Can an Employee Sue for Failure to Accommodate a Disability She Said She Didn’t Have?

Key Takeaways

• Employee declined accommodation, opted to contest disability finding
• Court held no “regarded as” duty to accommodate
• Detailed meeting minutes sealed employer’s summary‑judgment defense
• Interactive process can be abandoned if employee refuses accommodation
• Independent medical exam results must be shared and options documented

Pulse Analysis

The Sixth Circuit’s ruling underscores a pivotal nuance in disability law: the accommodation obligation hinges on an employee’s participation in the interactive process, not merely on an employer’s good‑faith offer. Under the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA, a “regarded as” disability claim does not automatically create a duty to accommodate, and courts will look to the employee’s actions when the dispute arises. In this case, the employee’s explicit refusal to request an accommodation and her insistence that she was fully capable effectively removed the employer’s liability, illustrating how procedural posture can outweigh substantive medical findings.

For employers, the judgment serves as a practical blueprint for mitigating accommodation risk. First, documenting every step of the fitness‑for‑duty conversation—especially when union representation is present—creates a clear evidentiary trail. Second, offering a menu of options (disability leave, FMLA, ADA accommodation, or a challenge to the independent medical exam) and recording the employee’s response can demonstrate compliance with the interactive‑process requirement. Third, when an independent medical exam is ordered, sharing its results and allowing the employee to submit a counter‑opinion ensures the process remains collaborative rather than unilateral, bolstering the employer’s position if litigation ensues.

The broader implication for HR and legal teams is the need to recognize that an employee who actively disputes a disability finding may forfeit the right to later claim a failure‑to‑accommodate. Courts will hold parties to the positions they took during the administrative phase, meaning that early, well‑documented engagement can preempt costly lawsuits. This decision therefore reinforces the strategic value of meticulous record‑keeping and proactive communication in navigating disability accommodation disputes.