Workplace Accommodation Guidelines

What you think about the accommodation process is (probably) wrong. Employers do NOT just get to decide that something causes undue hardship. • There’s a specific legal definition, a high threshold to meet, and they have to be able to prove it. The process is NOT over when an employer denies a request. • Even if a denial is legitimate, the interactive process should continue to identify alternatives. Employers do NOT get to arbitrarily decide what accommodations to approve. • You have a right to an effective accommodation. If their alternative won’t work, you can push back. Employers do NOT get to ask for whatever medical information they want. • They can request documentation that substabtiates that you have a disability and need accommodation. And they can’t even ask that if the disability and need for accommodation is obvious or already known. You do NOT have to disclose your specific diagnosis. •Your doctor can effectively substantiate your disability by providing the general disability class or even just describing your limitations. You do NOT have to request accommodations during the interview or when you start. • You can ask at any point. And employers can’t deny the request or hold it against you because you didn’t ask earlier. “It wouldn’t be fair to other employees” is NOT a legitimate reason for denial. • Neither is “we don’t want to set a precedent” or concerns about coworker morale. If you don’t know what accommodation you need, you can still ask and start the process. •You can simply say you need a change due to medical need, and work together to find solutions. And finally, employers do NOT have all the power. • They may act like it. They may bully you into believing it. But you have legal rights. And if you know them, I promise, you have a LOT more power than you think. Next week I am giving step-by-step tips on how to navigate these all-too-common scenarios.

This is your quarterly reminder that employers' obligations to provide accommodations for their disabled employees: 1) doesn't need to use the word accommodation 2) doesn't need to come in a formal meeting 3) doesn't need to be in writing 4) doesn't need to use the word disability 5) doesn't need to disclose the actual diagnosis The most likely place for accommodations requests to come up? 1) Onboarding 2) Job responsibility change 3) Performance review meetings where the review is not good 4) Immediately after the onset of a new disability or leave A recent Sixth Circuit case: An employee told her supervisor she had night blindness (new disability) and couldn't safely drive home from the new 3 pm to11 pm shift. (job responsibility change) Her supervisor documented her as "reluctant to work" and fired her days later. The jury found for the employee on all three claims. The Sixth Circuit upheld it. There are two takeaways here: 1) The first party that halts (or never starts) the interactive process is almost always the party that loses. 2) Employees are not required to use magic words or specific settings. They say, "I'm struggling" or "this isn't safe for me." If an employer starts the termination process instead of a conversation, they have already lost and will face future complaints or litigation. Train your managers to recognize accommodation requests how they appear in the real world. If you want to stay out of the headlines and out of legal trouble, when an employee says they can't do something because of a health condition, explore solutions, not exit strategies. https://lnkd.in/gX6e2Hg4 #DisabilityInclusion #EmploymentLaw #ADA #WorkplaceAccommodations

Company policies do not dilute your legal entitlements. A rant about Workplace Adjustments 👇 A company cannot offer you two weeks leave, when your entitlement is four. A company also cannot force people impacted by disability to hot desk, have cameras on, or work a set number of days in an office. People impacted by disability are entitled to reasonable workplace adjustments, including flexible work arrangements. It's in the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA), Fair Work Act and strengthen in 2022 in the Secure Jobs, Better Pay Bill. Reasonable is not define by company policies or managers. It's defined in the Disability Discrimination Act. Reasonable Adjustments can be declined for two reasons 1. Inherent requirements of the role. A professional football player needs to be able to play football. They don't need to be able to play football without glasses. It is a reasonable adjustment for them to wear glasses on the field. Some roles need to be done on site, a nurse in ER. It is not an inherent requirement of many corporate roles to do it sitting in a specific location. We have COVID to thank for a plethora of proof points on that. 2. Unjustifiable hardship to the enterprise. This might be the cost burden to the enterprise or a risk to the enterprise. It's not your manager or team budget, it's considered at an enterprise level. Also, the Human Rights Commission has ways to reimburse a company. So cost really, really is no excuse. Risk is not 'more people might ask' or manager preference. It's business risk such as a software requested that stores data in an problematic country. The biggest barrier to people impacted by disability working is reasonable adjustments. The biggest contributor to their increased participation in the workforce is access to reasonable adjustment. Don't let a corporate over emphasis on return to offices dissuade you from seeking what you need. I'm yet to meet an executive who's intention is to breach our human rights. Those messages were broad, and not meant for us. Rant over. #DisabilityLeadership #Disability #WorkplaceAdjustments #Accessibility #AccessibleDesign #MostlyUnlearning

