Observing that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) “is an antidiscrimination statute, not a medical leave entitlement,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has ruled that an employee’s request for two months of extended leave beyond that to which he was entitled was not a reasonable accommodation under the ADA.
The ruling by a three-judge panel of the influential appeals court in Severson v. Heartland Woodcraft, No. 15-3754 (7th Cir. Sept. 20, 2017), affirms a trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s ADA lawsuit. Importantly, the panel’s decision notes that an extended leave of absence, like the one the plaintiff requested here, “does not give a disabled individual the means to work; it excuses his not working.” Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit concluded the plaintiff’s request for extended leave was unreasonable, and the employer did not violate the ADA in refusing to agree to it.
Also worth noting, the court rejected a number of policy arguments made in an amicus brief filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), including the agency’s contention that a long-term medical leave should be considered a reasonable accommodation as long as it (1) is not indefinite in duration; (2) is “requested in advance;” and (3) will enable the employee to perform the essential functions of the job at the end of the leave. In the Seventh Circuit’s view, the EEOC’s broad interpretation would read the “reasonable” right out of reasonable accommodation and effectively transform the ADA into an “open-ended extension of the