In Anderson v. Discovery Communications, 8:08-cv-02424, 2013 WL 1364345 (4th Cir. Apr. 5, 2013), the Fourth Circuit affirmed a decision from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granting summary judgment to Discovery and a cadre of individual defendants on claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Montgomery County Human Rights Act (MCHRA), and Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
Though unremarkable in and of itself, the case provides a reminder to employers: document employee performance. Consistent documentary support of performance reviews and discipline carries significant weight as legitimate reasons for discharge.
The Plaintiff, Victoria Anderson, was employed by Discovery as an attorney from August 2004 to January 2007. Anderson received positive feedback regarding her legal skills, however, she was repeatedly instructed to improve “in areas such as ‘effectively organizing, planning, and prioritizing work,’ working on her demeanor and tone, and in developing her interpersonal skills with both colleagues and clients.”
In 2006, Anderson was granted FMLA leave due to a sleep impairment, which was later determined to stem from fatigue, sleep deprivation, and insomnia. Near the end of her FMLA leave, Anderson’s personal doctor recommended that she return to full duty with a restriction of eight hours each day. Anderson’s sleep specialist, on the other hand, placed “no restrictions” on Anderson’s ability to work, concluding that she was not significantly impaired.
Anderson returned to work, requested an eight-hour work day, and submitted—pursuant to Discovery’s request—a proposal whereby she would work only five hours. Discovery denied this request, concluding that Anderson would be unable to perform her job with such limited hours. Discovery terminated Anderson’s employment on January 3, 2007.
On Anderson’s ADA claim, the court concluded that there was insufficient support that she was substantially impaired—Anderson’s condition had improved, she was functioning normally, and one of her doctor’s reported that her condition did not justify placing her on disability. Anderson’s MCHRA claims were analyzed under the same analysis.
As for the retaliation claim, Discovery provided legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the termination—Anderson submitted inaccurate time sheets and continuously failed to improve her communication with others in the workplace. Anderson’s FMLA claim failed for the same reason. Discovery set forth consistent, legitimate, and non-discriminatory reasons for the discharge that Anderson failed to rebut.