Going Beyond Leave: When Employers May Need to Consider Reassignment as a Reasonable Accommodation

September 29, 2026

Last month, a 3-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Dieng v. Orkin, LLC, No. 25-1221 (4th Cir. Aug. 5, 2026) overturned a lower court decision dismissing an employee’s Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) failure-to-accommodate claim after his employer kept him on indefinite unpaid leave despite his requests for reassignment to a light-duty position. 

The Dieng panel emphasized that a reasonable accommodation must be effective, reasoning that an ineffective accommodation is no accommodation at all. Although keeping an employee in their existing position is generally preferable, the Court explained that when a disability prevents an employee from returning to or remaining in their original position, the employer must consider whether the employee can work in a different position without creating an undue hardship. Because indefinite unpaid leave did not enable the employee to perform the essential functions of his job or provide a pathway for him to return to work, the panel concluded that it was not an effective accommodation. 

If an employee can no longer perform their existing job because of a disability, an employer may need to consider reassignment to an available light-duty position the employee can perform as a reasonable accommodation.

What Does the Law Require in Oregon and Washington?

While Fourth Circuit decisions are not binding on employers in Oregon and Washington, courts within the Ninth Circuit have applied similar principles.

Ninth Circuit precedent recognizes reassignment to a vacant position as a potential reasonable accommodation where an employee can no longer perform their existing job duties. In Dark v. Curry County, an employee with epilepsy could no longer safely perform the heavy-equipment duties of his existing position and the employee proposed reassignment to several other positions he believed he could perform. The Ninth Circuit held that an employee may still be a “qualified individual” under the ADA if the employee can perform the essential functions of a reassignment position, even if the employee can no longer perform the essential functions of their current position. Dark v. Curry County, 451 F.3d 1078, 1089-90 (9th Cir. 2006). 

The duty to accommodate does not end with an employer’s first attempt. Rather, it is a “continuing” duty that is “not exhausted by one effort,” and an employer must continue the interactive process when an employee requests a different accommodation or the employer becomes aware that the initial accommodation is not working. Humphrey v. Memorial Hospitals Ass’n., 239 F.3d 1128, 1138 (9th Cir. 2001).

Considerations For Employers

Although reassignment may be an appropriate accommodation under the ADA, employers should consider whether an employee has separate job-restoration rights under other applicable laws before moving the employee into a different position.

Those protections vary by statute and may provide greater job protection than the ADA. For example, an eligible employee returning from Paid Leave Oregon generally must be restored to the position the employee held before going on leave, if that position still exists. If the position no longer exists, the employee is generally entitled to an available equivalent position with equivalent benefits, pay, and other terms of employment. ORS 657B.060(1)(a).

These restoration protections may limit an employer’s ability to reassign an employee to a lower-level or lower-paying position even where such reassignment might otherwise constitute a reasonable accommodation under the ADA.

Key Takeaways

For Oregon and Washington employers, these decisions serve as a reminder that the accommodation process should remain ongoing when an employee cannot return to their existing position and that providing indefinite unpaid leave alone may not satisfy their obligations under the ADA. 

Reassignment, however, should not be considered in isolation. Before reassigning an employee – particularly to a lower-level or lower-paying position – employers should also consider whether FMLA, Paid Leave Oregon, OFLA, Washington Paid Family and Medical Leave, workers’ compensation laws, or another applicable law provides the employee with separate reinstatement or job-restoration rights. 

Given the complexity of this topic, consider contacting qualified employment counsel to help avoid a potential larger issue in the future.

Abby Fitts is a partner with Barran Liebman LLP. She advises and represents employers on a wide range of workplace issues. Contact her at 503-276-2190 or afitts@barran.com.

Ashley Morgan is a law clerk with Barran Liebman LLP. She partners with attorneys in legal research, drafting employment policies, creating client training materials, and case management.