The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that an employer must consider reassigning a disabled employee to a different role, even if the worker cannot perform the essential functions of their current position. The decision in Dieng v. Orkin, LLC creates a potential new hurdle for companies trying to deny disability accommodation requests.
A former pest control technician injured his knee on the job. His doctor advised him that he was physically unable to perform the duties of a technician but could handle less demanding work. The worker relayed this to his employer, but a manager told him no light-duty positions were available. The employee reportedly received no further follow-up. He remained on unpaid leave for 16 months before resigning.
Orkin won summary judgment on the employee’s claims of disability discrimination and failure-to-accommodate. The company argued that the employee could not perform the essential functions of his job and therefore did not need a different role. The district court agreed with this logic.
Related: July job losses signal tougher times ahead
The appellate court reversed that decision on the failure-to-accommodate claim. The panel found that a reasonable jury could have decided the employee was entitled to reassignment. The court likened the employer’s response of indefinite unpaid leave to “professional purgatory” and deemed it unreasonable.
Interactive Process and Vacant Roles
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, reassignment is typically considered an accommodation of last resort. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission generally requires that the new role be vacant, equivalent in pay and status, and that the employee be qualified for it. Employers are not required to train an employee to become qualified for a new role, but they must engage in an interactive process to find a solution.
In this case, the district court failed to analyze whether the employee could have performed the essential functions of a lower-level position he was qualified for. The 4th Circuit noted that the employee identified two roles—a customer service position and a sales representative role—that he could perform despite his injury. The record supported his assertions, and a former manager acknowledged he could have at least performed the customer service role.
Related: FMLA certifications can be verified before employer wait
The court also faulted Orkin for not engaging in the required interactive process. The plaintiff’s manager noted that he never received a response from the company’s human resources department about his request for light-duty work and never followed up. The court wrote that a reasonable jury could conclude the company ignored the repeated requests rather than discussing alternatives.
It is worth considering that while the ADA mandates employers consider accommodations, the practical burden of finding a suitable vacancy can be significant. This ruling suggests that courts will closely scrutinize employers who rely on indefinite unpaid leave or deny reassignment without a clear, documented interactive process.
Leave a Reply