This brochure is one of a series on human resources practices and workplace accommodations for persons with disabilities edited by Susanne M. Bruyère, Ph.D., CRC, Director, Employment and Disability Institute, Cornell University ILR School. The original brochure was written by Barbara A. Lee, Associate Professor, Institute of Management and Labor Relations, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey. It was updated by Sheila D. Duston, an attorney/ mediator practicing in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, in May 2001 and updated in 2010 by Beth Reiter, an independent legal consultant, Ithaca, NY, with assistance from Sara Furguson, a Cornell University Employment and Disability Institute ILR stu-dent research assistant

Duston, Sheila

Lee, Barbara

Reiter, Elizabeth

English

This material was produced by the Employment and Disability Institute in the Cornell University ILR School. Development of the original brochure series was funded by a grant from the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) (grant #H133D10155). Content updates were funded by NIDRR grant number H133 A110020. However, those contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government.This brochure is one of a series on human resources practices and workplace accommodations for persons with disabilities edited by Susanne M. Bruyère, Ph.D., CRC, Director, Employment and Disability Institute, Cornell University ILR School. The original brochure was written by Barbara A. Lee, Associate Professor, Institute of Management and Labor Relations, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey. It was updated by Sheila D. Duston, an attorney/ mediator practicing in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, in May 2001 and updated in 2010 by Beth Reiter, an independent legal consultant, Ithaca, NY, with assistance from Sara Furguson, a Cornell University Employment and Disability Institute ILR stu-dent research assistant.A99_PDF.pdf: 733 downloads, before Oct. 1, 2020

eCommons@Cornell

Reasonable Accommodation Under the ADA

DigitalCommons@ILR

	 W W W . H R T I P S . O R G 	 1A D V A N C I N G 	 T H E 	 W O R L D 	 O F 	 W O R K w w w . h r t i p s . o r g
What is Reasonable Accommodation?
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires em-ployers to provide 
reasonable accommodation for qualified individuals with disabilities who are 
employees or applicants for employment.  Potential reasonable accommoda-
tions include making existing facilities ac-cessible, job-restructuring, part-time or 
modified work schedules, assistive technology, providing aides or qualified in-
terpreters, changing tests or policies, and reassignment to a vacant position.  The 
reasonable accommodation obligation also extends to the benefits and privileges 
of employment, such as employer-sponsored training, services, and social func-
tions.  Generally, the individual with a disability must inform the employer that 
an accommodation is needed, and an employer is not required to provide accom-
modation for any disability of which it is not aware.
Employers are required to provide reasonable accommodation only to individu-
als with a disability who are qualified. Under the ADA, an individuals with a 
disability is qualified if s/he satisfies the job-related requirements of the position 
held or desired and can perform the “essential functions” of such position, with 
or without reasonable accommodation.  The employer identifies the job’s es-
sential functions; job descriptions prepared before an individual is interviewed 
or selected for a position are considered evidence of a job’s essential functions.  
Reasonable Accommodation 
Under the ADA
2 	 Reasonable	Accommodation	Under	the	ADA
If the individual cannot perform an essential 
function, even with accommodation, the indi-
vidual is not considered “a qualified individu-
al with a disability” under the law.
The employer should confer with the employ-
ee regarding the type of accommodation that 
will enable the employee to perform the essen-
tial functions of the position.  Togeth-er, they 
should evaluate the nature of the employee’s 
physical or mental limitations in order to de-
termine one or more effective potential accom-
modations.
Employers need not provide accommodations 
that pose an "undue hardship" (defined as 
significantly difficult or expensive).  In deter-
mining whether an accommodation poses an 
undue hardship, employers should examine 
the nature and net cost of the accommodation, 
the overall financial resources of the facility 
and the larger business entity, and the impact 
of the accommodation on the operation of 
the business.  Accommodations of a personal 
nature that are used both on and off the job 
(such as a guide dog for a visually-impaired 
employee or a wheelchair) would not be the 
employer’s responsibility. 
The ADA neither requires employers to create 
a new job for the person with the disability, 
nor to reallocate essential functions to another 
worker.  An employer may be required to re-
structure a job, however, by reallocating non-
essential, marginal job functions.  For example, 
the Postal Service refused to promote a hear-
ing-impaired sec-retary because she could not 
answer the telephone.  The court ordered the 
Postal Service to promote the individual, not-
ing that several other secretaries were avail-
able to an-swer the telephone, and that simply 
because telephone answering was considered 
a low status assignment did not make it an es-
sential function of the secretary’s job.
Some courts and the EEOC have taken the 
position that the location where the work is 
performed is another policy that may have to 
be modified as a reasonable accommodation 
for certain jobs, so long as the accommoda-
tion is effective and does not pose an undue 
hardship.  The EEOC has noted that certain 
jobs such as a food server or cashier can only 
be performed at a work site, while other jobs 
such as a telemarketer or proofreader could 
be done at home.  The EEOC has stated that 
certain considerations are relevant to the de-
termination of whether a job can be performed 
at home, including supervision and the need 
to work with equipment that cannot be repli-
cated at home.  The courts that have rejected 
working at home as a reasonable accommoda-
tion focus upon evidence that personal con-
tact, interaction and coordination are needed 
for the position at issue.
Employers who fear that accommodating a 
worker with a disability will lower the morale 
of coworkers will not find this a helpful de-
fense to an ADA charge.  Nor will the con-cern 
that coworkers or customers will not wish to 
associate with an individual with a disability 
be an appropriate rea-son to deny such an 
individual employment.  Regarding the finan-
cial burden of accommodating an employee or 
applicant with a disability, a study beginning 
in 2004 re-vealed that 56% of accommodations 
cost nothing to im-plement, while most of the 
remaining accommodations involved a one-
time cost of approximately $600.   Moreover, 
tax credits help alleviate the cost of imple-
menting accommodations such as the removal 
of architectural barriers, the targeting of jobs 
for individuals with disabilities, or the provi-
sion of assistive technology or interpreters to 
workers with disabilities.
	 W W W . H R T I P S . O R G 	 3
Accommodating a Worker with a 
Disability
The accommodation process begins before the 
disabled worker is hired (or identified, if it 
is a current employee who becomes disabled 
after being hired).  Written job de-scriptions 
prepared before advertising or interviewing 
ap-plicants are evidence of whether particular 
job functions are essential, but other evidence, 
such as what previous or current holders of 
the job actually do, is also relevant.  Job de-
scriptions should be reviewed to ensure that 
they include the essential functions of each job, 
particularly with regard to physical require-
ments.  Statements such as “all incum-bents 
