WHAT COMPANIES CAN EXPECT WHEN THE

COURT’S VIEW REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS

POST AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT AMEND-
MENTS.
Daniel F. Hallman, Jr., Walden University of Public Policy and Administration
Ernesto Escobedo, Jr., Walden University of Public Policy and Administration

ABSTRACT

This article takes an in depth look at how the judiciary is viewing reasonable accommodation in the work-
place. In 2009, the passing of the Americans with Disability Act as Amended (ADAAA) assisted the judiciary
and administrative bodies to better understand congressional intent of a qualified disability. Even though
this seems to have been achieved, the ADAAA still has troubled areas, specifically regarding reasonable
accommodations. This article pursued to establish how the courts are currently viewing reasonable accom-
modations within the workplace. Qualitative methodology was utilized with criterion case sampling. Data
for this study included court interpretations post-ADA amendments among the 12 United States Circuit
Courts. All data was coded through a multi-stage coding procedure that included evaluating coding, cycle
coding, hand coding, and subcoding. Coded data were analyzed using a thematic analysis procedure. The
key theme emerging from this study indicated the current problem is how the courts are viewing reasonable
accommodations. The cases viewed indicated the courts favored employers when reasonable accommoda-
tions were requested by employees. Analysis of why this might be occurring was also posited. This study
will aid employees and employers by informing what they can expect in the judiciary when reasonable
accommodations are requested.

KEYWORDS: Adjudication, Civil Litigation, Litigation, Litigation Process, Judiciary, Disability Law,
Courts, Americans with Disability Act, Americans with Disability Act as Amended, ADA, ADAAA, Rea-
sonable Accommodations, Undue Hardship

INTRODUCTION

The law requires an employer to provide reasonable accommodation to an employee or job applicant with
a disability, unless doing so would cause significant difficulty or expense for the employer. A reasonable
accommodation is any change in the work environment (or in the way things are usually done) to help a
person with a disability apply for a job, perform the duties of a job, or enjoy the benefits and privileges of
employment. Reasonable accommodation might include, for example, making the workplace accessible for
wheelchair users or providing a reader or interpreter for someone who is blind or hearing impaired (EEOC,
2019). A person can show that he or she has a disability in one of three ways:

• A person may be disabled if he or she has a physical or mental condition that substantially limits a
major life activity (such as walking, talking, seeing, hearing, or learning).
• A person may be disabled if he or she has a history of a disability (such as cancer that is in remis-
sion).
• A person may be disabled if he is believed to have a physical or mental impairment that is not
transitory (lasting or expected to last six months or less) and minor (even if he does not have such
an impairment) (EEOC, 2019).

Employers are expected to comply with reasonable accommodations when requested by an employee but
what establishes a reasonable accommodation is not always clear. Inherently, disabled individuals have
been treated in an unjustified manner, segregated, and excluded within mainstream American life (Switzer,
2003). This unjustified treatment was the reasoning for Congress to enact the Americans with Disability
Act of 1990 (ADA) (Creta, 2014). Although this congressional Act had sound intentions, it was fraught
with judiciary interpretations of what constituted a qualified disability or impairment (Valenti, 2014). Pub-
lic and media outcries alerted Congress that the judiciary was narrowly interpreting a disability and negating
most individuals from coverage under the Act (Valenti, 2014). Congress amended the ADA on January 1,
2009 with its intent to clarify what is a qualified disability and not be narrowly interpreted (Valenti, 2014).
The new Act would become known as The Americans with Disability Act as Amended (ADAAA).

In 2013, The National Council on Disability conducted a report to the presiding president of how the new
amendments were being implemented within the judicial system. A continued 2017 analysis by Hallman
and Escobedo, further analyzed this question within all 12 federal circuit courts. It was discovered that as
of April 2017 the federal circuit courts were adhering to congressional intent regarding a qualified disability
and no longer narrowly interpreting. However, it was discovered during this qualitative analysis that the
illuminating issue now is how the judiciary is inferring reasonable accommodations under the ADAAA.

The new debate in the courts is how and when a company should accommodate. What might be a reason-
able accommodation for one company may not be reasonable for another, which current statute dictates
that cases need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis (42 U.S.C. § 12111(10)). Reasonable accommoda-
tions are now being interpreted and causing the courts once again to infer a portion of the ADAAA, that
perhaps, is at odds with congressional intent again. In this peer reviewed article, this question will be eval-
uated and reviewed. Thus, by understanding how the courts are interpreting reasonable accommodations
will allow companies to have a comprehensive assessment when dealing with such requests.

LITERATURE REVIEW

This section summarizes key ADAAA court cases within the federal circuit courts concerning reasonable
accommodations. The key cases analyzed for this article were Jones v. Nationwide Life Insurance Compa-
nys, (2012), in the First Circuit, Jacobs v. N.C. Administrative Office of the Courts (2015), in the Fourth
Circuit, DeWitt v. Southwestern Bell Telephone, (2017), in the Tenth Circuit, and Horn v. Night Facilities
Management – GM, Inc., (2014), in the Sixth Circuit.

The first case observed was Jones v. Nationwide Life Insurance Companys, (2012), in the First Circuit. The
court held that plaintiff/appellant was not entitled to reasonable accommodations because he never speci-
fied to his employer that his disability directly affected him when performing certain work tasks (Jones v.
Nationwide Life Insurance Companys, 2012, p. 89). Thus, it is extremely important for an individual to
carefully explain to their employer how their requested accommodation would hinder their ability to per-
form a job function if the request is not granted. Simply, and even though the individual in the noted case
did qualify as having a disability that, because he did not correlate his accommodation request in relation
to his medical condition the First Circuit sided with the employer.

In the second case viewed was Jacobs v. N.C. Administrative Office of the Courts (2015), in the Fourth
Circuit. Jacobs was requesting reasonable accommodations with her employer due to her social anxiety
disorder. Jacobs’ request was to be reassigned within the office to a less socially interactive position. The
court held that her employer was properly notified of Jacobs’ disability, and that her accommodations were
reasonable in order to alleviate her social anxiety disorder (Jacobs v. N.C. Administrative Office of the
Courts, 2015). The overall glean of this case is that the Fourth Circuit established social anxiety as a qual-
ified disability under the new ADAAA and her employer should have reasonably accommodated (Jacobs
v. N.C. Administrative Office of the Courts, 2015).
The third case analyzed was DeWitt v. Southwestern Bell Telephone, (2017), in the Tenth Circuit. DeWitt,
a call center employee with type I diabetes was not accommodated by her employer and subsequently fired.
What’s interesting within the this noted case is that the court held that because DeWitt asked for leniency
for her deficient work skills and not reasonable accommodations that fundamentally her claim failed in the
court because she did not technically ask for reasonable accommodations (DeWitt v. Southwestern Bell
Telephone, 2017). As indicated in the Jones case that, when an individual request reasonable accommoda-
tion it must be correlated to his or her medical condition.

The last case was Horn v. Night Facilities Management – GM, Inc., (2014), in the Sixth Circuit, Horn, who
worked as a janitor became sensitive to cleaning products used in her day-to-day cleaning routine. Horn,
who became sensitive to the cleaning products used during her janitorial duties asked for reasonable ac-
commodations. Such as, eliminating restroom cleanings or provide her with a respirator. However, since
her physician specified that she have “no exposure to cleaning solutions” (Horn v. Night Facilities Man-
agement – GM, Inc., 2014, p. 455) the Sixth Circuit concluded that the accommodation request was not
reasonable and moreover would have brought an undue hardship upon the company.

Therefore, the key cases evaluated above used the dataset of all 12 federal circuit court cases vis-à-vis
reasonable accommodations and extends the work of the National Council of Disability (2013) and Hall-
man and Escobedo (2017). Hence, this article and research revealed that reasonable accommodations re-
quested by employees tend to be viewed pro-employer within the judiciary and are being evaluated on a
case-by-case basis. The results and discussion section will provide a comprehensive discussion as to why
reasonable accommodations are being evaluated in this manner and how companies should respond to
reasonable accommodations when requested by employees. Pragmatically, this understanding should assist
employers and employees to appropriately respond to one another without producing a disconnect and di-
chotomy that typically ends in costly litigation.

