonable on their face. Unpaid leave was not reasonable because Coffman had been absent for six months and could not provide an approximate return date, making it essentially a request for indefinite leave. The Fourth Circuit explained that requests for unpaid leave with no level of certainty as to whether an employee can return to work “at any point in the near future” are unreasonable accommodation requests. Importantly, the Court held that while a precise return to work date is not necessary, Coffman’s inability to be more specific than “probably … September or October” was far too uncertain to be reasonable.

The Court also held that paid parental leave was not reasonable for the same reason and because Coffman did not qualify for the program, and remote work was not reasonable because the record demonstrated Coffman was unable to work in any capacity during her recovery.

Finding that no reasonable accommodation existed that would have allowed Coffman to perform her duties was the death knell to Coffman’s discriminatory discharge claim under the WVHRA. Without any showing of a “reasonable accommodation” available to her, Coffman thus failed to show that she was even a “qualified individual with a disability” within the meaning of the WVHRA. Similarly, the Court made quick work of Coffman’s retaliatory discharge claim on that same basis. Because the proposed accommodations discussed above were not reasonable, Coffman’s requests for them were not considered “protected activity.” Finally, turning to Coffman’s FMLA claim, the Court was not persuaded that the three-month gap between her FMLA leave and the termination of her employment suggested any causal connection between the two.

Bottom Line

The Fourth Circuit’s analysis reinforces two important principles. First, the viability of many disability claims under the ADA and related state law hinges on whether the proposed workplace accommodation is reasonable. Without a finding of reasonableness — which, of course, is always a case-by-case determination — the employee cannot prevail.

Second, and the more practical takeaway for employers, is that paid or unpaid leave for an indefinite period of time while an employee recovers from or receives treatment for a medical condition or disability is not a reasonable accommodation. In the Coffman case, the fact that the employee had already been on leave for six months, with another surgery and prolonged recovery potentially on the horizon, swayed the Court that the amount of leave requested was undetermined and her return to work date was far from certain.

Employers should take care to participate meaningfully in the interactive process to determine how much leave beyond the FMLA will be required and whether the employee can identify a return to work date with reasonable certainty. For questions, please reach out to Steptoe & Johnson’s Employment Litigation Team or the author of this alert.