The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has denied a request for rehearing in the case of Whitfield v. Mullin, No. 25-5220, which addresses the rights of disabled employees under the Rehabilitation Act. The decision affects Daryl Whitfield, an import specialist at U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), who has been fighting for reasonable accommodations related to his disabilities. The case raises significant questions about the standards for granting preliminary injunctions in employment-related disputes.
Daryl Whitfield, a veteran with disabilities, worked part-time in the office before the COVID-19 pandemic. From March 2020 to April 2022, he worked remotely due to pandemic restrictions. However, in March 2025, CBP mandated that all import specialists return to full-time in-person work. Whitfield sought accommodations to continue working remotely, which he claimed were not adequately addressed by his employer. In May 2025, he filed a lawsuit against Markwayne Mullin, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, alleging that CBP failed to engage in the required interactive process for reasonable accommodations.
The dispute reached the Ninth Circuit after the district court denied Whitfield's motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent CBP from enforcing its in-person work policy. The court had applied a heightened standard for mandatory injunctions, requiring Whitfield to show that the law and facts clearly favored his position. The district court concluded that Whitfield had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, citing CBP's previous accommodations offered to him.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit panel reversed the district court's decision, stating that the lower court had erred in applying the incorrect standard for preliminary injunctions. The panel clarified that Whitfield's request should have been treated as a prohibitory injunction, which requires a different standard. The panel noted, "Whitfield’s request is one for an ordinary prohibitory injunction," emphasizing that the status quo was remote work at the time Whitfield began challenging CBP's policies.
The panel also instructed the district court to apply the Ninth Circuit's alternative "sliding scale" approach for evaluating preliminary injunctions. This approach allows for a stronger showing on the balance of hardships to compensate for a lesser showing of likelihood of success. The panel stated, "when plaintiffs establish that the balance of hardships tips sharply in their favor, they need only show 'serious questions' on the merits." This remand was significant as it provided Whitfield another opportunity to argue his case under a more favorable standard.
The U.S. government filed a petition for rehearing en banc, asking the full court to reconsider the panel's decision regarding the "serious questions" test for preliminary injunctions. The petition did not dispute the panel's finding that the district court had applied the wrong standard but sought to address the broader implications of the Ninth Circuit's approach to preliminary injunctions. The court ultimately denied the petition for rehearing, with dissenting opinions from several judges who expressed concerns about the implications of the "serious questions" test.
The dissenting judges argued that the "serious questions" test is inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent, particularly following the ruling in Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney. They contended that this alternative standard grants district courts too much leeway in issuing preliminary injunctions and undermines the traditional requirement of demonstrating a likelihood of success on the merits. Judge Bress, in his dissent, stated, "Our 'serious questions' test for preliminary injunctions is inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent and the precedent of other circuits."
The impact of this ruling is significant for employees seeking accommodations under the Rehabilitation Act. The Ninth Circuit's decision reinforces the importance of adhering to established standards for granting preliminary injunctions, which could affect future cases involving disabled employees and their rights in the workplace. The court's ruling may also prompt further scrutiny of the "serious questions" test, as it raises questions about how courts balance the need for equitable relief against the need for clear legal standards.
Looking ahead, the denial of rehearing in this case does not preclude the possibility of further appeals. The U.S. government may seek to challenge the panel's decision in the Supreme Court, particularly if it believes that the Ninth Circuit's approach to preliminary injunctions conflicts with established legal standards. Additionally, the outcome of this case may influence other pending cases involving similar issues of disability accommodations and the standards for granting injunctive relief.