Skip to main content

Job transfers and disability leave

Royston v. City of Scottsdale

Updated Nov 12, 2026

In brief

Where it stands
Dismissed

Petition denied.

What it’s about
Nichol Royston asks the Supreme Court to review whether the Ninth Circuit wrongly treated her involuntary transfer as harmless because she kept her title, rank, and pay, despite claimed changes to her work conditions.
Who it affects
The denial ends Royston's request for Supreme Court review; it does not decide her employment-law claims.

Summary: written with AI from the case record.

Illustration for Nichol Royston, Petitioner v. City of Scottsdale, Arizona
Conceptual illustration · AI-generated

What it's about

She also asks whether employers may rely on past or expected disability-related leave, including cancer-related leave, to justify adverse actions without following the ADA’s interactive process or showing undue hardship.

Royston's petition questioned whether keeping her title, rank and pay erased claimed harm from her transfer, and whether employers could rely on disability-related leave without following the ADA's interactive process or showing undue hardship.

Question presented

1. Does the Ninth Circuit decision, which relied on pre-Muldrow opinions, conflict with Muldrow and post Muldrow decisions in other Circuits by finding no actionable employment harm in an involuntary transfer, solely because the employee retained her title, rank, and pay, despite evidence of materially adverse changes to her employment terms and conditions? 2. Whether the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 allow employers to use past protected leave or speculative future leave related to a disability, including cancer, as a legitimate reason for adverse actions without following the ADA ’ s interactive process or showing undue hardship.

Documents

1

Docket activity

7
  • New analysis added

    Nov 12, 2026 · Court records

  • AI analysis generated: Case Briefing

    Nov 12, 2026 · Generated

  • AI analysis generated: Decision Record

    Nov 12, 2026 · Generated

  • New analysis added

    Nov 12, 2026 · Court records

  • Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata

    Nov 12, 2026 · Court records

Show 2 more
  • Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata

    Nov 12, 2026 · Court records

  • Brief added: Petition

    May 21, 2026 · Court records

Sources

Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.

Checked Nov 12, 2026Methodology

Court records and filings

Reporting and analysis