Most employers know they have ADA obligations. Fewer have trained their front-line managers to recognize an accommodation request when it doesn’t arrive in writing — or prepared their investigators to conduct disability-related inquiries without drawing credibility conclusions from behaviors that may themselves be disability-related. Rachel Reddick of Oppenheimer Investigations Group and Jennifer Robins of Saul Ewing walk through both failure points and what defensible practice looks like at each.
Even the most sophisticated employers can stumble when disability accommodation issues arise, and recent headlines underscore just how high the stakes are. A widely reported lawsuit alleges that a prominent HR organization rescinded a job offer after a candidate requested a reasonable accommodation. The lawsuit serves as a reminder that compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is not merely a checkbox exercise but a nuanced, fact-specific obligation that can expose organizations to significant legal risk when mishandled.
Both sides of the ADA equation merit consideration. First, practical best practices for navigating compliance and accommodation requests before problems arise. Second, how employers should respond when allegations of ADA-related misconduct surface and how to conduct compliant workplace investigations.
Taken together, these perspectives can inform organizations that seek to reduce risk on the front end, and, when necessary, conduct defensible, fair and legally sound investigations when things go wrong.
The ADA is a seminal federal civil rights law that protects people with disabilities from discrimination, including the failure to provide reasonable accommodations. The ADA defines disability broadly. Notably, it includes mental health disabilities and even substance use disorders under certain circumstances.
Under the ADA, employers must provide reasonable accommodations to applicants and employees with disabilities unless doing so would impose an undue hardship to the employer or pose a direct threat to the safety of the employee or others. The obligation may seem straightforward, but employers often misstep.
The practical tips discussed here address some of the most common mistakes seen in practice.
Train front-line managers to spot accommodation requests
An employer’s obligation to begin discussions about potential reasonable accommodations, otherwise known as the interactive process, is triggered the moment a reasonable accommodation request is received. So, timely identification of reasonable accommodation requests is essential to a successful process.
To protect themselves from liability for failing to engage in the interactive process, employers should train management staff and HR professionals to recognize the signs of an accommodation request. The key markers of a request for a reasonable accommodation are when an individual (1) makes it known that an adjustment or change is needed at work (2) due to a medical condition.
While the individual with a disability is responsible for initiating an accommodation request, the ADA does not require that request to be formalized. The request does not even need to be in writing. Because a request for an accommodation can arise during ordinary workplace conversation, it can sometimes be difficult for front-line supervisors to recognize a request and know that they should commence the interactive process.
The following scenarios illustrate what a request may look like:
- An employee who has arrived at work late several times in the past month is counseled regarding attendance. She says in response that she’s having difficulty getting to work on time because of the side effects of a medicine she’s taking for a recently diagnosed medical condition.
- An employee paralyzed in a motor vehicle accident returns to work using a wheelchair and informs his manager on his first day back that when he entered his workspace, he realized his chair would not fit under his desk.
- A long-term employee recently diagnosed with cancer submits a note from her healthcare provider indicating that they need a leave of absence so they can receive chemotherapy treatments.
Each of these scenarios can be interpreted as requests for accommodation under the ADA because there is notice that the employee has a medical condition and has a desire to obtain some type of accommodation.
Engage in the interactive process early — do not delay
Some circuit courts have held that delay alone — even without an official denial of the accommodation request — violates the ADA. In fact, the US Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has adopted this position. Avoiding this ADA pitfall starts with tip No. 1 above – identify the request as such. Then, initiate the interactive process right away.
Another factor in avoiding delays is balancing the need for documentation against excessive additional requests for information. If the employee has provided documentation that supports that they (1) have a disability and (2) need reasonable accommodation, then employers should avoid demands for independent medical exams or additional paperwork. Sometimes, of course, the initial documentation is insufficient. In those cases, employers should provide written notice to the employee or provider and impose a reasonable but concrete deadline to respond. Proactively noting a deadline establishes the employer’s intention to address the request timely and ensures that a delay by the employee in responding is not attributed to the employer.
