Background
Daryl Whitfield, an import specialist for Customs and Border Protection, suffers from numerous military service-connected disabilities including post-traumatic stress disorder and rheumatoid arthritis. After the pandemic, CBP reinstated in-person work requirements, eventually mandating full-time in-office attendance in March 2025. Whitfield filed reasonable accommodation requests and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaints, alleging violations of the Rehabilitation Act and Title VII. He sought a preliminary injunction to stop the mandate, but the district court denied the motion, finding he could not show a likelihood of success on the merits.
The court’s reasoning
The Ninth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and found the district court applied the wrong preliminary injunction standard. The lower court treated the request as a mandatory injunction, which requires a higher showing that laws and facts clearly favor the plaintiff. The appellate court explained that the status quo was fully remote work, as Whitfield had contested the policy before the return-to-office mandate. Therefore, the request was for a prohibitory injunction to maintain that status quo. Under the sliding-scale test for prohibitory injunctions, Whitfield needed only to show serious questions on the merits if the balance of hardships tipped sharply in his favor. The court did not decide whether the balance of hardships tipped sharply or if serious questions existed, but reversed and remanded for further proceedings under the correct standard.
What it means going forward
The decision clarifies that disability accommodation requests challenging return-to-work mandates are often prohibitory injunctions, lowering the initial burden for plaintiffs to obtain preliminary relief pending a full trial.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download