"If you fire her, she will sue you and I will testify." That's not a plaintiff's lawyer talking. That's Dr. Robby, the chief of emergency medicine on "The Pitt," grabbing a patient's phone and putting her boss on notice while she's being treated for what looks like SIRS—a systemic inflammatory response that's threatening her leg and possibly her life. Debbie Cohen is in the ER. Her rash is spreading. Three senior physicians are at her bedside. And her biggest fear is missing work. Her boss keeps calling, accusing her of exaggerating, dangling termination if she doesn't show up. At one point she pleads, "Please! Please don't fire me!" Let's talk about the law. We don't know whether her employer is large enough to be covered by the FMLA or whether she's worked long enough to be eligible. The episode doesn't give us headcount or tenure. But if the company meets the 50-employee threshold and Debbie satisfies the 1,250 hours/one year eligibility requirements, this is easy. Once the employer has notice she's in the ER with a serious health condition, firing her for missing work is classic FMLA interference and retaliation. You don't get to terminate someone for being hospitalized after you've been told she's hospitalized. And even if the FMLA doesn't apply, the ADA almost certainly does. A condition serious enough to land someone in the ER with a systemic inflammatory response almost certainly qualifies as a disability. The ADA requires reasonable accommodation. Time off for emergency treatment is about as reasonable as it gets. The appropriate response isn't skepticism and threats. It's flexibility and dialogue. But here's the bigger issue. If your employee, sitting in an ER fearing for her life, is more worried about getting fired than getting better, your culture is badly broken. No one should need a doctor to threaten to testify in a lawsuit for a manager to show basic decency. Employers, make sure you understand your FMLA obligations, respect the ADA's accommodation requirements, and build a workplace where medical emergencies trigger support—not suspicion and threats of termination.

"He'd used up all his FMLA. He asked for more time. At some point, you need someone in that chair." An employee experiences a stress-anxiety-related collapse while at work. He takes approved FMLA leave to recover. After the 12 weeks of leave, the employee requests 6 more weeks of leave to recover before returning to work. The manager says she can't accommodate the extra time off and denies the leave. A common misconception among management is that employees only get 12 weeks of FMLA leave to attend to medical issues. But this isn't the end of the story. Companies have an obligation to engage in an interactive process and assess whether the additional leave would constitute a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act and applicable state and local laws. The law is incredibly deferential to employee requests, and recent legal developments make it harder than ever for employers to deny requests like these. Companies that make snap judgments, without doing the proper analysis and understanding their legal obligations, do so at their own peril.

An employee asks to work from home permanently as a disability accommodation. Can you say no if the job genuinely requires in-person work? A federal appeals court just said yes, and its reasoning applies well beyond the university setting where this case arose (decision in below 👇). The case involved an office employee who wanted to continue working remotely after a company's return-to-office mandate. The employer denied the request, pointing to specific in-person duties baked into the job. The employee sued for disability discrimination. The Third Circuit sided with the employer. Here's why it matters for any business with roles that blend in-person and remote work, whether that's retail, healthcare, manufacturing, or a standard office job. The court didn't accept the employee's argument that the job was "primarily remote-capable." Instead, it looked at the actual, documented duties: greeting people, handling physical mail and keys, running errands, posting notices, interacting face-to-face with others in the building. The employee even admitted that some of these tasks went undone or fell on coworkers when working remotely. The employee also proposed a workaround: let other staff cover the in-person pieces. The court rejected that too. An accommodation is supposed to help someone perform their own job. Offloading essential duties onto someone else isn't an accommodation. It's asking to be excused from the job. Three practical lessons for any employer: 1️⃣ Keep job descriptions current and specific. If a role has in-person requirements, spell them out before a dispute forces the issue, not after. 2️⃣ Understand the difference between accommodating a function and eliminating it. You have to help someone do the job. You don't have to redefine the job around them. 3️⃣ You're not obligated to hire extra staff or shift work onto other employees to make a remote arrangement work. This decision isn't binding precedent, and outcomes vary by circuit and by the specific facts of each job. Some courts have ruled the opposite way when remote work genuinely covers all the essential functions. The lesson isn't "remote accommodations always lose." It's that clear, honest job descriptions are the strongest tool you have when these requests land on your desk. #EmploymentLaw #ADA #DisabilityAccommodation #HR #ReturnToOffice #RemoteWork #WorkplaceCompliance #EmployerResources

