Seyfarth Synopsis: In a recent decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that a factfinder could conclude that an employer’s six-month delay during the ADA interactive process could amount to a failure to accommodate—without the employee having to prove any other independent injury or harm. The decision makes clear the problem was not that the interactive process took six months per se, but that the six month delay could be evidence of bad faith. Thus, although employers do not have per se deadlines to resolve accommodation requests, employers should always act promptly during the interactive process and also consider potential interim accommodations.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) requires employers to grant accommodations to qualified individuals with a disability, provided those accommodations are reasonable and do not impose an undue hardship on the employer, and provided the employee does not pose a direct threat to herself or others. To accomplish this, employers and employees must engage in the interactive process in good faith. And while there is no fixed deadline by which employers must complete that process, a recent decision from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reinforces the need to move the process along in a timely fashion.
Case Background
In Strife v. Aldine Independent School District, a school district Human Resources employee alleged that the employer school district failed to reasonably accommodate her disability, in violation of the ADA and Texas state law.
The plaintiff, a veteran, was diagnosed with service-connected PTSD and physical conditions that affected her balance, gait, and mobility. She relied on her service dog at home and requested an accommodation to allow her to bring her service dog to work.
The plaintiff provided multiple documents from healthcare providers to justify her need for her service dog at work. However, her employer deemed these documents insufficient for various reasons and asked the plaintiff to undergo a medical examination by the employer’s physician to determine possible alternative accommodations. The plaintiff refused. Ultimately, the school district granted the accommodation, but only after approximately six months of back and forth and after the plaintiff filed a lawsuit.
District Court’s Decision
The district court granted the employer’s motion to dismiss on the plaintiff’s failure to accommodate claim, reasoning that the plaintiff had been working for the employer for ten years before she requested an accommodation for the disability she has had for at least five years. And, during the six months that the employer took to evaluate her accommodation request, her work conditions remained the same. The district court held that the plaintiff did not sufficiently allege that the employer failed to make reasonable accommodations because the accommodation was eventually granted.
The Fifth Circuit’s Decision
In reversing the district court, the Fifth Circuit held that the question is not whether the plaintiff experienced an independent injury or harm while waiting for her accommodation, but rather whether the employer “failed to make reasonable accommodations” after being informed of the plaintiff’s limitations. The Fifth Circuit found that under the facts presented in this case and contrary to the district court’s decision the plaintiff had made out a potential claim for failure to accommodate to survive the more liberal pleading standards of a motion to dismiss that require only needing to allege facts sufficient to state a claim for relief on its face.
As the Fifth Circuit explained, although employers are not required to “move with maximum speed to complete” the interactive process, delay during the interactive process can be evidence of bad faith on the employer’s part and essentially result in a failure to accommodate. In this case, the employer insisted that the plaintiff undergo a medical examination, which the plaintiff refused to do. Under the ADA, an employer may insist on an independent physical examination “if the individual provides insufficient information . . . to substantiate that s/he has an ADA disability and needs a reasonable accommodation.” But here, the plaintiff sufficiently alleged that she had provided the employer with ample evidence from numerous doctors confirming her disability and the need for accommodation. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit found that the plaintiff had sufficiently pled facts that could support a finding that the employer’s insistence on a medical examination was unreasonable and that the six-month delay was evidence of bad faith.
Now that the plaintiff’s failure to accommodate claim has been remanded back to district court, it may ultimately meet the same fate as her other claims, which did not survive the more stringent standard of summary judgment.
Takeaways
Even though the employer ultimately granted the accommodation and even though it was the plaintiff who refused to undergo an independent medical examination, the Fifth Circuit found that the six-month delay could be evidence of bad faith during the interactive process and support a failure to accommodate claim—especially where the employee provided substantial evidence to support the need for the specific accommodation requested. The outcome may have been different if there were legitimate questions about whether other reasonable accommodations existed.
Thus, not only is it important to act reasonably during the interactive process, but it is also important to move the interactive process forward in an efficient manner. Considering and providing interim accommodations during the interactive process will also go a long way to showing diligence and good faith on the employer’s part.
And although this decision does not directly address the significance of documenting the interactive process, it serves as a valuable reminder to thoroughly record all accommodation requests and meetings to prevent potential costly disputes. Thorough documentation ensures consistency and accountability across the board, regardless of your organization’s size.
