Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), employers with 15 or more employees must not discriminate against qualified employees on the basis of disability. A central component of this obligation is the duty to provide reasonable accommodations—adjustments to the job or work environment that enable an employee with a disability to perform essential job functions or enjoy equal employment opportunities, so long as doing so does not impose an undue hardship on the employer. Those adjustments range from simple schedule changes to modified equipment, reassignment, or changes in workplace policies. See additional examples of accommodations from the EEOC.

What “Failure to Accommodate” Means

A failure to accommodate claim arises when an employer either refuses to make reasonable accommodations for a known disability, does not engage meaningfully with the employee about possible accommodations, or imposes conditions on the employee that effectively negate the benefits of accommodation.

Under the ADA, an accommodation is broadly defined—it can include:

• Job restructuring, such as redistributing marginal duties an employee cannot perform;
• Modified or part-time schedules to address limitations;
• Modified workplace policies (e.g., allowing extra breaks or adjusting attendance policies);
• Reassignment to a vacant position if no other reasonable accommodation will allow the employee to perform the job;
• Accessible equipment or changes to the physical work environment;
• Providing qualified interpreters or readers for employees with sensory disabilities.(EEOC)

These examples show that reasonable accommodation is not limited to high-tech solutions—sometimes common-sense changes can make a workplace accessible.

The Employer’s Duty: The Interactive Process

When an employee requests an accommodation (even informally, in plain language), the employer must promptly engage with the employee in what is known as the interactive process. This dialogue involves identifying the employee’s precise limitations, discussing potential accommodations, and determining whether those accommodations are effective and feasible without undue hardship. The process must be good faith and prompt—not a perfunctory exercise to delay or stall. Unnecessary or unexplained delays, excessive requests for documentation, or failure to consider alternatives can themselves violate the ADA. 

The EEOC’s enforcement guidance specifically warns that employers should respond expeditiously to accommodation requests. It also notes that unnecessary delays in making accommodations can be unlawful under the ADA, even if the accommodation is eventually granted. 

The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals made a pivotal decision on May 16, 2025 in Strife v. Aldine Independent School District. In Strife, the court addressed a critical nuance: a delay in accommodating may itself be a failure to accommodate.

In that case, a veteran employee with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and physical impairments requested that her employer allow her certified service dog to accompany her at work. Despite providing multiple medical letters confirming her disability and need for the dog, the school district took roughly six months to approve the request, repeatedly asking for additional documentation and an independent medical examination. 

The district court initially dismissed the failure-to-accommodate claim, reasoning that because the employee was not adversely affected in employment terms and because the accommodation was eventually granted, there was no ADA violation. On appeal, however, the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded that portion of the case, holding that the delay — coupled with how the district handled the interactive process — could plausibly constitute a failure to accommodate under the ADA. In doing so, the court underscored that:

• Employers must engage in the interactive process in good faith and without undue delay;
• An extended delay in providing an accommodation may itself signal bad faith and, under certain circumstances, may amount to a failure to accommodate; and
• A claim can proceed even if the employee does not allege a separate adverse employment action while the request was pending.

This decision aligns with EEOC guidance that labels unnecessary delay in accommodations as potentially violative of the ADA. It reinforces that timeliness and sincerity matter just as much as the eventual outcome. Here are a few takeaways to keep in mind if your employer has dropped the ball. 

Your employer must:

1. Recognize accommodation requests promptly and begin the interactive process immediately.
2. Keep channels of communication open with the employee throughout evaluation.
3. Consider reasonable interim accommodations while a request is being evaluated.
4. Document all steps in the interactive process to show good faith efforts.

For Texas employees, the decision in Strife emphasizes that waiting months for an accommodation—even one ultimately granted—may constitute an ADA violation if the employer’s conduct is unreasonable or dilatory.

Understanding your obligations under the ADA and the EEOC’s guidance will help ensure that all employees—regardless of disability—have fair and meaningful access to employment opportunities. If you think your employer failed to accommodate you, please consult with an employment law attorney with our law office here.