Affirmance by Abandonment and Reaffirmation that Indefinite Leave Is Not a Reasonable Accommodation under the Rehabilitation Act

Case: Bill V. Ypsilantis v. Secretary, U.S. Department of the Treasury; Internal Revenue Service

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (Non-Argument Calendar; Not for Publication)

Date: October 15, 2025

Panel: Circuit Judges Newsom, Grant, and Luck (per curiam)

Docket No.: 24-11587; Appeal from S.D. Fla., No. 0:22-cv-61514-BB

Introduction

This appeal arises from an Internal Revenue Service employee’s Rehabilitation Act claims stemming from the COVID-19 telework period. Bill Ypsilantis, a disabled Navy veteran and IRS agent, asserted that the IRS discriminated against him by denying leave he requested as an accommodation, retaliated against him for seeking accommodations, and subjected him to a hostile work environment.

The district court granted summary judgment to the IRS on the discrimination and retaliation claims on two independent grounds each, and a jury later returned a verdict for the IRS on the hostile-work-environment claim. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed across the board. The opinion offers three principal takeaways:

Under Sapuppo, when a district court rests its judgment on multiple independent grounds, an appellant’s failure to challenge each ground compels affirmance.
Reaffirming circuit law, a request for indefinite leave is not a reasonable accommodation under the Rehabilitation Act (as informed by ADA standards), per Wood v. Green.
Rule 403’s strong presumption in favor of admissibility supported admission of rebuttal photographs, and evidence untethered to the elements of a hostile work environment was properly excluded as irrelevant.

Summary of the Opinion

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings in full. On the summary judgment issues, the court held that Ypsilantis failed to attack all independent grounds supporting the district court’s decision:

Disability-discrimination (failure-to-accommodate) claim: The district court found (1) no link between the leave requested and his disabilities, and (2) the leave sought was unreasonable because it was indefinite. On appeal, Ypsilantis argued only that leave can be a reasonable accommodation in the abstract, leaving the “no link” determination unchallenged. Affirmed under Sapuppo.
Retaliation claim: The district court found (1) he did not engage in protected activity, and (2) he failed to rebut the IRS’s nondiscriminatory reasons as pretext. On appeal, Ypsilantis argued only that he had a good-faith belief that his request was protected; he did not challenge the pretext finding. Affirmed under Sapuppo.

As to the trial rulings on the hostile-work-environment claim, the court found no abuse of discretion:

Admission of photos of the plaintiff’s then-vacant house: Proper under Rule 403. The photos were probative of whether space constraints made telework impracticable, and any potential prejudice was mitigated by the plaintiff’s testimony explaining the photos’ context (vacancy and lens distortion).
Exclusion of plaintiff’s proposed accommodation-related testimony: Proper as irrelevant to the hostile-work-environment elements. Questions about general availability of accommodations or the reasonableness of leave (especially indefinite leave) did not bear on whether harassment was severe or pervasive and based on disability. One category (“use of medical evidence”) was never actually proffered.