DATA AND METHODOLOGY

Data for this study included court interpretations post-ADA amendments among the 12 United States Cir-
cuit Courts. Cases were selected using Boolean indicators via reasonable accommodations post ADA
amendments. All data was coded through a multi-stage coding procedure that included evaluating coding,
cycle coding, hand coding, and subcoding. Coded data were analyzed using a thematic analysis procedure.

The geographical location for the data collected was obtained at the Library of Congress legal depository
using LexisNexis and Westlaw legal databases. It should be mentioned that; no current United States Su-
preme Court cases were found regarding reasonable accommodations and ADA amendments.

The methodology selected was qualitative with criterion case sampling. Criterion case sampling utilizes a
case selection that is derived from a specific measure that will gather the best information of primary im-
portance (Patton, 2002). Additionally, criterion sampling typically is used when identifying informative
rich cases (Patton, 2002). Thus, this article only used cases that were specific to the topic and would obtain
the best objective evidence for this article.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results illuminated in this article established that nearly 90 percent of all reasonable accommodations
brought before the courts were not favorable for employees. Dejectedly the court’s siding with employers
did so for specific reasons and not inherently because the employee did not have a disability. For example,
one argument frequently used by employers is that reasonable accommodations regarding an employer’s
obligation when providing reasonable accommodation “is that no such change or modification is required
if it would cause ‘undue hardship’ to the employer” (EEOC; Enforcement Guidance: Undue Hardship,
2019, para. 1; 42 U.S.C. § 12112 (b)(5)(A)). Thus, and as previously pointed out, reasonable accommoda-
tions and or undue hardships are often viewed on a case-by-case basis (42 U.S.C. § 12111(10)). This legal
ideology to use a case-by-case analysis can be vexing concerning reasonable accommodations because
what may be reasonable for one company may not be reasonable for another. According to Webber (2010),
reasonable accommodations is not defined within the statute only grants examples of what reasonable
accommodations could be. Pragmatically, it is not far fetching to infer that legislative intent is lacking in
this area and should be expounded upon or fear the possibility that the courts will narrowly interpret rea-
sonable accommodations as they previously did with a qualified disability. In continuance, other instances
where the court’s held that an employer was not obligated to reasonably accommodate is when an employee
was regarded as not being able to perform their work duties with or without reasonable accommodations
or not regarded as having a disability and/or impairment by the employer because the employee did not
properly notify the employer of such disability.

Despite these factors, employers should still closely evaluate whether an accommodation is truly reasona-
ble, and if so, would it place an undue hardship upon the company. Additionally, the employer should
establish policy and guidelines when faced with employee accommodations, thus possibly bypassing liti-
gation if the employee feels unaccommodated. The EEOC, within their EEOC’s Enforcement Guidance
handbook regarding reasonable accommodations does give examples of when the employer should accom-
modate and can be viewed in its entirety at: https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/accommodation.html#N.
Pragmatically, this is a good guide with practical ways to understand employer responsibilities concerning
reasonable accommodations and can be used to obtain clarity when deciding how to accommodate an em-
ployee’s request.

However, it’s not just the employer with an obligation to understand reasonable accommodations requested
by employees, but also employees must understand when to notify the employer of their disability when
requiring such an accommodation. This should be done specifically by correlating his or her medical con-
dition with the accommodation. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) states that
“[w]hen an individual decides to request accommodation, the individual or his/her representative must let
the employer know that s/he needs an adjustment or change at work for a reason related to a medical con-
dition” (EEOC; Enforcement Guidance: Undue Hardship, 2019, para., 1). Hence, it is imperative that proper
dialogue takes place between an employer/employee when the employee request accommodation. To that
end, ambiguity of a disability by the parties could ultimately lead to a reasonable accommodation being
denied by the courts.

CONCLUSION

The ADA of 1990 had issues with the court’s narrowly interpreting a qualified disability and now the cur-
rent gap in the literature is whether congress intended reasonable accommodations to be viewed as narrowly
as it is in the courts. Thus, the new crux regarding the ADA amendments is whether the courts are sending
the wrong message when viewing reasonable accommodations to employers when 90 percent of the cases
viewed in the federal circuit courts failed for one reason or another. Additionally, it is conceivable that
current statutory language and court holdings, about reasonable accommodations, and undue hardship will
act counterintuitively when aiding disabled individuals.

