Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—D. Nev.: Security officer’s placement on unpaid leave pending medical clearance was not unreasonable, (Aug 12, 2026)

By Nicholas Kaster, J.D.

Once the employee returned with medical clearance, he was placed into the next security academy to complete his training, which was a textbook definition of a reasonable accommodation.

Granting summary judgment against a casino security officer’s ADA disability discrimination claim, a federal district court in Nevada found he failed to show his employer’s accommodation—unpaid medical leave pending medical clearance—was unreasonable. While the employee may have preferred a different accommodation, he failed to counter the employer’s evidence that the accommodation it provided was reasoanble (Elias v. Wynn Las Vegas LLC, No. 2:23-cv-2111-ART-BNW (D. Nev. Aug. 7, 2026)).

Required training. The employer, a hotel and casino, offered the employee the position of security officer in August 2021. As part of training and onboarding, new security officers are required to attend two days of orientation then seven days of security academy training, followed by 15 days of Field Training Officer (FTO) training. The first 90 days of employment are probationary. New hires must successfully complete the security academy to continue to FTO training.

Injury. On September 11, 2021, the employee was injured in a motor vehicle accident. On September 13, the first day of the security academy, he told the employer’s security development and training manager that he had been injured outside of work and was under the care of a doctor. He completed day one of the security academy but he did not attend day two.

Treatment. On September 15, 2021, the employee returned to work and notified the manager that he called out of work the previous day to attend a doctor’s appointment. He disclosed that he was in pain such that he could not work. He also provided a letter from a medical professional that said he was currently being treated for a recent motor vehicle collision where he sustained injuries to his neck and back and that he would be treated three times per week for the first four weeks, two times per week starting the second month of treatment, and one time every week starting the third month of treatment.

Unpaid leave. The notes from the initial visit included subjective comments from his provider, which most relevantly stated, “[d]ue to the pain sustained in the collision, he is now having difficulties performing his daily routine.” The employer placed him on an unpaid leave of absence that same day, “for a period of three weeks, or until [he] received medical clearance.”

Cleared. On October 6, the employee provided a doctor’s note stating that he was seen for chiropractic treatment due to being involved in a motor vehicle collision. He was advised that he could return to work full duty, with no restrictions.

Termination. The employer then scheduled the employee to attend the next available security academy class, which was set to begin on October 14. He attended the class and failed to pass several written quizzes over several days. He was then terminated. His termination documentation stated: “Reason for Termination: Failure to Complete Probation.”

The employee sued, alleging violations of his rights under the ADA and Nevada law. He alleged that the employer failed to provide him reasonable accommodation, retaliated against him, and wrongfully terminated him for his disability. The employer moved for summary judgment on all claims.

Failure to accommodate. The employee claimed that he suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident and that he disclosed medical limitations affecting major life activities, including walking, lifting, concentrating, and working to the employer. He notified his manager that he had been injured and called out of work because he went to see a doctor and was in some pain. The notes from the initial visit included subjective comments from his provider, which most relevantly stated, “[d]ue to the pain sustained in the collision, he is now having difficulties performing his daily routine.” This evidence was sufficient to establish a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the employee had an actual disability at the time he was placed on leave in September 2021.

The employer argued that even if the employee had an actual disability, he was not a qualified individual because he had not completed the security academy, a threshold job requirement of the security officer position, at the time he was placed on leave. However, an individual’s qualifications are measured at the time of the adverse employment action, rather than at some earlier or later time. Because the employee was qualified to enter the security academy at the time he was placed on medical leave, he satisfied this element for the purposes of summary judgment.

Interactive process. The employee argued that once the employer knew he had a disability, it failed to engage in the interactive process required by the ADA to identify a reasonable accommodation. He argued that being placed on medical leave was not a proper accommodation for his disability. The employer responded that it placed the employee on medical leave at his own request and doing so was a facially reasonable accommodation.

The court noted that, although a qualified employee with a disability is entitled to a reasonable accommodation, the employer does not have to provide a particular accommodation requested or preferred by the employee. The employer need only provide some reasonable accommodation.

Here, the employee failed to identify any evidence disputing the employer’s claim that it provided him a reasonable accommodation by placing him on unpaid medical leave pending medical clearance to return to work. On September 15, 2021, the employee expressed concern that he would not be able to complete the defensive tactics portion of the academy because he was in pain. He said the injuries required time away from work to allow him time to recuperate. In response, the employer placed him on unpaid medical leave for three weeks or until he received medical clearance. Once he returned with medical clearance, the employer placed him into the next security academy to complete his training. This was a textbook definition of a reasonable accommodation, said the court.

While the employee may have preferred a different accommodation, he failed to counter the employer’s evidence that the accommodation it provided, namely putting him on unpaid medical leave pending medical clearance to return to work, was reasonable. Therefore, the employee’s failure-to-accommodate claim failed.

Retaliation and wrongful termination. The employee’s claims for retaliation and wrongful termination under the ADA arose out of the employer’s actions after placing him into the second training. The employer argued that the employee did not have an actual disability nor was he a qualified individual under the statute. The court agreed that the employee failed to point to evidence disputing these points.

October 6, 2021, the employee provided a letter stating that he “was seen for chiropractic treatment due to being involved in a motor collision on 09/11/2021.” He was advised that he could return to work full duty, with no restrictions. The employee offered no evidence to dispute the showing that he was cleared by his doctor to return to work without restrictions. Absent evidence disputing his medical clearance to return to work or some other evidence of how the employee was impaired at the time he was terminated, the court could not find that he was disabled under the ADA.

Given that the employee subsequently failed the job prerequisites to become a security officer, he did not provide evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he was a qualified individual for the role.

Accordingly, the court granted the employee’s motion for summary judgment on all claims.

The case is No. 2:23-cv-2111-ART-BNW.

Judge: Traum, A.

Attorneys: Ike Elias, pro se. Joshua A. Sliker (Jackson Lewis) for Wynn Las Vegas, LLC.

Companies: Wynn Las Vegas, LLC

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge Retaliation NevadaNews