The panel again “assumed without deciding” that hostile-work-environment claims are cognizable under the Rehabilitation Act, noting that the issue remains open in the Eleventh Circuit.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Insurance Co., 739 F.3d 678 (11th Cir. 2014): This controlling appellate practice rule holds that when a district court offers multiple independent grounds for a judgment, an appellant must challenge each on appeal; failure to do so results in automatic affirmance. It dictated the outcome here: because Ypsilantis left unchallenged the “no link to disability” ground for his discrimination claim and the “no pretext” ground for his retaliation claim, affirmance was required.
Wood v. Green, 323 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 2003): A foundational ADA case (whose standards inform Rehabilitation Act claims) holding that indefinite leaves of absence are not reasonable accommodations. The panel invoked Wood twice: (1) to explain why broad questions about “leave as a reasonable accommodation” were irrelevant where the leave requested was indefinite; and (2) to emphasize that, even apart from abandonment, the law on indefinite leave is settled in this Circuit.
Copeland v. Georgia Dep’t of Corrections, 97 F.4th 766 (11th Cir. 2024) (quoting Bryant v. Jones, 575 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir. 2009)): Provided the five-element framework for hostile-work-environment claims (protected class, unwelcome harassment, based on protected characteristic, severe or pervasive, employer responsibility). The court used this framework to hold that proposed evidence about accommodations did not make any HWE element more or less probable.
United States v. Cenephat, 115 F.4th 1359 (11th Cir. 2024); United States v. Church, 955 F.2d 688 (11th Cir. 1992); United States v. McGregor, 960 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir. 2020): These decisions collectively underscore Rule 403’s “strong presumption in favor of admissibility” and the requirement to weigh probative value against unfair prejudice from the perspective most favorable to admission. They supported admitting the IRS’s rebuttal photos.
Erickson v. First Advantage Background Services Corp., 981 F.3d 1246 (11th Cir. 2020); United States v. Frazier, 387 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc): Establish the substantial discretion afforded district courts on evidentiary rulings; appellate reversal is reserved for “manifest error.” This deference buttressed the trial court’s relevance and Rule 403 determinations.
Nat’l Mining Ass’n v. United Steel Workers, 985 F.3d 1309, 1327 n.16 (11th Cir. 2021): Arguments raised perfunctorily in footnotes or for the first time in a reply brief are not considered. The panel relied on this to reject a late, footnoted attempt to challenge the retaliation ruling’s alternative ground.
Jiminez v. United States Attorney General, 146 F.4th 972, 988 (11th Cir. 2025): Cited for the de novo standard of review on summary judgment.
Central Baptist Church of Albany, Georgia, Inc. v. Church Mutual Insurance, 146 F.4th 1003, 1010 (11th Cir. 2025): Cited for abuse-of-discretion review of evidentiary rulings.
Mullin v. Secretary, U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 149 F.4th 1244 (11th Cir. 2025): Noted to reiterate that the Eleventh Circuit has not yet decided whether the Rehabilitation Act supports a hostile-work-environment claim; the panel again assumed without deciding here.

Legal Reasoning

The panel’s reasoning proceeds on two tracks: appellate procedure governing what can be reviewed, and substantive and evidentiary law governing what was decided.

1) Appellate procedure: Affirmance by abandonment under Sapuppo

The district court relied on two independent grounds to grant summary judgment on each claim. On appeal, Ypsilantis challenged only one ground per claim:

Discrimination: He argued that leave can be a reasonable accommodation, but did not contest the separate finding that he had failed to link his request to his disabilities. Because both were independent bases for summary judgment, neglecting one dooms the appeal.
Retaliation: He argued he had a good-faith belief that his leave request was protected activity, but did not challenge the distinct pretext ruling. Again, under Sapuppo, failure to attack all bases required affirmance.

The court also enforced briefing norms: a passing, footnoted reference in a reply brief could not resurrect an abandoned argument.

2) Substantive accommodation law: Indefinite leave is not reasonable

Even though the panel’s affirmance did not require reaching merits, it addressed accommodation concepts in evaluating evidentiary relevance. Relying on Wood v. Green, the court underscored that while finite, time-limited leave can be reasonable in some cases, an indefinite leave request is not. Because Ypsilantis asked to be off work “until the post of duty is open,” i.e., with no definite end date, the general question “can leave be a reasonable accommodation?” was beside the point. This rendered several trial questions irrelevant to the hostile-work-environment issues the jury had to decide.

3) Hostile-work-environment framework and relevance

Applying the Copeland/Bryant HWE elements, the court focused on whether the proffered evidence would make it more or less likely that harassment occurred, was based on disability, and was severe or pervasive. Testimony about the number or type of accommodations offered, the abstract reasonableness of leave, or the availability of weather-and-safety leave did not meaningfully bear on those elements. As such, exclusion under Rules 401 and 402 was within the trial court’s discretion.

4) Rule 403 and rebuttal photographs

The IRS offered photographs of the interior of the plaintiff’s residence, taken after he moved out, to rebut his testimony that lack of space made telework infeasible. The panel emphasized the “strong presumption in favor of admissibility” under Rule 403. The photos had significant probative value on a contested factual point at the heart of the claim. Any risk of unfair prejudice or juror confusion was mitigated because:

On cross and redirect, the plaintiff explained the photos reflected a vacant home and described lens effects that could exaggerate space.
The jury therefore had the necessary context to evaluate the images fairly.

Given the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard, admission was upheld.

Impact and Practical Implications

1) Appellate practice in the Eleventh Circuit

Challenge every independent ground: Sapuppo remains a potent, often dispositive doctrine. Appellants must carefully identify and attack all alternative grounds supporting the judgment, not just the most appealing one.
No sandbagging via reply briefs or footnotes: Arguments raised for the first time in reply or perfunctorily in footnotes will not be considered.

