“From Disability to Limitation”: Fourth Circuit Re-defines the Employer’s Duty of Notice in ADA Accommodations
Commentary on Sally W. Tarquinio v. Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, 66 F.4th ___ (4th Cir. 25 June 2025)

1. Introduction

The Fourth Circuit’s published opinion in Tarquinio v. Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab arrives amid a wave of COVID-19 vaccination litigation, but its reach extends far beyond pandemic-specific disputes. Chief Judge Diaz, writing for a unanimous panel, confronts a perennial ambiguity in Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) jurisprudence: what exactly must an employer “know” before the statutory duty to accommodate arises? The court clarifies that notice must encompass the nexus between disability and work-limiting condition, not mere awareness of a medical diagnosis. The decision also recalibrates the role of the “interactive process,” rejecting the reflexive notion that whoever “caused a breakdown” automatically loses.

The dispute originated when Sally Tarquinio, an engineer diagnosed with “Lyme-induced immune dysregulation,” declined Johns Hopkins APL’s COVID-19 vaccination mandate, requested a medical exemption, and withheld access to her treating physicians. After termination, she sued under the ADA for failure to accommodate, discriminatory discharge, and unlawful medical examination. The district court granted summary judgment for the Lab; the Fourth Circuit affirms— but, importantly, reshapes the underlying doctrinal framework.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• Holding: An employer’s duty to provide a reasonable accommodation is triggered only when the employer has notice not merely of the employee’s disability, but of work-related limitations stemming from that disability that require accommodation. Because Ms. Tarquinio prevented the employer from understanding the alleged limitation, her claim fails.
• Interactive Process Re-framed: The interactive process is a means to determine duty and accommodation, not an end in itself. A “breakdown” is relevant only insofar as it links to an element of the ADA claim (e.g., employer’s refusal) or negates it (lack of notice).
• Disposition: Summary judgment for Johns Hopkins APL is affirmed on all counts; only the failure-to-accommodate theory is substantively addressed on appeal.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Key authorities shaping the court’s reasoning include:

• Wilson v. Dollar General Corp., 717 F.3d 337 (4th Cir. 2013) – Earlier decision linking employer participation in the interactive process to the “refusal” element. Tarquinio narrows Wilson by stressing that the process also serves a threshold notice function.
• Rhoads v. FDIC, 257 F.3d 373 (4th Cir. 2001) – Source of the familiar four-part failure-to-accommodate test. The panel explains that Rhoads’ “notice of disability” prong “elides a necessary element,” prompting this doctrinal refinement.
• EEOC v. Prevo’s Family Market, 135 F.3d 1089 (6th Cir. 1998) – Cited for the proposition that employers may legitimately request documentation to confirm the need for accommodation.
• Multi-circuit consensus cases: Jackson v. City of Chicago (7th Cir.), Taylor v. Phoenixville Sch. Dist. (3d Cir.), Stewart v. St. Elizabeths Hosp. (D.C. Cir.). These cases reinforce that an employee who withholds essential medical information undermines the accommodation claim.
• U.S. Supreme Court touchstones: US Airways v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391 (2002) (purpose of accommodations), and Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment burden).

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Re-conceptualising the Notice Element
   The ADA text—42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A)—speaks of “known physical or mental limitations.” The court therefore inserts an additional analytical step: the employer must know both (a) the disability and (b) the way in which it substantially limits the employee’s capacity to perform essential job functions or to enjoy equal employment opportunities.
2. Function of the Interactive Process
   a. Dual Purpose: (i) to tailor an accommodation, and (ii) to verify that an accommodation is legally required.
   b. No Automatic Liability or Immunity: A mere “breakdown” does not resolve the case; parties must link the breakdown to an ADA element (duty or refusal). Consequently, the district court’s earlier shorthand “employee caused the breakdown, employer wins” is replaced with a more nuanced inquiry.
3. Application to Facts
   • Lab requested updated documentation → reasonable.
   • Employee refused to release records or permit contact with physicians → employer lacked critical information connecting Lyme disease to vaccination contra-indication.
   • No statutory duty arose → (absence of element (iv) “employer refused” and element (ii) “notice of limitation”).

3.3 Impact and Forward-Looking Consequences

Practical Compliance Guidance
• Employers may, without fear of violating the ADA, require sufficiently tailored medical documentation to verify the need for accommodation.
• Employees (and counsel) must be prepared to articulate how a disability limits them with respect to the requested accommodation; a diagnosis alone is insufficient.

Litigation Strategy
• Motions for summary judgment will now probe the “limitation notice” issue. Employers can defeat claims early by showing lack of information linking disability to work limitation.
• Plaintiffs must emphasize contemporaneous documentation and open cooperation during the interactive process.

Broader Doctrinal Shift
• The Fourth Circuit aligns with a growing multi-circuit trend (D.C., Sixth, Seventh) that privileges the limitation-notice concept.
• Potential Supreme Court interest: the opinion explicitly acknowledges tension with the terse Rhoads framework, creating a ripe question concerning uniformity among circuits.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Disability vs. Limitation: A disability is the diagnosed impairment; a limitation is the practical effect (e.g., inability to stand for long periods). The ADA requires accommodating limitations, not disabilities in the abstract.
• Interactive Process: A collaborative dialogue (often by email, forms, or meetings) where employer and employee clarify (i) limitations, (ii) possible accommodations, and (iii) feasibility/undue hardship.
• Reasonable Accommodation: A modification enabling the employee to perform essential job functions or enjoy equal employment opportunity, unless it imposes “undue hardship” (significant difficulty or expense) on the employer.
• Summary Judgment Standard (Rule 56): Case can be decided without trial when no genuine dispute of material fact exists and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
• COVID-19 Vaccination Mandates & Federal Contractors: Executive Order 14,042 (since rescinded) required federal contractors to impose vaccination policies; the Lab’s mandate flowed from this federal directive, adding a compliance dimension to the accommodation analysis.

5. Conclusion

Tarquinio clarifies—and arguably re-writes—the Fourth Circuit’s ADA accommodation doctrine by insisting that an employer’s legal duty hinges on knowledge of work-related limitations, not bare awareness of a diagnosis. The opinion recasts the interactive process as a tool both for identifying accommodations and for confirming whether any duty attaches in the first place. Practitioners representing employees must now ensure that medical evidence explicitly ties requested accommodations to functional limitations, while employers gain firmer footing to request such evidence. In sum, this precedent underscores a central ADA theme: communication is mandatory, but it must be sufficiently informative to activate statutory obligations.