HRD > Policy Development > Topical ADA Archive >

Topical ADA Archive

Interactive Process

• Barnett v. U.S. Air Inc., (CA 9), 8 AD Cases 1073, 10/6/1998
  
  Summary: Employee argued that an employee's first request for accommodation triggers the employer's duty to initiate an "interactive process." The regulations, however, state only that an interactive process "may be necessary." (§ 1630.2(o)(3)) (emphasis added). The regulations do not state that it is necessary. The court interpreted this as permissive language that also serves as a warning to employers that a failure to engage in an interactive process might expose them to liability for failing to make reasonable accommodation. The employer "must make a reasonable effort to determine the appropriate accommodation." §1630 app. §1630.9. This statement means that the employer will be liable for discrimination if a reasonable accommodation was available, but the employer did not act upon it. The ADA and its regulations do not, however, create independent liability for the employer for failing to engage in ritualized discussions with the employee to find a reasonable accommodation.

  The court held that most, if not all, employers should engage in an interactive process with their disabled employees. Logically, such a process will ensure an optimal accommodation of the employee's limitations. The court did not agree, however, that an employer's failure to do so exposes it automatically and independently to liability under the ADA. Rather, the inquiry is whether the employer failed to make required reasonable accommodations for the employee. A failure to engage in an interactive process may be relevant to that inquiry; it is not a separate inquiry.

  In this case, the court found that the accommodations proposed were not reasonable.

• Hammon v. DHL Airways, (CA 6), 8 AD Cases 1707, 1/12/1999
  
  Summary: Former pilot failed to establish that airline knew or should have known about his anxiety disorder, even though he told supervisors about his loss of confidence, where he never suggested that his emotional problems stemmed from condition of disability.

• Hensley v. Baptist Hospital, (DC ETenn), 7 AD Cases 1798, 10/27/1997
  
  Summary: Hospital's termination of incontinent nurse was not due to disability, even though it knew of her condition, where there is no evidence that it knew or even considered incontinence as disability under ADA inasmuch as nurse never informed it of frequency or severity of her condition and never referred to her condition as disability during her employment, and she provided no information from which hospital could have determined otherwise; her purported statement to supervisor that she would purchase protective undergarments and return to work indicates that her condition did not substantially interfere with any major life activity.

• Rodriguez v. Roadway Express, (DC STexas), 7 AD Cases 1124, 12/2/1997
  
  Summary: Motor freight carrier met its obligation under ADA to participate in interactive process with truck driver concerning accommodation of his reduced ability to lift when it expressed willingness on several occasions over six months to explore possible accommodations, asked for medical records to assist in ascertaining precise nature of his disability, and invited him to suggest accommodations.

• Soto-Ocasio v. Federal Express, (CA 1), 8 AD Cases 1067, 7/16/1998
  
  Summary: Employer did not fail to engage in "meaningful'' interaction with ADA claimant regarding reasonable accommodation, where no reasonable trier of fact could have found that she was capable of performing duties of her position. At the time she sought to return to work, she continued to receive long-term disability benefits. To be eligible to receive those payments she was required to represent that she met the definition of "total disability,'' which is "inability because if a physical impairment, to engage in any substantial gainful activity for which [the claimant is] reasonably qualified (or could become reasonably qualified) on basis of [the claimant's] education, training, or experience.'' Her doctor submitted a report stating that she "needs disability at this moment; cannot work; still in medical care.''
  
  

• Staub v. Boeing Company, (DC WWash), 8 AD Cases 323, 2/26/1996
  
  Summary: Employer's failure to conduct "informal, interactive process'' to identify potential reasonable accommodations did not deprive employee of reasonable accommodation. Regulation concerning interactive process merely suggests its use in certain circumstances, and the purpose of process is to identify limitations of employee. Here the employee and employer agreed on all his limitations, and the only issue was whether there were job openings that fit his limitations. The employer had already conducted an elaborate informal process with the employee including hiring a vocational counselor, conducting independent medical examinations, and obtaining information concerning his precise limitations from his physician.

• Taylor v. Phoenixville School Dist., (CA 3), 9 AD Cases 311, 4/5/1999
  
  Summary: School district had more than enough information to put it on notice that employee might be disabled due to her bipolar disorder. Therefore, her son did not have to invoke ADA or use words "reasonable accommodation'' to trigger school district's duty to negotiate about possible accommodations. She became psychotic at work, school officials knew that she was hospitalized shortly thereafter, and hospital contacted school district to discuss her. To trigger school district's obligation, employee or her representative only needed to request accommodation. Further, school district's obligation to negotiate about reasonable accommodation of employee with bipolar disorder was triggered whether or not its officials knew specific name of her condition.
  
  
• Woodman v. Runyon, (CA 10), 7 AD Cases 1189, 12/24/1997
  
  Summary: Disabled employee need not identify available position for reassignment before enlisting employer's assistance; she can initiate interactive process merely by notifying employer of nature of her disability and specifically requesting information about possible reassignment. At that point the employer is obliged to assist her in her effort to identify an available job. The employer has a duty to investigate the possibility of a permanent reassignment by gathering necessary information concerning her medical condition and searching for an available permanent job, where she requested a reasonable accommodation and has shown that reasonable accommodation through permanent reassignment is plausible.