Checklist · Labor and Employment

Handling an Accommodation Request Under the ADA: A Practical Checklist

42 U.S.C. § 12102(4)

Type: Checklist
Jurisdiction: National
Date: 2024-10-05
Topic: Labor and Employment

A step-by-step workflow for handling an ADA accommodation request from recognition through implementation, review, and — where necessary — a defensible denial. It is built on the observation that employers lose accommodation cases for procedural reasons far more often than substantive ones: no conversation, no documented essential functions, a blanket policy invoked as an answer, or a file that simply goes quiet. The checklist covers recognizing a request without magic words, acknowledging promptly, establishing essential functions from pre-request job descriptions, requesting medical documentation within statutory limits and with GINA safe-harbor language, generating and evaluating options, documenting undue hardship as a net-cost entity-wide showing, running the four-factor direct threat assessment, reassignment as last resort, handling a breakdown in the process, confidentiality and separate medical files, writing a denial that survives review, managing performance while an accommodation is pending, and the FMLA-exhaustion handoff. It also lists the blanket policies to delete before any request arrives. Educational, not legal advice.

Handling an Accommodation Request Under the ADA: A Practical Checklist

Labor and Employment > Discrimination | Published 5 October 2024 - Updated 22 July 2026 | UpLaw - uplaw.us

Employers rarely lose accommodation cases because the accommodation was expensive. They lose because there is no record of a conversation, because the job description was written after the request, because someone answered a request with a policy, or because the file went quiet for six weeks and then produced a termination. Every step below exists to prevent one of those four things.

Keywords: ADA accommodation, interactive process, essential functions, medical documentation, GINA safe harbor, undue hardship, direct threat, reassignment, leave as accommodation, telework, confidentiality, denial letter, FMLA handoff

Work this checklist for every request. The doctrinal treatment is in Disability Discrimination and Accommodation: A Comprehensive Guide to the ADA and Rehabilitation Act; the narrative account of why the process matters is in The Interactive Process: How Reasonable Accommodation Actually Works Under the ADA.

Two structural rules first.

Centralize. Accommodation decisions belong to a trained administrator, never to the employee's direct supervisor. Supervisors identify and route; they do not evaluate, do not diagnose, and do not contact health care providers.

Never answer a request with a policy. "We don't allow remote work." "Our leave maximum is twelve weeks." "Everyone has to be able to lift fifty pounds." Each of those sentences, offered as an answer to an accommodation request, is the paradigm ADA violation, because the statute exists to require individualized departures from general policy.

Our running example. Sablewood Analytics, LLC (fictional) has 310 employees. Marcus Oyelaran, a senior claims auditor, emails his manager: "My vision is getting worse and I'm having a hard time with the review software. Can we talk about what to do?"

Phase 0 — Before any request arrives: delete the landmines

[ ] Eliminate any maximum-leave policy that terminates automatically at a fixed duration.
[ ] Eliminate any "100% healed" or "full duty" return-to-work requirement. It forecloses accommodation by definition and is effectively a per se violation.
[ ] Review blanket no-telework rules for jobs that were in fact performed remotely.
[ ] Review blanket physical requirements (lifting, standing, driving) against what the job actually demands.
[ ] Audit job descriptions now: separate essential from marginal functions and record approximate time allocations.
[ ] Audit where medical documentation currently lives. If doctors' notes are in personnel files, fix it before the next request.
[ ] Confirm the attendance and bonus systems can exclude protected absences.
[ ] Adopt a written accommodation procedure with a target acknowledgment time and standard templates.

Why it matters, and the traps. Every item here is cheaper to fix in advance than to defend. The 100%-healed rule is the most dangerous because it sounds prudent and is uniformly applied — which is exactly the problem: uniform application of a rule that excludes anyone needing accommodation is what the statute forbids. Job descriptions written after a request arrive in litigation looking precisely like what they are.

Phase 1 — Recognize the request

[ ] Treat as a request any communication indicating that a medical condition is affecting the employee's ability to do the job or access a benefit of employment.
[ ] Require no magic words — not "ADA," "accommodation," or "disability."
[ ] Accept a request made by a family member, health care provider, or union representative on the employee's behalf.
[ ] Consider whether a duty to inquire has arisen even without a request, where a known disability plainly connects to observed performance or conduct problems.
[ ] Log date, recipient, and the employee's words.
[ ] Route to HR or the accommodation administrator the same day.
[ ] Do not require a company form as a precondition to starting the process.

Why it matters, and the traps. The employer's obligation is triggered by knowledge, not by formality. The classic failure is a supervisor who absorbs the information, responds informally, and never tells HR — so the record begins four months later with a performance improvement plan and no accommodation file.

Where a known disability is visibly connected to a non-egregious conduct or performance problem, run the process before discipline. Employers may enforce uniform, job-related conduct standards, and never have to tolerate threats or violence; but disciplining a known-disabled employee for conduct the employer knows is a manifestation of the condition, without inquiry, is a losing posture.

Sablewood. The manager forwards Marcus's email to HR the same afternoon without replying substantively. That restraint is worth more than any later brief.

Phase 2 — Acknowledge and open the file

[ ] Acknowledge in writing within a few business days, naming a single point of contact.
[ ] Open an accommodation file separate from the personnel file.
[ ] Record the limitation described, the accommodation requested (if any), and the expected duration.
[ ] Calendar the next step with a date.
[ ] Tell the employee what happens next and roughly when.

Why it matters, and the traps. