Client Alerts & Insights
Severson Stands: Long-Term Leaves of Absence are No Longer Reasonable Accommodations Under the ADA
April 6, 2018
Management-side attorneys and their clients can breathe a sigh of relief after the Supreme Court declined to take up a challenge to the Seventh Circuit’s ruling in Severson v. Heartland Woodcraft, Inc. 872 F.3d 476 (7th Cir. 2017). In Severson, the Seventh Circuit clarified employers’ obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) when it ruled that multi-month leaves of absence are not reasonable accommodations.
A brief summary: Heartland Woodcraft terminated Mr. Severson after he did not return to work from a 12-week medical leave of absence under the Family Medical Leave Act and, instead, requested an additional two to three months of leave. Mr. Severson sued, alleging that Heartland Woodcraft violated the ADA by failing to reasonably accommodate his disability. The Seventh Circuit upheld summary judgment for Heartland Woodcraft, finding that a long term medical leave of absence falls outside of the scope of a reasonable accommodation because it does not enable an employee to work, but instead “excuses his not working.” The court left open the possibility that “intermittent time off or a short leave—say, a couple of days, or even a couple of weeks—may, in appropriate circumstances, be analogous to a part-time or modified work schedule.”
What does this mean?: With the denial of Mr. Severson’s petition for writ of certiorari, the Seventh Circuit’s per se rule that a long-term leave of absence cannot be a reasonable accommodation stands. While employers in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin should still engage in the interactive process when receiving employee requests for accommodation and look for accommodations that will allow the employee to do his or her job, this means that employers no longer need to guess at how long they are obligated to hold a job open for an absent employee.
For more information on this topic, please contact a member of Benesch’s Labor & Employment Practice Group:
Eric Baisden at ebaisden@beneschlaw.com or 216.363.4676.
Margo Wolf O’Donnell at modonnell@beneschlaw.com or 312.212.4982.
Latest News
Nobody—Not Even Einstein—Has Figured Out What Causes Gravity, but You Need to if You Are Facing a Putative Consumer Class Action in the 9th Circuit
The common argument made by plaintiffs that differences in alleged misrepresentations are transcended by the center of the gravity of the alleged fraud should not be addressed through the typical approach of just comparing the level of variance of the representations in the case at issue with that in the relevant precedent.
The Faster Labor Contracts Act Would Permit Federal Government to Impose Union Contract Terms on Employers
The federal government may soon be able to impose the terms of first collective bargaining agreements (“CBAs”) on private sector employers and unions.
Going Back to the “Well”: Plaintiffs Target Wellness Branding by Attacking Ingredients
Plaintiffs are increasingly targeting food and beverage companies’ “wellness” and “free-from” marketing claims, focusing on ingredient-level details that allegedly contradict broad statements on the labels.
The CFTC’s New Cooperation Playbook: What Practitioners Need to Know About Letter No. 26-15
In a recent Staff Advisory to the Enforcement Division , the Commodities and Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) released guidance on how companies can avoid enforcement actions—or receive substantial penalty reductions—through early and full disclosure of potential misconduct.