If you follow these, you should be in great shape.
Reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act continues to flummox many employers. But it shouldn’t be that hard, at least not in most cases. Here are my top eight rules. I’m leaving out the obvious ones, such as “Engage in the interactive process,” “Be sure to document all of your efforts,” “Consult with employment counsel as needed,” and “Don’t retaliate against an employee for requesting a reasonable accommodation.” You already knew that stuff.
![](assets/htmlimages/Smart%20Man.AdobeStock_307974220.jpg)
Rule No. 1: There are no rules. One thing about the ADA that surprises a lot of employers – especially those who are used to the hyper-specific Family and Medical Leave Act regulations, or state workers’ compensation laws – is the fact that the ADA is so loosey-goosey. When making a disability-related accommodation under the ADA, the rule is “Whatever works.” If you and the employee can agree on an appropriate accommodation, you should be all set. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which administers the ADA, is not going to be on your case about which “i”s you crossed and “t”s you dotted (wait – should that be the other way around?). If you and the employee are happy, the EEOC will be happy. Isn’t that nice?
![](assets/htmlimages/Labradoodle%20Puppy%20Adorable.AdobeStock_512251549.jpg)
Rule No. 2: You don’t have to accommodate a disability you don’t know about. Let’s say you have an employee who has a medical condition that requires accommodation, but the employee is a very private person and never tells you about it. You generally are under no obligation to accommodate that condition because the employee is responsible for disclosing it and for requesting accommodation. That said, if the employee’s condition is obvious, and if it seems to be affecting job performance, safety, or behavior, then you as the employer should initiate the discussion and not wait for a disclosure/request from the employee.
Rule No. 3: You make the call (usually). You are required to at least consider any reasonable accommodations proposed by the employee, but “at the end of the day,” as they say, it’s your call. As long as your accommodation is effective, you can choose whatever works best for you, including a cheaper accommodation. This is true even if the employee’s proposed accommodation would not be an undue hardship for you.
Rule No. 4: You can (usually) confer with the employee’s health care provider. In some cases, to provide an effective accommodation, you may need to know what the employee’s condition is and what the employee’s health care provider thinks will help. If so, that’s OK – you’re allowed to ask. One thing I often recommend is having the employer draft a letter for the employee to take to the provider that describes what has been going on at work, provides a thorough description of the employee’s job including physical or mental demands, and asks for recommendations. (If you want the provider to answer your letter, be sure to have the employee sign a valid medical authorization that complies with the privacy rule of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. Under the HIPAA privacy rule, the provider is prohibited from communicating with you unless the employee authorizes it.)
If you have a good reason for doing it, you can even require the employee to see a provider of your choice. We see this often when the employee’s provider is not the best qualified to assess the employee’s condition and make meaningful recommendations. In those situations, you can send the employee to a qualified provider in the relevant specialty and ask for the specialist to provide an assessment and recommendation.
Rule No. 5: Know that time changes everything, and your accommodations may also have to change. Most medical conditions either get better with time, get worse with time, or stay the same over time. (Wow, Robin, way to go out on a limb.) If the employee gets better, you may be able to accommodate less. If the improvement is dramatic enough, you may be able to end the accommodations altogether. On the other hand, if the condition becomes more severe, you may have to make more accommodations than you started out with. You may also have to adjust your original accommodations based on changes in technology used on the job, changes in business conditions, your company’s philosophy on remote work, and the like.
Rule No. 6: If you have any flexibility, err on the side of accommodation. If an employee’s medical condition seems like it could be a disability but you're not sure, I think it’s better to just go ahead and try to accommodate. In other words, don’t nitpick about whether the condition is a “'disability' within the meaning of the ADA." In 2008, Congress amended the ADA to make the definition of “disability” much more encompassing than it had been in the past. If your employee’s situation is borderline and you take a hard line, then this is a battle you’re very likely to lose with the EEOC and with the courts.
![](assets/htmlimages/Venn%20Diagram.AdobeStock_821174013.jpg)
Rule No. 7: Beware of overlap. Workers’ compensation, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the ADA are not mutually exclusive. All three can apply at once. You can also have state disability protection laws and state leave laws, including paid leave laws. Make sure you’re complying with all the laws that apply. One fairly common employer mistake is refusing to give an employee leave for a legitimate medical condition because the employee has either exhausted his FMLA allotment or hasn’t been employed long enough to be eligible for FMLA leave. Don’t forget that, even if the employee is not entitled to FMLA leave, he may still be entitled under the ADA to some sort of leave as a disability-related accommodation. (And, again, be sure to consider those applicable state laws.)
Rule No. 8: Engage in the interactive process, document all your efforts, consult with counsel as needed, and don’t retaliate. Sorry. I couldn’t resist.
- Partner
Robin has more than 30 years' experience counseling employers and representing them before government agencies and in employment litigation involving Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with ...
Robin Shea has 30 years' experience in employment litigation, including Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (including the Amendments Act).
Continue Reading
Subscribe
Contributors
- William A. "Zan" Blue, Jr.
- Obasi Bryant
- Kenneth P. Carlson, Jr.
- James M. Coleman
- Cara Yates Crotty
- Lara C. de Leon
- Christopher R. Deubert
- Joyce M. Dos Santos
- Colin Finnegan
- Steven B. Katz
- Ellen C. Kearns
- F. Damon Kitchen
- David C. Kurtz
- Angelique Groza Lyons
- John E. MacDonald
- Robert L. Ortbals Jr.
- Alyssa K. Peters
- Sarah M. Phaff
- David P. Phippen
- William K. Principe
- Sabrina M. Punia-Ly
- Angela L. Rapko
- Katie M. Rhoten
- Paul Ryan
- Robin E. Shea
- Kristine Marie Sims
- David L. Smith
- Jill S. Stricklin
- Jack R. Wallace
Archives
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010