/>iEarlier this month, in Strife v. Aldine Independent School District, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that an employer’s delayed accommodation of an employee’s disability could amount to a failure to accommodate under the Americans with Disabilities Act. This case serves as an important reminder not only to take all requests for disability accommodations seriously but also to respond swiftly and without undue delay.
ADA Basics
Under the ADA, employers cannot discriminate against employees based on their disabilities. In addition, employers must accommodate known disabilities, if requested. The employer does not have to give the exact requested accommodation, but they must engage in the “interactive process,” through which the employer and employee work together to find a reasonable accommodation that will both enable the employee to perform the essential job functions and work for the employer’s business needs. The duty to engage in the interactive process begins when the employer is on notice of the employee’s disability and desire for an accommodation.
The Facts
Alisha Strife requested that her employer, the Aldine Independent School District, allow her service dog to accompany her at work, in connection with her multiple disabilities. The school requested additional information, and Strife submitted a letter from her treating provider. The school, however, deemed the letter insufficient because it was not from a board-certified medical provider and requested further supporting documentation. Strife then submitted a letter from her psychiatrist, after which the school requested that she submit to an independent medical examination.
After the examination, the school and Strife’s lawyer exchanged various communications, and Strife provided three additional letters and underwent another exam confirming her need for the service dog. The school took issue with these items, including stating that they failed to “provide any information regarding potential alternative accommodations.” After roughly six months, the school ultimately granted the request.
Strife filed suit alleging, in part, that the school failed to accommodate her disabilities, and the school moved to dismiss. The court granted the motion to dismiss as to the failure to accommodate claim and a hostile work environment claim and later granted summary judgment on other ADA claims. On appeal, however, the Fifth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the failure to accommodate claim (but affirmed the district court’s treatment of the other claims).
The Holding
The Fifth Circuit held that Strife plausibly stated a claim for failure to accommodate, even though the school ultimately granted her requested accommodation. The court defined the question as “whether th[e] six-month delay, in and of itself, constitutes a failure to accommodate.” While noting that employers are not required to move “with maximum speed,” the court held that a delay can constitute a failure to accommodate because, “otherwise, an employer could circumvent the ADA’s protections by forcing an aggrieved employee to endure an endless interactive process.”
Under these facts, the court held that the delay could constitute a failure to accommodate. Specifically, the court noted that the school’s actions indicated a lack of good faith, as Strife repeatedly provided documents confirming her need for the accommodation, the accommodation was granted only after she initiated legal action, and the delay forced her to work in “suboptimal conditions” for six months.
Takeaways
This case serves as an important reminder to move expeditiously on accommodation requests. While you do not need to rush into a decision or simply grant an employee’s exact request as soon as it comes in, remember to engage in the interactive process in good faith and without undue delay. As always, consult with your employment lawyer with any questions about best practices in the interactive process. As for Ms. Strife’s case, the Fifth Circuit held that she had plausibly alleged a failure to accommodate due to the six-month delay and that her claim should go forward. Time will tell whether she will succeed on this claim.
