Dive Brief:
- An Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) interactive process that took almost two years to complete did not amount to an "undue delay" that effectively denied an employee accommodation, a federal district court has ruled (Matos v. Elisabeth DeVos, Secretary, Department of Education, No. 16-cv-2069 (D.D.C, Aug. 10, 2018)).
- Anamaria Matos, an IT manager at the U.S. Department of Education, sued the agency, alleging that it denied her an accommodation because it failed to accommodate her disability — a sensitivity to fragrances — in a timely manner. The court, however, reviewed the events that unfolded and found that the timeline was reasonable. From requesting more information from her doctor to looking for vacant positions to ordering special equipment, the department remained engaged in good faith throughout the process, the court said. Moreover, the employer allowed her to work from home for almost half that time as a temporary accommodation, a move that required others to complete some of her duties.
- The agency kept Matos informed, responded reasonably promptly to her requests for information, suggested and attempted alternative accommodations for her to try and provided an interim accommodation, the court said, granting summary judgment for the employer.
Dive Insight:
The ADA favors an informal, interactive process when looking for an accommodation for an employee with a disability. And while a failure to engage in that process isn't a stand-alone violation under federal law, it can serve as evidence of discrimination.
The facts in Matos illustrate why experts implore HR to document each step of that process. And if you've trained your front-line managers to recognize and respond to simple requests for accommodation on their own, it's crucial that they document each conversation, too, David K. Fram, director of the National Employment Law Institute's ADA & Equal Employment Opportunity Services, told attendees at a recent conference. They should document the request, document their own response, and document any subsequent actions, he said.
The ruling doesn't mean, however, that a two-year process will never amount to an undue delay. The Matos court said the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has recognized that there are circumstances in which a long-delayed accommodation could be considered unreasonable and actionable under the ADA (and its federal counterpart, the Rehabilitation Act if 1973). But in this case, the employer was clearly engaged in the process in good faith, the court said, and even provided a temporary adjustment to allow the employee to continue working while it looked for a permanent, reasonable accommodation.
