Ms. Wonasue (true name) worked for her employer, the University of Maryland Alumni Association, as an executive manager. She became pregnant and started experiencing morning sickness. Ms. Wonasue was treated by her doctor for morning sickness and had to go to a hospital’s emergency room on at least one occasion. She was diagnosed as having hyperemesis of pregnancy, a severe form of ’morning sickness, where the vomiting is excessive and may cause dehydration and chemical imbalances in the body. She then asked her employer if she could work from home, at least occasionally, due to her sickness. She also complained to the employer about discriminating against her due to a claimed disability. The employer refused Ms. Wonasue’s request to work from home occasionally when feeling ill and, in writing, cautioned Ms. Wonasue with a reminder of her job duties, with an emphasis on being in the office full-time . . . from 8:30 to 5:00” and a warning that she “would have to think about what she wanted to do” if she could not “commit herself fully.” After getting this response, Ms. Wonasue and filed a lawsuit, in part, alleging that she was discriminated against because of her disability and retaliated against. She also claimed that she was constructively discharged, or forced to quit, because of the retaliation. The court case is Wonasue v. University of Maryland Alumni Association. The Maryland federal court ruled that Ms. Wonasue could not state a claim for disability discrimination essentially because her illness was not severe enough to constitute a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court held that she had “not put forth sufficient evidence to lead a reasonable jury to conclude that she had an impairment that substantially limit[ed] any major life activity, such as work.” The Maryland federal court noted that, based on different facts with more severe complications or side effects, morning illness could be held to be a disability. Although Ms. Wonasue lost on her disability discrimination claim, the Maryland federal court did find that she had presented sufficient evidence to go to trial on her retaliation claim. There were two contested issues on the retaliation claim: (1) whether the employer’s refusal to allow Ms. Wonasue to work from home was an “adverse employment action”; and (2) whether Ms. Wonasue was constructively discharged when she resigned after her employer’s refusal to allow her to work from home and implied that her job would be in jeopardy if she did not follow its directives. On the first issue, the court found that that the denial of a request to work from home, made by an employee experiencing pregnancy complications, may constitute an adverse employment action. Other courts have also found have found denials of requests for sick leave to be adverse employment actions where claimants consequently were not paid for their days off. On the second issue, the federal court in Maryland held that there was sufficient evidence of constructive discharge for a jury to have to decide. The court determined that the employer's statement that Ms. Wonasue needed to think about her future if she could not commit fully to her job could be construed as a verbal warning. This statement, when added to the denial of her request to work from home or take leave, “might well have dissuaded” a reasonable worker from making or supporting a discrimination charge. Based on this, the court allowed the employee’s retaliation claim to proceed even though the employee was not disabled and was not entitled to an accommodation at the time of her request. So a few lessons here for the employee. Even though an underlying discrimination claim can fail, an employee can still prevail on a retaliation claim. Additionally, morning sickness and pregnancy related conditions can still constitute a protected disability as long as the employee can establish sufficient facts.
