Search
The Employer Handbook Blog
She Asked for Unpaid Leave as a Disability Accommodation. Her Employer Offered 240 Paid Hours Instead. đ±
An accommodation does not become unreasonable merely because the employee would rather save it for vacations and family emergencies.
TL;DR: A federal employee experiencing depression and cardiac arrhythmia requested unpaid leave, a lateral transfer, or other help. Her employer offered flexible use of approximately 240 hours of accrued paid leave and, when no comparable position was available, a lower-level job. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the employer because the employee received reasonable options, even if they were not the ones she preferred.
đ Read the courtâs decision
A promotion brought more responsibility and more stress
The employee had worked for a federal agency in a GS-7 position before a desk audit led to her promotion to GS-9. Both positions required her to use a financial system, but after the promotion, she said that the system and her increased responsibilities worsened her clinical depression and cardiac arrhythmia.
She repeatedly asked for unpaid leave, a lateral transfer, or anything else that would help. Her supervisors offered an office with a window and flexible use of approximately 240 hours of accrued annual and sick leave.
She wanted to preserve that leave for vacations and family emergencies. Meanwhile, no comparable GS-9 position for which she was qualified became available.
The only available transfer came with a demotion
After the employee experienced chest pains, her cardiologist reportedly told her to choose between her health and remaining in the GS-9 job. Her supervisors said the only available transfer was her former GS-7 position.
She accepted the lower-level job. It did not involve the financial system, and her symptoms improved. She later argued that the agency had failed to accommodate her and that she had been coerced into requesting the demotion.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the employer. Although the case arose under the Rehabilitation Act, the court applied ADA accommodation standards.
Reasonable did not have to mean preferred
The court focused on what the employee needed: time away from work-related stress. Paid leave supplied that time. Whether leave was paid or unpaid did not affect its usefulness, and her desire to save it was unrelated to her medical conditions.
Her other requests did not change the result. A request for unspecified âhelpâ was not sufficiently specific, and the employer did not have to create a comparable position or displace another employee to provide a lateral transfer.
The demotion was not coercive either. She knew for weeks that no comparable position was available, had paid leave as an alternative, accepted the GS-7 position, and experienced improved symptoms afterward.
The employer prevailed because the available accommodations addressed the employeeâs limitations and the record showed that no comparable vacancy existed. HR should develop that record before rejecting an employeeâs preferred accommodation.
Four lessons from an accommodation the employee did not want
A workable first choice may be worth granting
An employer may select among effective accommodations. But if the employeeâs preferred option is reasonable and causes no meaningful operational difficulty, granting it may be the cleanest path. Choosing a different accommodation can create an avoidable dispute over whether the alternative actually worked.
An effective accommodation can come from an existing leave policy
An employer need not create disability-specific leave when its existing program addresses the employeeâs limitation. But compare what the employee medically needs with what the available leave provides.
Reassignment depends on a real, vacant position
Reassignment does not require creating a job, displacing another employee, or transferring someone into a position for which the person is unqualified. HR should identify and document the vacancies considered, their qualifications, and why they do or do not work.
âAnything that would helpâ should start a conversation
The court held that an undefined request for help did not trigger a duty to provide a particular accommodation. Still, treating vague language as an invitation to clarify the employeeâs limitations and possible solutions is usually better HR practice than ending the discussion there.
The bottom line
Every accommodation discussion presents an opportunity to find a solution that supports the employee and works for the organization. Employers that listen carefully, evaluate real options, and stay flexible give that process its best chance to succeed.