must perform all functions of the position,” or 
“there is no light duty in this department” are 
not determinative of whether a reasonable ac-
commodation must be provided.
Recruiters or interviewers must be trained 
regarding what inquiries are permissible 
under the ADA.  At the pre-offer stage, em-
ployers may ask about an applicant’s ability 
to perform specific job-related functions, but 
generally may not ask an applicant whether s/
he needs a reasonable ac-commodation for the 
job.  An exception exists, however, if the em-
ployer knows that an applicant has a disability 
-- either because it is obvious or because the 
applicant has voluntarily disclosed the infor-
mation -- and could reasona-bly believe that 
the applicant will need a reasonable ac-com-
modation to perform specific job functions.  
In this circumstance, if the applicant replies 
that that an accom-modation is needed, the 
employer may inquire as to what type of ac-
commodation is required.  An employer may 
require non-medical examinations and may, 
of course, ask other questions that are not 
disability-related.  
After the employer extends a conditional offer 
of employ-ment, it now may require a medical 
examination or make disability-related inqui-
ries if all entering employees are subject to the 
same exam or inquiry.  An employer also may 
inquire whether applicants will need reason-
able ac-commodation related to anything con-
nected to the job, including access to benefits 
and privileges of employment, as long as all 
entering employees in the same job category 
are asked this question.  The employer may, 
of course, make any inquiry at this stage of 
the hiring process that would be allowed in 
the pre-offer stage (i.e., an inquiry regarding 
whether an applicant requires accommodation 
with respect to a disability of which the em-
ployer is aware).
Finally, during the employment stage, em-
ployers may con-duct medical examinations 
and make disability-related inquiries of em-
ployees provided that those investigations 
are job-related and consistent with business 
necessity.  Whenever an examination is used, 
whether during the post-offer stage or the em-
ployment stage, the exclusionary criterion also 
must be job-related and consistent with busi-
ness necessity.  If the employer either fails to 
hire or fires an individual due to the results of 
an examination, it must show that the skill be-
ing tested is an essential job function that the 
individual cannot perform without reasonable 
accommodation. 
The employer must keep any medical informa-
tion obtained confidential.  This means that 
the employer must collect and maintain the 
information on separate forms and keep it 
in separate medical files. The employer may 
disclose the information only to persons and 
entities specified in the ADA.
Employers may use tests to determine job 
qualifications. However, qualification stan-
dards, tests or other selection criteria that 
screen out an individual with a disability or a 
class of individuals with disabilities will vio-
late the ADA unless shown to be job-related 
4 	 Reasonable	Accommodation	Under	the	ADA
and consistent with busi-ness necessity.  Even 
if this showing can be made, an employer 
must consider whether the criteria can be met 
or job performance accomplished with the 
provision of reasonable accommodation.  In 
addition, tests must be administered to an ap-
plicant or employee with a disability in a way 
that ensures that the test results accurately 
reflect the skills, aptitude, or whatever other 
factor is being tested, rather than reflecting the 
impaired sensory, manual or speaking skills 
of the person, unless these skills are what is 
being tested.  
Reasonable Accommodation and Safety
Some employers are concerned that a worker 
with a disa-bility could be a safety hazard, 
either to herself or to co-workers or customers. 
The law takes this concern into account, but 
only if it is founded upon current medical or 
other evidence that the individual is a “direct 
threat” to herself or others because of the na-
ture of the job and the specific characteristics 
of that individual’s disability.
In determining whether an individual with a 
disability pos-es a direct threat, including an 
individual with a contagious disease, the fac-
tors to be considered include:
1. the duration of the risk;
2. the nature and severity of the potential 
harm;
3. the likelihood that the potential harm will 
occur; and
4. the imminence of the potential harm.
Even if the person is found to pose a sig-
nificant risk of substantial harm, part of the 
reasonable accommodation determination is 
an analysis of whether the individual can be 
accommodated in a way that either eliminates 
the threat or reduces it to an acceptable level. 
For example, in a case involving an epileptic 
shoe salesman, a court noted that, even if the 
salesman posed a danger because of the risk of 
epileptic seizures, reasonable accommodations 
such as the removal of stock from high shelves 
so that the salesman would not have to climb 
ladders would eliminate that threat.
In general, blanket exclusions of particular 
conditions are difficult to justify, especially if 
the employer does not per-form an individual-
ized assessment of the individual being ex-
cluded.  Instead, the employer should obtain 
individual-ized medical information about the 
limitations posed by the worker’s disability 
and the probable harm that the individual’s 
specific physical or psychological problems 
will pose with respect to the position in ques-
tion.  For ex-ample, a court concluded that a 
diabetic police recruit did pose a direct threat 
because he had suffered two episodes on duty 
in which he became dysfunctional and disori-
ented, but in cases where employers excluded 
all dia-betics from law enforcement jobs or 
driving jobs on the ground that any case of 
diabetes posed a direct threat, that blanket 
exclusion was overly broad. 
  