Managers and HR professionals should also be trained to timely acknowledge communications related to accommodation requests and prioritize review of the request. Without such training, busy staff may mistakenly deprioritize responding to emails and voicemails related to the interactive process and, in doing so, expose the employer to liability.
Lastly, the reasonable accommodation process itself should be streamlined. Avoid putting up procedural roadblocks, such as requiring the employee to route requests through unnecessary layers of internal approval.
The Cross-Section of Legal Obligations: Where ADA, FMLA & CBAs Overlap
Circumstantial cues, such as performance issues an employee attributes to medical concerns, may be sufficient to put an employer on notice
Read moreDetailsProblem solve before saying no
The ADA is generous to employers in that compliance does not require employers to provide the employee with their preferred choice of accommodation. Rather, employers can comply with their ADA obligation as long as they offer an effective accommodation, even if it is not the one that the employee prefers. But, on the flip side of that coin, flatly denying a request creates a litigation risk. The EEOC has sued employers for summarily refusing a reasonable accommodation and offering no follow-up interactive process. Thus, it is advisable to think of the interactive process as an opportunity to explore the different available methods of addressing an employee’s disability-based need.
Even when faced with the most unreasonable-sounding request, employers should pause before saying no. As an example: An employee in a busy, high-profile company could note her anxiety and ask for the “removal of all stress-inducing responsibilities.” On its face, of course, the request sounds patently unreasonable. But it is also an opportunity to ask questions and explore alternatives. Rather than reject the request outright, ask: “What tasks are stressful?” Employers may find that the answer is one discrete responsibility that can be reasonably reassigned. Or it may be that the employee cannot, in fact, be accommodated. Either way, engaging in the process with good-faith curiosity and creativity provides protection from litigation.
Update job descriptions and consult direct supervisors
Employers do not have to excuse an employee from performing an essential function of a job as a reasonable accommodation. This is true because if a person with a disability cannot perform a job’s essential functions (even with a reasonable accommodation), then the employee is not a “qualified person” under the ADA and its protections do not apply. Ultimately, this is one of the best defenses to an ADA claim.
One place that courts will look in deciding the validity of an essential job function defense is the official job description for the employee’s position. Courts have upheld “overtime” and “rotating shifts” as essential job functions when those scheduling requirements were listed in a job description. Employers, therefore, should review and, if appropriate, revise job descriptions to ensure that they are accurate and complete.
In addition, before denying a reasonable accommodation as incompatible with essential functions, employers should assure themselves that the function is actually essential. Due diligence on this point includes checking with the employee’s direct supervisor. Courts can be skeptical of an essential functions defense if there is no recollection or documentation of the request being discussed with those most knowledgeable about the day-to-day requirements of the employee’s job.
Analyze and document undue hardship carefully
Just as the essential job function defense must be supported by the evidence, so too with the undue hardship defense. In fact, employers should think carefully before denying an accommodation as imposing an undue hardship because the bar for this defense is high. To claim an undue hardship, an employer must prove that the accommodation would cause significant difficulty or expense relative to the company’s size, financial resources and business operations.
Certain facts will undermine a claim of undue hardship. For example, if the employee has been provided the requested (or similar) accommodation before, then there may be a question of how that accommodation has somehow become an undue burden.
Also relevant is the company’s overall budget. When evaluating the cost of a reasonable accommodation request, note that courts will look at the company’s overall finances — and not just the budget of the “child” entity. Thus, it will be challenging for a company reporting millions in annual profits to credibly claim that the price of most reasonable accommodations is too costly. (In a 2024 survey, 61% of companies said accommodating an employee cost nothing.)
