Background

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab required all employees to be vaccinated or obtain an exemption, in order to comply with then-applicable federal contractor mandates. A systems engineer requested a medical exemption from the COVID-19 vaccination requirement. According to the court, in support of her request, she submitted a 2012 blood test and a form signed by her healthcare provider, citing “chronic Lyme Disease [and] Lyme-induced immune dysregulation.” It was not clear, however, why the employee’s condition prevented her from getting the vaccine. The employer requested updated medical documentation and permission to communicate with her doctors to verify her condition and understand why the COVID-19 vaccine was contraindicated for her. Despite multiple requests from the employer, the employee refused to provide current medical documentation or allow the employer to contact her doctors. Instead, she repeatedly reiterated her fear of introducing the COVID-19 vaccine into her system due to alleged lingering effects of Lyme disease.

The employer concluded that there was no evidence that Lyme disease should affect an individual’s ability to be vaccinated for COVID-19 and that it was not a CDC-recognized clinical contraindication. The employer denied the employee’s accommodation request as “insufficiently supported” and subsequently terminated her employment for not complying with the vaccination policy.

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer, and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, holding that the employee’s refusal to provide the necessary medical information prevented the employer from understanding her condition and determining an appropriate accommodation. The court emphasized that the interactive process is an important part of determining reasonable accommodations and that employers have the right to request and verify medical information to confirm the need for accommodations. According to the Fourth Circuit, because of the employee’s refusal to engage in that process, the employer had no duty to accommodate her request.

Clarification on the Interactive Process under the ADA

In its decision, the court provided clarification on the ADA’s interactive process as follows. The ADA mandates that, absent undue hardship on the business, employers must provide reasonable accommodations to employees with known physical or mental limitations due to a disability, enabling them to enjoy the same workplace opportunities as those without disabilities. The interactive process is a collaborative effort between employers and employees to determine appropriate accommodations that are not unduly burdensome. With regard to employers, a failure to engage in this process in good faith can result in a violation of the ADA if a reasonable accommodation is possible.

But, as the Court noted, the interactive process is a mutual obligation. According to the court, the employee must engage in the interactive process by providing information that the employer requires in order to verify the existence of the employee’s disability and determine the scope of any disability-related limitations.

Accordingly, the court made four key points.

1. Employer’s Right to Verify

According to the court, employers are not required to take an employee’s word for their need for an accommodation. Employers must act in good faith, the court found, but where an employee’s disability is not open and obvious, they have the right to request current and sufficient objective medical information to understand the employee’s limitations and the need for an accommodation.

2. Employee’s Responsibility

The court highlighted that, in response to any such request, employees must provide adequate medical documentation to support their accommodation requests.

3. Breakdown of the Interactive Process:

The court emphasized the importance of the interactive process under the ADA, which requires both the employer and employee to engage in good faith to identify reasonable accommodations for the employee’s disability. Here, the court found that the breakdown in the interactive process was due to the employee’s refusal to provide the necessary medical information.

4. No Duty to Accommodate

The court concluded that, without the necessary medical information, the employer could not determine whether the employee’s condition required an exemption from the COVID-19 vaccination requirement. The employee’s failure to engage in the interactive process justified the employer decision to deny her exemption and ultimately terminate her employment. Accordingly, the Court ruled that without this information, the employer had no duty to accommodate her request.

What Does This Mean for Employers?

The Fourth Circuit’s decision reinforces the court’s views on the importance of the interactive process, and it further highlights that the interactive process is a two-way street between the employer and the employee. Employers may want to keep in mind that the ADA permits, but does not require, employers to request documentation when the employee’s asserted disability and/or need for accommodation is not known or obvious. In cases where the need for accommodation is obvious, the ADA requires employers to act without requiring extensive proof and a request for medical documentation will not be necessary. However, under the ADA, when a disability or accommodation is not obvious, the employer is entitled to seek additional information, and an employee’s refusal to provide necessary medical documentation to verify a disability and related limitations and to determine accommodations to further the interactive process may justify the denial of accommodation requests. Thus, this decision serves as a reminder that if an employee hinders the employer’s understanding of the employee’s disability, the employer’s duty to accommodate may not arise, and the employee’s claim might fail.