Janet Perdue v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC, 999 F.3d 954

Plaintiff Janet Perdue was a long‑time Sanofi pharmaceutical sales rep who, after a 2013 illness and surgery, accepted various flexible arrangements and later developed permanent medical restrictions limiting travel to within 20 miles of Greenville and to ≤30 hours/week.
Sanofi’s flexible‑work policy allowed telework, part‑time work, and job sharing but required Area Business Leader approval; not all positions were suitable and approval was discretionary based on business needs.
Perdue and coworker Caitlyn Hunt proposed to split (job share) Hunt’s existing full‑time Greenville primary‑care diabetes sales position into two part‑time roles to accommodate Perdue’s restrictions; the Area Business Leader denied the request citing business concerns and doubts about Hunt’s fit.
Sanofi offered other accommodations (hotel stays, checking internal openings); Perdue declined those as ineffective; she later applied for long‑term disability and was terminated when Sanofi could not provide indefinite leave or other accommodations.
Perdue sued under the ADA (failure to accommodate) and for wrongful discharge under state law; the district court granted Sanofi summary judgment, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether employer must create a new job‑share (split) position as a "reassignment to a vacant position" reasonable accommodation	Perdue: the proposed job share is a reassignment to a vacant position and thus an ADA‑required accommodation	Sanofi: the job‑share did not exist unless management created it; ADA does not require creating new positions	The ADA does not require creating new positions; where a job‑share requires managerial approval to create, employer need not create it as an accommodation
Whether Sanofi breached the interactive process	Perdue: Sanofi failed to meaningfully engage and explore accommodations	Sanofi: interactive‑process claims fail if no reasonable accommodation exists	No liability for failing to engage because Perdue did not identify a legally required reasonable accommodation
Whether prior permissive job sharing or employer generosity imposes obligation	Perdue: Sanofi previously allowed her to job share; it could have done so again	Sanofi: prior discretionary accommodations do not increase legal duty under ADA	Past ad hoc accommodations do not obligate employer to adopt far‑reaching accommodations or create new positions

US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391 (2002) (seniority or neutral company policies can make reassignment unreasonable in ordinary cases absent special circumstances)
Laird v. Fairfax Cnty., 978 F.3d 887 (4th Cir. 2020) (ADA does not require employers to create new positions)
Elledge v. Lowe's Home Ctrs., LLC, 979 F.3d 1004 (4th Cir. 2020) (extending Barnett reasoning to company hiring policies)
E.E.O.C. v. Sara Lee Corp., 237 F.3d 349 (4th Cir. 2001) (reassignment is limited to vacant positions; employer cannot be required to bump another employee)
Terrell v. USAir, 132 F.3d 621 (11th Cir. 1998) (employer need not restructure staffing policies to create part‑time positions)
Fjellestad v. Pizza Hut of Am., Inc., 188 F.3d 944 (8th Cir. 1999) (requiring employer to create a new permanent position is not a reasonable accommodation)