2) Accommodation law under the Rehabilitation Act

Indefinite leave remains unreasonable: The Eleventh Circuit’s longstanding rule continues to constrain accommodation theories premised on open-ended leave. Requests should be tethered to anticipated return dates or measurable periods.
Link the request to the disability: Plaintiffs must connect the accommodation sought to the limitations caused by their disability. Generalized preferences (e.g., disliking telework due to home logistics) will not suffice.
COVID-19 context: This case signals that pandemic-era telework preferences do not automatically transform into disability-based accommodation claims absent a clear nexus to disability-related limitations.

3) Hostile work environment theory under the Rehabilitation Act

Still unsettled in the Eleventh Circuit: The court again assumed without deciding that HWE claims are cognizable under the Rehabilitation Act. Litigants should preserve the issue while proceeding as though such claims are viable.
Proof boundaries: Evidence about accommodation reasonableness may not advance an HWE claim unless it shows harassment that is based on disability and severe or pervasive. Plaintiffs should focus on discriminatory conduct, not simply disputed accommodation decisions.

4) Evidence and trial practice

Rebuttal visuals can be powerful and admissible: Even post hoc photographs (e.g., after a move-out) can be admitted if probative and explained. Counsel opposing such evidence should contextualize rather than expect exclusion.
Relevance is element-specific: Questions about policies or abstract legal standards are not necessarily relevant; tie each proffer to a fact “of consequence” under the claim’s elements.

5) Employer takeaways

Document the interactive process and discipline: The IRS’s contemporaneous communications (AWOL notices, admonishments, proposals) helped frame legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons for actions.
Be cautious but firm with leave requests: While finite medical leave can be reasonable, indefinite leave presents legal risk-minimizing grounds for denial under Eleventh Circuit law.

What the Court Did Not Decide

Merits of the failure-to-accommodate and retaliation claims: The affirmance rested on abandonment. The court did not adjudicate whether the plaintiff’s request actually satisfied the Rehabilitation Act’s accommodation or protected-activity standards.
Viability of Rehabilitation Act HWE claims: Still an open question; the court assumed cognizability without deciding.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Summary judgment: A way to decide a case without trial when there’s no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Independent grounds: Separate, self-sufficient reasons supporting a court’s ruling. An appellant must challenge each one.
Abandonment on appeal: If an appellant does not properly argue an issue, or an alternative ground, the appellate court treats it as waived and will not consider it.
Reasonable accommodation: A change in the work environment that enables a qualified individual with a disability to perform essential job functions. In the Eleventh Circuit, an indefinite leave of absence is not reasonable; finite leave sometimes can be.
Protected activity (retaliation): Opposing unlawful discrimination or requesting a reasonable accommodation. A good-faith, objectively reasonable belief can suffice, but separate proof of pretext is often required.
Pretext: A false reason given by an employer to hide discrimination or retaliation. Plaintiffs must present evidence suggesting the employer’s stated reason is not the real reason.
Hostile work environment: Harassment because of a protected characteristic that is severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive environment.
Rule 403 (Evidence): Courts may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by risks like unfair prejudice or confusion. There is a strong presumption favoring admission.
Standards of review:
- De novo (summary judgment): The appellate court gives no deference; it decides the legal issues anew.
- Abuse of discretion (evidentiary rulings): The appellate court gives substantial deference; reversal only for manifest error.

Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit’s unpublished decision in Ypsilantis is a procedural and doctrinal cautionary tale. Procedurally, it showcases the unforgiving nature of Sapuppo: failure to confront each independent ground of a district court’s ruling guarantees affirmance. Substantively, it reaffirms that indefinite leave is not a reasonable accommodation under the Rehabilitation Act in this Circuit, and it clarifies that evidence must be tied to the elements of the claim to be relevant—accommodation-focused testimony may not advance a hostile-work-environment theory.

For practitioners, the opinion underscores meticulous appellate briefing and targeted trial proof. For employers and employees navigating disability accommodations—particularly in the lingering wake of pandemic-related telework—Ypsilantis confirms that requests must be disability-linked and finite, and that disputes over accommodation do not automatically equate to actionable harassment. While the Eleventh Circuit continues to assume without deciding that the Rehabilitation Act supports hostile-work-environment claims, Ypsilantis provides a practical roadmap for litigating (and limiting) such claims within settled evidentiary and procedural frameworks.

Note: The opinion is “Not for Publication.” While it carries persuasive force, it does not constitute binding precedent in the Eleventh Circuit. Its reliance on published authorities (e.g., Sapuppo, Wood) nonetheless reinforces established circuit law.