Why an Open Job Beats Unpaid Leave When an Employee Can Work

The employee asked his manager about less physically demanding jobs. The manager offered to contact the risk department, then could not remember whether he ever did.

---

TL;DR: The Fourth Circuit revived an employee’s ADA accommodation claim after his employer kept him on unpaid leave while filling customer service and sales positions he claimed he could perform. The employer preserved its separate victory on his discharge claim because his discrimination charges did not cover his resignation.

📄 Read the Fourth Circuit’s opinion

---

The district court granted the employer summary judgment on both claims. In a published August 5, 2026 decision, the Fourth Circuit vacated that ruling on the accommodation claim but affirmed it on the discharge claim.

Cleared to Work, Then Stuck on Unpaid Leave

The employee worked as a pest control technician, a physically demanding job requiring him to lift over fifty pounds. After injuring his knee, his doctor cleared him for less demanding work with a twenty-pound lifting limit and other physical restrictions.

He texted and emailed his manager about light-duty work. His manager said he would have someone from the risk department contact him, but could not recall whether he followed through.

Nobody contacted the employee to discuss his restrictions or potential openings. Meanwhile, the employer filled customer service and sales positions nearby. His manager knew of no reason the employee could not perform customer service.

The employee filed a charge of disability discrimination in March 2017, amended it in May, and resigned that June after sixteen months on leave. Both charges alleged a failure to accommodate; neither mentioned termination.

An Accommodation Has to Accomplish Something

The court explained that reassignment can be a reasonable accommodation when an employee cannot perform the original job. The relevant question is whether the employee can perform the essential functions of the available position.

The plaintiff’s ability to perform customer service work drew little dispute. The sales positions were more complicated: written descriptions included lifting up to sixty pounds, but testimony indicated the physical demands varied. The majority held that a jury could decide whether the plaintiff could handle those jobs; one judge disagreed.

Unpaid leave may be reasonable in some circumstances. Here, however, the employer knew the employee could not return to his old position, and the leave did nothing to help him work again. Potential openings existed, but nobody discussed them with him.

The discharge claim failed for a different reason. Because both discrimination charges preceded the employee’s resignation and addressed only accommodation, they did not preserve a separate discharge claim.

The employer could have addressed available openings, actual job duties, pay, and location through a timely conversation. Instead, those unresolved questions helped turn reassignment into a dispute for trial.

What This Reassignment Dispute Means for Employers

Unpaid leave needs a realistic connection to returning to work

Leave can be reasonable when it gives an employee time to recover. When medical information rules out returning to the original job, revisit whether an existing vacancy offers an effective alternative.

Accurate job descriptions make reassignment decisions more defensible

Job descriptions should reflect what employees actually do, including which physical demands are essential and how often they occur. When an employee requests reassignment, compare those actual requirements with the employee’s restrictions to determine whether an available position is a realistic fit.

Vacancies at other locations may still be viable

A position does not become unsuitable simply because it is farther away or pays less than the employee’s previous job. Before ruling out an otherwise appropriate vacancy, ask whether the employee would accept the longer commute or lower pay.

The discrimination charge can limit the claims that follow

Compare a later lawsuit with the charge’s dates and alleged conduct. Here, the employer defeated the discharge claim because neither charge addressed the resignation.

The employee spent sixteen months on leave. Even after he was cleared to work, nobody discussed the jobs that opened.