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
Supreme Court Clarifies Judicial Estoppel Standard in Bankruptcy Nondisclosure Cases
The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a rigid rule that often blocked debtors from pursuing claims they failed to disclose in bankruptcy. Courts must now look at the full circumstances before deciding whether an omission was intentional or an honest mistake.
Federal Court Hands Major Win to Tissue Product Manufacturers – FDA’s HCT/P Classification Decision for Umbilical Cord–Derived Product CORDGRAFT Rejected
On March 18, 2026, Chief Judge Brian C. Wimes of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri issued a significant decision overturning the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (“FDA”) classification of Vitti Labs’ umbilical cord–derived product, CORDGRAFT.
Science-Backed But Not FDA-Approved: New Lawsuit Challenges FDA’s Rejection of 114 Health-Related Advertising Claims
A new lawsuit challenges the FDA’s rejection of 114 health-related advertising claims for supplements, arguing that the agency’s narrow interpretation of what counts as an “authoritative statement” unfairly blocks science-backed—but not FDA-approved—claims from appearing on product labels.
When ChatGPT Lies: What the First Wave of AI Defamation Cases Means for Plaintiffs
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.