Who among us hasn't wrestled with the complexities of the interactive process of handling disability accommodation requests? However, there is a rule of thumb: the first to withdraw from the good faith, interactive process won't fare well in an Americans with Disabilities Act lawsuit. In a Sixth Circuit decision I read last night, the plaintiff with various psychological disorders had requested 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 court also noted 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 earlier leave and did not address the specific accommodations she requested under the ADA. The court ruled that providing proper medical documentation is not a mere formality but critical to the accommodation process. The defendant could not reasonably assess or provide the requested accommodations without this documentation. Three 🗝️'s for Employers 🤝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. 🎯Require Specific Medical Documentation: Employers can request specific, narrowly tailored medical documentation to support accommodation requests. This isn't carte blanche. Instead, focus on the nature of the disability and the necessity of the requested accommodations. 🪟Address Concerns of Bias Transparently: If an employee raises concerns about potential bias in the accommodation 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. 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. #TheEmployerHandbook

My client submitted an accommodation request. Her employer ignored it. So she submitted it again. The second notice went to her HR department, her manager's office, and a third-party leave administrator. Weeks passed. No approval. No denial. No response. Just silence. Here's what employers sometimes think: if we don't respond, we haven't technically said no. That's not how the law works. → Under the ADA, employers have a legal obligation to engage in what's called the "interactive process" — a good faith back-and-forth about what accommodations might work. → Ignoring an accommodation request isn't compliance. A court can treat it as a denial. → A pattern of non-response can itself become evidence of bad faith in a later lawsuit. → Every time you follow up, do it in writing. Email, not just phone calls. Timestamps matter. The employees who protect themselves best are the ones who document everything — not because they're looking to sue, but because documentation is the only thing that keeps the employer honest. Silence is not an answer. And if that silence is costing you your health or your job, it may be actionable.

Priority queue access for disabled people is not a courtesy. It is a legal requirement. In Campbell v Thomas Cook, a disabled woman was required to stand in a standard queue despite her mobility condition. Thomas Cook lost at the Court of Appeal. The case confirmed that the anticipatory duty under the Equality Act 2010 requires operators to think ahead, not wait for a complaint. The question is not whether your venue has an accessible queue route. The question is whether your staff know how to apply it, whether your booking system communicates it, and whether your policies make it universally available without the customer having to ask twice. Queue management sits at the intersection of your operational design and your legal exposure. Most venues assume good intentions are enough. The courts have consistently said otherwise. I have written a detailed guide covering the legal framework, verification systems including the Access Card and Sunflower Lanyard, the Live Nation EHRC agreement, and a self-scoring checklist for event operators. Free to download: https://lnkd.in/dHCuedui

Did you know that you can leverage the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to request work-from-home (WFH) accommodations based on mental health conditions? This could significantly reshape the "Return to Office" (RTO) landscape, creating both opportunities and challenges for employees and employers alike. Understanding RTO Mandates and the ADA: - The ADA requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities, including mental health conditions. - Keith Sonderling, Commissioner at the EEOC, highlights the importance of engaging in an interactive process with employees who request accommodations for mental health conditions. - Brandalyn Bickner, EEOC spokesperson, emphasizes that "reasonable accommodation" includes modifying workplace policies, potentially enabling remote work for employees with disabilities. The Impact of ADA Awareness on RTO Dynamics: - Many employees are unaware they can request remote work as an accommodation for mental health conditions such as anxiety, depression, or PTSD. - Increased awareness could dramatically shift current RTO dynamics, leading to more accommodation requests. - Employees need a formal diagnosis from a licensed mental health professional to claim a WFH accommodation. This must indicate that remote work is necessary for managing their condition. Legal Precedents and Employer Responsibilities: - The EEOC has shown its teeth, as seen in the ISS Facility Services, Inc. settlement and a complaint against a Georgia company for ADA violations. - Employers must navigate legal requirements and handle accommodation requests carefully to avoid discrimination and legal repercussions. Balancing Employee Needs and Operational Efficiency: - Employers should develop clear, consistent policies for handling accommodation requests, including training for managers and HR professionals. - Creative solutions, such as hybrid work schedules, flexible hours, or designated quiet spaces in the office, can help balance remote work with in-office expectations. As the workplace continues to evolve, the interplay between mental health accommodations and remote work will remain a critical issue. Employers have a legal obligation to inform their staff of their rights under the ADA and must be prepared to accommodate legitimate mental health needs while maintaining operational efficiency. Creating an inclusive work environment that supports mental health without sacrificing the benefits of in-person collaboration is crucial. By navigating this complex landscape thoughtfully and legally, employers can foster a workplace that respects employees' mental health needs and drives business success.