Reducing the workload isn't the same as fixing it, the Second Circuit found
A federal appeals court revived a disability accommodation claim, ruling that trimming a sick worker's route may not count as a real accommodation.
For nearly 30 years, one employee worked at a union benefit fund, most recently as an outreach coordinator who drove across Long Island to brief healthcare workers on their pensions. Then his health failed. He developed a serious vein condition that caused life-threatening blood clots and repeated hospital stays.
His doctor set clear limits. Eventually, the advice was to avoid sitting or driving more than thirty minutes at a stretch. He told his employer and asked for help.
The fund's answer was to pull the four farthest stops from his territory. By the fund's own count, that still left facilities more than thirty minutes from his home. He asked to move back to a closer area he had covered before. The fund said no.
When he could not return without restrictions, the fund fired him. Its termination letter said he was let go "[a]s a result of . . . [his] inability to return to work, without any restrictions."
A trial court sided with the fund on accommodation, and a jury later returned a verdict for the fund on discrimination. On July 23, 2026, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the accommodation ruling and sent the case back.
The court's reasoning is the part HR teams should read closely. It found the lower court used the wrong test. Simply reducing a worker's load is not automatically a reasonable accommodation. As the court put it, "[t]he hallmark of a reasonable accommodation is effectiveness."
Because it was disputed whether the trimmed route addressed his limits, the court said whether the fix worked was a jury question, not one to decide on paper.
The separate discrimination claim took a different path. There, the trial court had noted that firing someone who cannot return "without restrictions" can be a per se violation of the disability law - though it found no evidence the fund enforced such a policy. The appeals court did not review that ruling.
For HR teams, the mechanics matter. Cutting a task or two may not meet the legal duty if the main barrier remains. And a blanket return-to-work rule demanding "no restrictions" can draw scrutiny.
The appeals court vacated summary judgment and remanded the accommodation claim; it dismissed the appeal on the discrimination verdict for lack of jurisdiction. The ruling addresses process, not final liability, and no court has ruled on the merits of the accommodation claim.
