Michael Wirtes v. City of Newport News, 996 F.3d 234

Background

Michael Wirtes, a Newport News police officer since 1997, developed meralgia paresthetica attributed to wearing a standard duty belt and reported pain, numbness, and tingling.
From 2011 he used a shoulder holster and was reassigned temporarily to non-uniform Records Unit; in 2014 he became a property-crimes detective (plain-clothes status then allowed shoulder holsters).
After a 2015 policy change requiring more detectives to wear uniforms and patrol, medical evaluation found he could not wear the duty belt; the City also capped non-occupational light duty at eight months and revised the job description to require wearing a duty belt.
The City rejected Wirtes’s proposals (shoulder/vest holster, exemption from patrol/uniform) on safety and policy grounds, and gave him a choice: accept reassignment to a civilian logistics manager job or retire; he ultimately retired and sued under the ADA for failure to accommodate.
The district court granted summary judgment for the City, reasoning reassignment satisfied the accommodation duty; the Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded, holding involuntary reassignment is generally disfavored when other reasonable accommodations would allow the employee to remain in their current position.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an employer may unilaterally reassign a disabled employee to a vacant position instead of providing an accommodation that would let the employee remain in their current job	Wirtes: City should have implemented shoulder/vest holster or exempted him from patrol/uniform rather than force reassignment or retirement	City: Offering reassignment to a vacant civilian position satisfied its ADA accommodation obligation	Court: Generally, an employer "refuses" to accommodate when it unilaterally reassigns an employee who could remain in their position with a reasonable accommodation; reassignment is a disfavored, last-resort option
Whether the district court properly resolved the accommodation claim on summary judgment without determining essential job functions or availability of other reasonable accommodations	Wirtes: District court failed to decide essential functions and availability of accommodations before concluding reassignment sufficed	City: District court relied on the offered reassignment as adequate accommodation	Court: Vacated and remanded — district court must consider whether reasonable accommodations existed that would permit performance of the essential functions before accepting reassignment as adequate
Whether reassignment is ever permissible where other accommodations exist	Wirtes: Reassignment should not be used where effective accommodations permit staying in current job	City: Reassignment is an available accommodation the City may offer	Court: Not absolutely forbidden; reassignment remains permissible in unusual circumstances or by mutual agreement, but is strongly disfavored when other reasonable accommodations would keep the employee in their current, preferred position

Key Cases Cited

Elledge v. Lowe's Home Ctrs., LLC, 979 F.3d 1004 (4th Cir. 2020) (treated reassignment as an accommodation of last resort and endorsed EEOC guidance)
Vollmert v. Wisconsin Dep't of Transp., 197 F.3d 293 (7th Cir. 1999) (holding transfer to an unwanted position is not reasonable if accommodation could enable employee to remain)
Skerski v. Time Warner Cable Co., 257 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 2001) (transfer to an unwanted position can create a fact issue on reasonable accommodation)
Smith v. Midland Brake, Inc., 180 F.3d 1154 (10th Cir. 1999) (en banc) (preference for accommodations that keep employee in existing job)
Aka v. Washington Hosp. Ctr., 156 F.3d 1284 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (Congress intended reassignment only after other accommodations fail)
Wilson v. Dollar General Corp., 717 F.3d 337 (4th Cir. 2013) (sets out prima facie elements for ADA failure-to-accommodate claim)