man and woman discussing and sharing ideas

Understanding the Interactive Process Under the ADA: A Two-Way Street

Let’s talk about a con­cept in employ­ment law that often gets over­looked or misunderstood—the “inter­ac­tive process” under the Amer­i­cans with Dis­abil­i­ties Act (ADA). If you rep­re­sent employ­ers or employ­ees, or you’re an HR pro­fes­sion­al nav­i­gat­ing accom­mo­da­tion requests, this process is absolute­ly cen­tral to ADA compliance.

It’s also one of the more com­mon areas where employ­ers get tripped up—not nec­es­sar­i­ly by refus­ing to accom­mo­date a dis­abil­i­ty, but by fail­ing to com­mu­ni­cate prop­er­ly and in good faith.

What is the Interactive Process?

Under the ADA, once an employ­er becomes aware that an employ­ee needs an accom­mo­da­tion for a dis­abil­i­ty, the law requires the employ­er to engage in an “inter­ac­tive process” with the employ­ee to iden­ti­fy a rea­son­able accom­mo­da­tion. The statu­to­ry basis is 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A), which defines dis­crim­i­na­tion to include not mak­ing “rea­son­able accom­mo­da­tions to the known phys­i­cal or men­tal lim­i­ta­tions of an oth­er­wise qual­i­fied indi­vid­ual with a dis­abil­i­ty,” unless the employ­er can show undue hardship.

The Equal Employ­ment Oppor­tu­ni­ty Com­mis­sion (EEOC) explains that this is not a one-time conversation—it’s a col­lab­o­ra­tive dia­logue aimed at iden­ti­fy­ing and imple­ment­ing accom­mo­da­tions that allow the employ­ee to per­form the essen­tial func­tions of their job.\

The gov­ern­ing reg­u­la­tion, 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3), puts it this way:

When Does the Obligation to Engage Begin?

This is a key point. The employer’s duty to engage in the inter­ac­tive process begins when:

1. The employ­ee makes a request for an accom­mo­da­tion, or

2. The need for accom­mo­da­tion becomes obvi­ous (i.e., the employ­er has knowl­edge of the dis­abil­i­ty and the result­ing limitations).

The employ­ee doesn’t have to use legal­is­tic lan­guage or say “rea­son­able accom­mo­da­tion” in a for­mal way. Courts and the EEOC have con­sis­tent­ly held that plain lan­guage is suf­fi­cient. A state­ment like “I’m hav­ing trou­ble get­ting to work on time because of my med­ical treat­ments” can be enough to trig­ger the employer’s oblig­a­tion. See Tay­lor v. Phoenixville Sch. Dist., 184 F.3d 296, 313 (3d Cir. 1999).

What the Interactive Process Looks Like

There’s no one-size-fits-all for­mu­la, but gen­er­al­ly, the process involves:

• Acknowl­edg­ing the request.

• Ask­ing ques­tions to under­stand the dis­abil­i­ty and limitations.

• Request­ing med­ical doc­u­men­ta­tion if need­ed (but not overreaching).

• Explor­ing avail­able accom­mo­da­tions (with input from the employee).

• Imple­ment­ing the accommodation—or explain­ing why it can’t be done.

The process requires flex­i­bil­i­ty. If the first pro­posed accom­mo­da­tion doesn’t work, the employ­er is expect­ed to go back to the draw­ing board and try some­thing else.

It’s a Two-Way Street

This is where things can get messy.

The inter­ac­tive process requires both sides to par­tic­i­pate in good faith. If the employ­ee refus­es to pro­vide doc­u­men­ta­tion or stops respond­ing, the employ­er can’t be fault­ed for not reach­ing an accom­mo­da­tion. Like­wise, if the employ­er drags its feet or fails to fol­low up, it could be liable—even if the under­ly­ing accom­mo­da­tion request was even­tu­al­ly found to be unreasonable.

Courts have said repeat­ed­ly that employ­ers can­not just ignore requests or give lip ser­vice to the process. In EEOC v. Kohl’s Dep’t Stores, Inc., 774 F.3d 127 (1st Cir. 2014), the court held that the employer’s fail­ure to con­tin­ue the inter­ac­tive dia­logue after reject­ing a pro­posed accom­mo­da­tion cre­at­ed a tri­able issue of fact for ADA liability.

Common Missteps by Employers

• Delays in respond­ing to requests.

• Reject­ing requests with­out expla­na­tion or with­out con­sid­er­ing alternatives.

• Demand­ing exces­sive doc­u­men­ta­tion, espe­cial­ly for well-known conditions.

• Insist­ing on the “per­fect” accom­mo­da­tion instead of explor­ing rea­son­able options.

• Assum­ing a dis­abil­i­ty doesn’t exist just because the employ­ee appears capable.

It’s worth empha­siz­ing that under the ADA, employ­ers must assess accom­mo­da­tions on a case-by-case basis. There’s no bright-line rule that says, for exam­ple, “we nev­er allow tele­work.” That’s espe­cial­ly rel­e­vant in a post-COVID work­place where remote work is more normalized.

Employee Responsibilities in the Interactive Process

Employ­ees, too, have duties. They must:

• Com­mu­ni­cate clear­ly about their need for accommodation.

• Coop­er­ate in pro­vid­ing med­ical doc­u­men­ta­tion if it’s request­ed appropriately.

• Be open to alter­na­tive accom­mo­da­tions, not just demand their pre­ferred solution.

Courts have held that if an employ­ee walks away from the process or refus­es to engage, the employ­er won’t be held liable for fail­ing to accom­mo­date. See Beck v. Univ. of Wis. Bd. of Regents, 75 F.3d 1130, 1135 (7th Cir. 1996).

How West Virginia Courts View the Interactive Process

West Vir­ginia courts gen­er­al­ly fol­low fed­er­al prece­dent when inter­pret­ing dis­abil­i­ty accom­mo­da­tion law under the state’s Human Rights Act, W. Va. Code § 5–11‑9. The Supreme Court of Appeals has rec­og­nized that employ­ers must make rea­son­able efforts to accom­mo­date employ­ees with dis­abil­i­ties and can be held liable for fail­ure to do so.

In Skag­gs v. Elk Run Coal Co., Inc., 479 S.E.2d 561 (W. Va. 1996), the court empha­sized that employ­ers must make “good faith efforts” to work with dis­abled employ­ees. That’s effec­tive­ly the state-law ver­sion of the inter­ac­tive process requirement.

Final Thoughts

The inter­ac­tive process under the ADA isn’t just a box to check—it’s a mean­ing­ful dia­logue that can avoid legal claims, improve work­place morale, and keep valu­able employ­ees work­ing. Employ­ers who treat it like a bureau­crat­ic nui­sance risk cost­ly lit­i­ga­tion. And employ­ees who fail to par­tic­i­pate in good faith may find their ADA pro­tec­tions slip­ping away.

The bot­tom line: com­mu­ni­cate, doc­u­ment, and be flex­i­ble. That’s the best legal advice for both sides when deal­ing with work­place accommodations..

Drew M. Capuder
Fol­low me:

Leave a Reply