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:
“To determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation it may be necessary for the covered entity to initiate an informal, interactive process with the individual with a disability in need of the accommodation.”
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..
- The West Virginia Human Rights Act has moved! — April 15, 2025
- Background Checks in Hiring—What Employers Can (and Can’t) Do — April 15, 2025
- Understanding “Constructive Discharge” in Employment Law—When Quitting Is Really Getting Fired — April 13, 2025