When Accommodation Requests Go AWOL: A Cautionary Tale For Employers

The complexities of the interactive process in disability accommodation requests can trip up even the most experienced HR professionals, especially because no two situations are alike. However, there is an immutable rule: an employee’s voluntary withdrawal from the interactive process and failure to provide the requested medical documentation show a lack of good faith. And lack of good faith spells doom for a failure-to-accommodate claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Interactive Process Breakdown

In a Sixth Circuit decision I read last night, the plaintiff with various psychological disorders had requested an ADA accommodation for her flare-ups, which included flexibility in her work schedule and teleworking options. The defendant’s ADA coordinator responded by providing reasonable accommodation paperwork and instructions on how to complete it. However, the plaintiff did not return the paperwork, citing concerns about potential bias from a committee member involved in past health-related requests. This decision to not engage further in the process was a critical misstep.

The court emphasized that the interactive process requires good-faith communication and exploration of possible accommodations. The plaintiff effectively withdrew from this process by not completing the necessary paperwork. The court noted that the defendant had established a reasonable procedure for handling accommodation requests, which the plaintiff chose not to follow.

The Importance of Medical Documentation

Another key factor in the court’s decision was the plaintiff’s failure to provide specific medical documentation supporting her requested accommodations. While she argued that her FMLA and short-term disability forms should suffice, the court disagreed. These documents only supported the leave she had already received and did not address the specific accommodations she requested under the ADA.

The court ruled that providing proper medical documentation is not a mere bureaucratic formality but a critical component of the accommodation process. The defendant could not reasonably assess or provide the requested accommodations without this documentation.

Three Takeaways for HR Professionals and Employment Lawyers

1. Engage in the Interactive Process: Both employers and employees must actively participate in the interactive process in good faith. Employers should ensure that their procedures are clear and accessible, while employees must follow through with the required steps, including completing necessary paperwork.
2. Require Specific Medical Documentation: Employers can request specific, narrowly tailored medical documentation to support accommodation requests. This documentation should clearly outline the nature of the disability and the necessity of the requested accommodations but does not require an employee to furnish an entire medical history.
3. Address Concerns of Bias Transparently: If an employee raises concerns about potential bias in the accommodation review process, employers should take those complaints seriously and address these concerns transparently. Offering reassurances or alternative review options can help maintain the integrity of the process and encourage employee participation.

This case serves as a reminder that the interactive process is a two-way street requiring both parties’ active participation and good faith. By adhering to these principles, employers can better navigate the complexities of disability accommodation requests.