Moreover, the literature also indicated that a disconnect between companies and their employees exist re-
garding the topic of reasonable accommodations. In many of the cases viewed, litigation could have been
circumvented if improved communication between the parties were established when accommodations
were requested. The results also indicated that, while an employee may very well believe they properly
requested a reasonable accommodation they failed to make a connection with how the accommodation and
the disability needs to be accommodated. Subsequently in some instances, employees thought they were
asking for accommodations, but it was deemed by the courts as leniency for poor work performance.
Therefore, continued research will ensue regarding reasonable accommodations within the workplace and
within the courts process as information becomes available. This further research should illuminate the
current dichotomies found within this study that could pragmatically aid with employer/employee relation-
ships, ambiguity that exist as to what is a reasonable accommodation and is it practical that every case
concerning reasonable accommodations be viewed on a case-by-case basis.

REFERENCES

42 U.S.C. § 12112 (b)(5)(A)

42 U.S.C. §12111 (10)

ADA Amendments Act (2) (b), 122 Stat. at 3554

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U. S. C. A. § 12101 et seq. LEXIS (2014)

Creta, M. (2014). The Accommodation of Last Resort: The Americans with Disabilities Act and Reassign-
ments, Boston College Law Review, 55 (5), Retrieved from http://lawdigitalcom-
mons.bc.edu/bclr/vol55/iss5/8

DeWitt v. Southwestern Bell Telephone, 845 F.3d 1299, (10th Cir. 2017)

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). (2019, Last Visited). Enforcement Guidance:
Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship Under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Retrieved
from https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/accommodation.html#N_16_

Horn v. Night Facilities Management – GM, Inc., 556 Fed. Appx. 452, (6th Cir. 2014), p. 455

Jacobs v. North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts, 780 F.3d 562 (4th Cir. 2015)

Jones v. Nationwide Life Insurance Companys, 696 F.3d 78, (1st Cir. 2012), p. 89

National Council on Disability. (2013). Performance and accountability report fiscal year 2013. Retrieved
from https://ncd.gov/sites/default/files/Documents/NCDFY13PARReportFinal.pdf

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.

Switzer, J. V. (2003). Disabled rights: American disability policy and the fight for equality. Washington
D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

Valenti, A. (2014). Amendments to The Americans With Disabilities Act: How will it change judicial con-
sideration of employees' claims of discrimination? Southern Law Journal, 24(1). Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1513536612? accountid=14872

Weber, M. (2010). Unreasonable accommodation and due hardship. Florida Law Review, 62(5). Retrieved
from http://www.floridalawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Weber_BOOK.pdf.

BIOGRAPHY
Daniel F. Hallman, Jr., is a Doctor of Law and Public Policy Administration from Walden University and
has obtained a Master of Business Administration from Baker College. His current 2017 doctorate disser-
tation and research can be found in ScholarWorks and ProQuest within the Walden Dissertation and Doc-
toral Studies, as well as google search with his published dissertation, Understanding Judiciary Interpreta-
tion of a Qualified Disability Post-ADA Amendments.

Dr. Hallman currently is an affiliate member of the American Bar Association, and local legal bar associa-
tions in his home town of Detroit, Michigan. He also is a member of Pi Alpha Alpha the Global Honor
Society for Public Affairs and Administration, and the National Society of Leadership and Success. He is
the Founder of the SSA Disability Advocates of Michigan PLLC, that assists with research endeavors for
legal practitioners and employers regarding disability regulations and policies. Additionally, he is a SSA
Accredited Disability Representative for individuals seeking Social Security disability, SSI, SSDI. He can
be reached at [email protected].

Ernesto Escobedo, Jr., PhD, has 26 years of federal government service, mostly at the EEOC, Equal Em-
ployment Opportunity Commission, where he has received awards from the President of the United States
of America, US Congress, and the Federal Executive Association. He teaches a SHRM prep-class at the
University of the Incarnate Word. Dr. Escobedo holds the following certifications: SPHR, SHRM-SCP,
TMCA CDM, RFC.

Dr. Escobedo has a BBA with Honors in Business Management, MBA in Business Administration, a PhD
in Business Organization and Management, and J.D. executive program. Ernesto received nine scholarships
during his academic career, including the Texas Business Hall of Fame Scholarship.