Enforcement Guidance: Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship Under the Americans with Disabilities Act

INSTRUCTIONS FOR INVESTIGATORS

When assessing whether a Respondent has violated the ADA by denying a reasonable accommodation to a Charging Party, investigators should consider the following:

\

• Is the Charging Party "otherwise qualified" (i.e., is the Charging Party qualified for the job except that, because of disability, s/he needs a reasonable accommodation to perform the position's essential functions)?

• Did the Charging Party, or a representative, request a reasonable accommodation (i.e., did the Charging Party let the employer know that s/he needed an adjustment or change at work for a reason related to a medical condition)? [see Questions 1-4]

  • Did the Respondent request documentation of the Charging Party's disability and/or functional limitations? If yes, was the documentation provided? Did the Respondent have a legitimate reason for requesting documentation? [see Questions 6-8]

  • What specific type of reasonable accommodation, if any, did the Charging Party request?

  • Was there a nexus between the reasonable accommodation requested and the functional limitations resulting from the Charging Party's disability? [see Question 6]

  • Was the need for reasonable accommodation related to the use of medication, side effects from treatment, or symptoms related to a disability? [see Questions 36-38]

• For what purpose did the Charging Party request a reasonable accommodation:

  • for the application process? [see Questions 12-13]

  • in connection with aspects of job performance? [see Questions 16-24, 32-33]

  • in order to enjoy the benefits and privileges of employment? [see Questions 14-15]

• Should the Respondent have initiated the interactive process, or provided a reasonable accommodation, even if the Charging Party did not ask for an accommodation? [see Questions 11, 39]

• What did the Respondent do in response to the Charging Party's request for reasonable accommodation (i.e., did the Respondent engage in an interactive process with the Charging Party and if so, describe both the Respondent's and the Charging Party's actions/statements during this process)? [see Questions 5-11]

• If the Charging Party asked the Respondent for a particular reasonable accommodation, and the Respondent provided a different accommodation, why did the Respondent provide a different reasonable accommodation than the one requested by the Charging Party? Why does the Respondent believe that the reasonable accommodation it provided was effective in eliminating the workplace barrier at issue, thus providing the Charging Party with an equal employment opportunity? Why does the Charging Party believe that the reasonable accommodation provided by the Respondent was ineffective? [see Question 9]

• What type of accommodation could the Respondent have provided that would have been "reasonable" and effective in eliminating the workplace barrier at issue, thus providing the Charging Party with an equal employment opportunity?

• Does the charge involve allegations concerning reasonable accommodation and violations of any conduct rules? [see Questions 34-35]

• If the Charging Party alleges that the Respondent failed to provide a reassignment as a reasonable accommodation [see generally Questions 25-30 and accompanying text]:

  • did the Respondent and the Charging Party first discuss other forms of reasonable accommodation that would enable the Charging Party to remain in his/her current position before discussing reassignment?

  • did the Respondent have any vacant positions? [see Question 27]

  • did the Respondent notify the Charging Party about possible vacant positions? [see Question 28]

  • was the Charging Party qualified for a vacant position?

  • if there was more than one vacant position, did the Respondent place the Charging Party in the one that was most closely equivalent to the Charging Party's original position?

  • if the reassignment would conflict with a seniority system, are there "special circumstances" that would make it "reasonable" to reassign the Charging Party? [see Question 31]

• If the Respondent is claiming undue hardship [see generally Questions 42-46 and accompanying text]:

  • what evidence has the Respondent produced showing that providing a specific reasonable accommodation would entail significant difficulty or expense?

  • if a modified schedule or leave is the reasonable accommodation, is undue hardship based on the impact on the ability of other employees to do their jobs? [see Question 42]

  • if leave is the reasonable accommodation, is undue hardship based on the amount of leave requested? [see Question 43]

  • if there are "special circumstances" that would make it "reasonable" to reassign the Charging Party, despite the apparent conflict with a seniority system, would it nonetheless be an undue hardship to make the reassignment? [see Question 31]

  • is undue hardship based on the fact that providing the reasonable accommodation requires changes to property owned by an entity other than the Respondent? [see Question 46]

  • if the Respondent claims that a particular reasonable accommodation would result in undue hardship, is there another reasonable accommodation that Respondent could have provided that would not have resulted in undue hardship?

• Based on the evidence obtained in answers to the questions above, is the Charging Party a qualified individual with a disability (i.e., can the Charging Party perform the essential functions of the position with or without reasonable accommodation)?