An employee has been out for months. She’s still recovering, still hopeful, and still not ready to come back. How much leave is too much? A recent Fourth Circuit decision shows how courts evaluate the point at which an employer is no longer obligated to wait.
TL;DR: The Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for an employer that terminated an employee after six months of medical-related leave and no clear return-to-work date. The court held that none of the employee’s proposed accommodations—including unpaid leave, paid parental leave, or remote work—were reasonable. Without a viable accommodation, her disability discrimination and failure-to-accommodate claims failed.
🔗 Read the full decision (PDF)
Six Months of Leave—and Still No Return Date
The employee, a sales account executive, took 12 weeks of FMLA leave following a complicated C-section delivery. But a surgical complication (a severed ureter) led to infections, extended disability, and multiple surgeries. After her FMLA leave expired, she remained on short-term disability.
In late June, a Human Resources representative contacted her to ask about a return-to-work timeline. The employee confirmed that she still had a nephrostomy tube and had not yet been cleared to return. When the company explained that short-term disability benefits did not extend FMLA job protection, she responded, “Do you want to speak to my lawyer?”
After the call, she followed up by text:
“Please do not contact me regarding a return to work date when I have been classified as unable to return and still have short-term disability plus bonding leave.”
She also provided her lawyer’s contact information.
The company declined to speak with counsel but followed up in writing about a month later. The letter emphasized that she had been out since February, that her FMLA leave had expired, and that instructing the company not to contact her was “not acceptable.”
She responded on August 4, explaining that she remained under “intense care,” had surgery scheduled for August 8, and potentially another one in October. Nexstar terminated her effective August 19.
No Reasonable Accommodation = No Liability
Although the case was brought under a state law, the court’s reasoning closely mirrors how federal courts interpret the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Under the ADA, employees must identify a reasonable accommodation that would allow them to perform the essential functions of their job. The court evaluated three proposed accommodations—and rejected each:
- Unpaid Leave: The employee had already been out for six months and could not confirm a return-to-work date. The court found the request amounted to indefinite leave, which is not required under the ADA.
- Paid Parental Leave: The employee did not meet the company’s eligibility requirements. Even if she had, the additional leave would have further extended her absence without any definite end point.
- Remote Work: The court found that the employee was medically unable to work in any capacity—remotely or otherwise—at the time of her termination. Because of that, it did not need to consider whether remote work would have satisfied the essential functions of her role.
Because no viable accommodation existed, the failure-to-accommodate claim failed as a matter of law.
Disability Discrimination Claim Also Fell Short
To prove disability discrimination under the ADA, a plaintiff must show that they are a qualified individual with a disability—meaning someone who, with or without a reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the job. Since no reasonable accommodation existed—and she was unable to work in any capacity—the employee was not “qualified” at the time of her termination. Her discrimination claim failed on that basis.
Employer Takeaways
✅ There’s a limit to how long you have to wait (under the ADA). Federal law does not require employers to hold jobs open indefinitely—especially when the employee can’t provide a projected return date. But keep in mind: some state laws may impose broader accommodation requirements, so employers should assess both federal and state obligations before making a final decision.
✅ Disability benefits ≠ job protection. Receiving short-term disability does not extend ADA or FMLA protections.
✅ Remote work isn’t always required. Even if a job can be done remotely, employers are not required to offer it as an accommodation when the employee is medically unable to work.
✅ “Talk to my lawyer” isn’t how accommodations work. Employees don’t get to shut down HR by handing over a lawyer’s phone number. Employers have every right to continue communicating directly—especially when asking basic questions about return-to-work status or evaluating accommodations. The ADA doesn’t require you to play phone tag with someone’s attorney.
One more…
Extended leave can be a reasonable accommodation—but not always. This case shows how courts draw the line: when an employee cannot offer a projected return date and is medically unable to work in any capacity, the duty to accommodate ends.