Summary
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that genuine disputes of material fact existed as to whether Orkin failed to reasonably accommodate Ibrahima Dieng’s disability by not reassiging him to an available light-duty position and instead placing him on indefinite unpaid leave. The court vacated the grant of summary judgment on the failure-to-accommodate claim and remanded that claim for further proceedings. It affirmed summary judgment on Dieng’s disability-discrimination termination claim because he failed to exhaust administrative remedies.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether genuine disputes of material fact precluded summary judgment on Dieng's ADA failure-to-accommodate claim.
- Whether, for purposes of reassignment, Dieng had to show that he could perform the essential functions of his former pest-control-technician position or of the vacant position he sought.
- Whether indefinite unpaid leave was an effective reasonable accommodation under the circumstances.
- Whether Orkin's failure to engage in the ADA interactive process and failure to consider vacant light-duty positions could support liability.
- Whether Dieng exhausted administrative remedies for his ADA claim alleging unlawful termination or constructive discharge based on disability.
Holdings
- When a disabled employee seeks reassignment as a reasonable accommodation, the employee must show that he can perform the essential functions of the desired vacant position, not the essential functions of the position he can no longer perform.
- Keeping an employee on indefinite unpaid leave is not an effective reasonable accommodation where the employer knows the employee cannot return to the former position because of a continuing disability and available alternative positions may exist.
- An employer's failure to engage in good faith in the ADA interactive process can violate the ADA when a reasonable accommodation was possible, and the evidence here permitted a jury to find that Orkin failed to engage in that process.
- Dieng's ADA unlawful-termination or constructive-discharge claim was properly dismissed because he failed to exhaust that claim in an administrative charge before filing suit.
Key quotations
“We hold that it is not.” (at 10)
“As such, a futile or ineffective accommodation is no accommodation at all.” (at 15)
“Dieng is entitled to have a jury decide whether Orkin violated his right to a reasonable accommodation required by the ADA.” (at 19)
Factual background
Ibrahima Dieng worked for Orkin as a pest control technician until a February 2016 workplace knee injury left him unable to perform that physically demanding job. His physician cleared him for light-duty work subject to lifting and movement restrictions, and Dieng repeatedly asked Orkin to return him to a less physically demanding position. Orkin did not engage him in a meaningful discussion about his limitations or available positions, kept him on unpaid leave for sixteen months, and did not contact him about customer-service or sales vacancies that arose before he resigned. Dieng filed administrative charges alleging failure to accommodate but did not allege unlawful termination before filing suit.
Procedural history
Dieng filed an ADA action in the District of Maryland in February 2021 and amended his complaint in July 2021. After discovery, the district court granted Orkin summary judgment on both claims, concluding that Dieng could not perform the essential duties of his former position with reasonable accommodation, that indefinite unpaid leave was a reasonable accommodation, and that he voluntarily resigned. The Fourth Circuit vacated the judgment in part as to the failure-to-accommodate claim, affirmed it as to the unlawful-termination claim, and remanded for further proceedings.
Remand instructions
The district court must conduct further proceedings on Dieng's ADA failure-to-accommodate claim, including whether Orkin was obligated to reassign him to an available light-duty position and whether he could perform the essential functions of the desired position without undue hardship to Orkin. The unlawful-termination claim remains dismissed on exhaustion grounds.