Finally, employers should avoid relying on assumptions in their undue hardship analysis. It is important for employers to gather information specific to the request at hand. The EEOC has faulted companies that denied requests for certain new technological accommodations based only on the assumption that the technology was too burdensome to implement. Establishing an undue burden may require contacting outside resources and investing some time and effort to meaningfully assess technical capabilities and available resources.
When denying an accommodation request as an undue burden, employers should document precisely how and why the action would constitute a burden. Concrete evidence will likely be required should the matter get to litigation.
And as a final tip: If employers intend to deny an accommodation request based on the undue hardship, first return to tip No. 3: make sure reasonable alternatives have been considered and offer them instead.
Responding when ADA-related misconduct allegations arise
Even when employers have strong accommodation practices, disputes can still arise. Employees may believe an accommodation request was ignored, delayed or improperly denied or may assert that workplace actions taken after a request were retaliatory or discriminatory. When these allegations surface, employers should approach the matter with the same disciplined investigation practices used in other workplace misconduct matters, while remaining mindful of the unique considerations that disability-related complaints present.
Investigative basics: prompt, thorough and impartial
As with any workplace investigation, allegations involving disability accommodation requests should be addressed promptly, thoroughly and impartially. A timely response signals that the organization takes the concern seriously and helps preserve witness recollection and relevant documentation.
The investigation should gather relevant documents, such as accommodation requests, documentation provided by the employee, job descriptions, communications between the employee and management and any records reflecting the employer’s analysis of essential job functions or undue hardship. Interviews should be thorough and include the complainant, the decision-makers involved in the accommodation process and supervisors or HR personnel who participated in the interactive process.
Equally important is neutrality. Investigations into ADA accommodation issues should be conducted by someone who can approach the matter without prior involvement in the events under review. While employers may utilize either internal or external investigators, they should not assign the investigation to HR personnel who participated in the accommodation process or helped evaluate the request.
Incorporating disability accommodations into the investigation itself
Investigations involving disability issues may require accommodations within the investigative process itself. For example, a complainant or witness may need additional breaks during an interview, remote participation, written questions rather than oral questioning or other adjustments that allow them to meaningfully participate. Investigators should therefore remain flexible in scheduling interviews and structuring questioning to ensure that participants are able to fully share their accounts.
Investigators should also remain mindful that disabilities may affect how individuals communicate, process information or present during interviews. Incorporating disability accommodations into the investigative process means recognizing that behaviors often interpreted as signs of evasiveness or reduced credibility, such as difficulty maintaining eye contact, delayed responses, emotional variability or sensory sensitivities, may instead be associated with neurodivergence, sensory processing disorders or certain emotional or mood disorders. For that reason, investigators should exercise particular caution before drawing credibility conclusions based on demeanor or communication style. Instead, credibility assessments should rely on the substance of the evidence, consistency of accounts and corroborating information rather than behavioral cues that may be influenced by disability.
Understanding ADA fundamentals to ask the right questions
Finally, investigators must have a working understanding of the ADA framework in order to ask the right questions and interpret the evidence appropriately. As discussed earlier, the central issues in most accommodation disputes involve whether the employee requested an accommodation, whether the employer engaged in the interactive process in good faith and whether the requested accommodation was reasonable or posed an undue hardship. An investigator who understands these legal concepts is better positioned to focus interviews and document review on the most relevant facts.
Conclusion
Disability accommodation issues rarely arise in a vacuum. They often develop through everyday workplace interactions, conversations between employees and supervisors, evolving medical conditions and the practical realities of managing a workforce.
Employers that train managers to recognize accommodation requests, engage in the interactive process thoughtfully and document their analysis place themselves in the strongest position to avoid disputes in the first place. But when concerns about ADA compliance do surface, a prompt, fair and legally informed investigation becomes equally important. By combining sound accommodation practices with disciplined investigative processes, employers can both reduce legal risk and foster a workplace culture that treats disability-related concerns with the seriousness and care they deserve.
Rachel Reddick
Jennifer Robins 
