The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on August 5, 2026, in the case of Ibrahima Dieng v. Orkin, LLC, affecting how employers handle disability accommodations. The court decided that Orkin may have failed to provide reasonable accommodations for Dieng's disability after he suffered a workplace injury. This ruling impacts not only Dieng but also sets a precedent for how similar cases may be handled in the future.
Ibrahima Dieng worked as a pest control technician for Orkin in Gaithersburg, Maryland. After suffering a serious knee injury in February 2016, he went on leave to recover. Upon his recovery, Dieng informed Orkin that he was unable to return to his previous role due to his disability and requested to be reassigned to a less physically demanding position. However, Orkin did not respond to his requests, and after 16 months of unpaid leave, Dieng resigned.
Dieng filed a lawsuit against Orkin in February 2021, claiming that the company had violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by failing to accommodate his disability and unlawfully terminating him. The district court granted summary judgment to Orkin, ruling that Dieng could not perform the essential functions of his previous job and that he had voluntarily resigned. Dieng appealed this decision, leading to the Fourth Circuit's review.
The Fourth Circuit's ruling vacated part of the district court's decision and affirmed other aspects. The court concluded that there were genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether Orkin failed to accommodate Dieng's disability. The judges noted that while Dieng could not return to his previous position, he had the potential to perform other roles within the company, such as customer service or sales positions.
The court ruled, "We hold that it is not consistent with the ADA for an employer to decline to reassign a disabled employee to an available position he would be able to perform, and instead to keep the employee on indefinite, unpaid leave."
The court's opinion emphasized the importance of the interactive process between employers and employees when discussing accommodations for disabilities. It highlighted that employers must engage in good faith discussions to determine suitable adjustments for employees with disabilities. The court found that Orkin did not adequately fulfill this obligation, as there was no evidence that they engaged with Dieng about his limitations or the availability of light-duty work.
The ruling also addressed Dieng's claim of unlawful termination. The court noted that keeping an employee on indefinite unpaid leave could support a claim of constructive discharge, meaning that the working conditions forced Dieng to resign. The judges pointed out that the district court had overlooked evidence that suggested Dieng had been constructively discharged due to Orkin's failure to accommodate his disability.
This ruling has significant implications for how employers must handle disability accommodations moving forward. It reinforces the need for companies to actively engage with employees who request accommodations and to explore available options rather than placing them on indefinite leave. The decision may encourage other employees facing similar situations to assert their rights under the ADA.
Looking ahead, the case has been remanded to the district court for further proceedings. This means that the lower court will need to address the issues identified by the Fourth Circuit and determine the next steps in Dieng's case. It is unclear whether Orkin will seek to appeal the ruling, but the decision sets a notable precedent for future ADA cases.