Reasonable Accommodation and 
Worker Misconduct 
The ADA protects individuals with mental as 
well as phys-ical disabilities, and the reason-
able accommodation re-quirement applies in 
the same way for both kinds of disabilities.  
However, employers may hold individu-
als with disabilities to the same performance 
and conduct standards as other workers.  If a 
worker engages in mis-conduct that warrants 
discipline under the employer’s poli-cy, even 
if the conduct is related to the individual’s 
disability, the employer may discipline that 
worker.  
	 W W W . H R T I P S . O R G 	 5
The timing of employee misconduct with re-
spect to any accommodation request is impor-
tant.  If an employee requests accommodation 
prior to engaging in misconduct, e.g., leave to 
attend therapy sessions, the employer should 
allow reasonable accommodation that does 
not impose an undue hardship.  On the other 
hand, if the employee engages in misconduct 
prior to requesting the accommodation, the 
employer may impose the appropriate disci-
pline.  This may include discharge, depending 
on the employer's disciplinary policy and the 
nature of the misconduct involved.  If the em-
ployer has a policy of progressive discipline, 
the employer may impose discipline short of 
discharge and then provide an accommoda-
tion that would enable the employee to meet 
the conduct standards.
Off-duty misconduct may also be grounds 
for discharge or discipline, even if the worker 
asserts that the disability “caused” the mis-
conduct.  In most cases that have reached the 
courts, the misconduct was related to alcohol 
or drug abuse, and the employer was able 
to demonstrate that retaining the individual 
would impose an undue hardship because 
the job itself requires the individual to dem-
onstrate good judgment or to be law-abiding 
(such as in the case of a police officer or an FBI 
agent).
Employees whose excessive absences or tardi-
ness create problems for the employer are not 
necessarily protected even if the attendance 
problems are related to the disabil-ity.  How-
ever, the employer must consider whether a 
rea-sonable accommodation (such as a differ-
ent work schedule, additional paid or unpaid 
time off, or working at home) is possible and 
whether such an accommodation would con-
stitute an undue hardship. 
Employers should train their staff about the 
general re-quirements of the ADA, with partic-
ular emphasis on defin-ing the essential func-
tions of each position and the accommodation 
requirement.  Learning to assess the indi-
vidual first, and the disability second, working 
with the individual and his or her counselor, 
medical professional, or other knowledge-
able persons in fashioning the appropri-ate 
accommodation, and responding to requests 
to review the effectiveness of the accommoda-
tion will very likely satisfy the demands of 
the ADA, the practical needs of the individual 
with a disability, and the employer’s need for 
a productive and committed workforce.
6 	 Reasonable	Accommodation	Under	the	ADA
Resources
ADA Regional Disability and Business Techni-
cal Assistance Center Hotline,
(800) 949-4232 (voice/TDD).
Job Accommodation Network,
PO Box 6080,
Morgantown, WV 26506-6080, 
(800) 526-7234 (voice/) or (877) 781-9403 (TTY).
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commis-
sion, 131 M Street, NE,
Washington, DC 20507, (800) 669-4000 (voice), 
(800) 669-6820.
For publications:  (800) 669-3362 (V) or (800) 
800-3302 (TTY).
	 W W W . H R T I P S . O R G 	 7
About this Brochure
This brochure is one of a series on human 
resources practices and workplace accommo-
dations for persons with disabilities edited by 
Susanne M. Bruyère, Ph.D., CRC,  Director, 
Employment and Disability Institute, Cornell 
University ILR School. 
The original brochure was written by Bar-
bara A. Lee, Associate Professor, Institute of 
Management and Labor Relations, Rutgers 
University, New Brunswick, New Jersey. It 
was updated by Sheila D. Duston, an attorney/
mediator practicing in the Washington, D.C. 
metropolitan area, in May 2001 and updated 
in 2010 by Beth Reiter, an independent legal 
consultant, Ithaca, NY, with assistance from 
Sara Furguson, a Cornell University Employ-
ment and Disability Institute ILR stu-dent 
research assistant.
These updates, and the development of new 
brochures, were funded by Cornell, the Na-
tional ADA Center Network, and other sup-
porters.
The full text of this brochure, and others in 
this series, can be found at www.hrtips.org. 
More information on accessibility and accom-
modation is available from the ADA National 
Network at 800.949.4232 (voice/ TTY), 
www.adata.org.
Disclaimer
This material was produced by the Employment 
and Disability Institute in the Cornell University ILR 
School.   Development of the original brochure series 
was funded by a grant from the National Institute on 
Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) (grant 
#H133D10155).   Content updates were funded by 
NIDRR grant number H133 A110020.  However, those 
contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the 
Department of Education, and you should not assume 
endorsement by the Federal Government.  
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 
has reviewed it for accuracy.  However, opinions about 
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) expressed 
in this material are those of the author, and do not 
necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the Commission or 
the publisher.  EEOC interpretations of the ADA are 
reflected in its ADA regulations (29 CFR Part 1630), 
Technical Assistance Manual for Title I of the Act, and 
Enforcement Guidance.  
Cornell University is authorized by NIDRR to provide 
information, materials, and technical assistance to indi-
viduals and entities that are covered by the Americans 
with Disabilities Act (ADA).  You should be aware that 
NIDRR is not responsible for enforcement of the ADA.  
The information, materials, and/or technical assistance 
are intended solely as informal guidance, and are 
neither a determination of your legal rights or responsi-
bilities under the Act, nor binding on any agency with 
enforcement responsibility under the ADA.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has 
issued enforcement guidance which provides ad-
ditional clarification of various elements of the Title 
I provisions under the ADA.  Copies of the guidance 
documents are available for viewing and downloading 
from the EEOC web site at: 
http://www.eeoc.gov
8 	 Employment	Considerations	for	People	who	have	Diabetes
Contact Information
Susanne M. Bruyère, Ph.D., CRC
Director, Employment and Disability Institute
Cornell University
ILR School
201 Dolgen Hall
Ithaca, New York 14853-3201
Voice: 607.255.7727
Fax: 607.255.2763
TTY: 607.255.2891
Email: smb23@cornell.edu
Web: www.edi.cornell.edu
To view all the brochures in this series, please visit:
www.hrtips.org


https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1319&amp;context=edicollect

Reasonable Accommodation Under the ADA

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

eCommons@Cornell

DigitalCommons@ILR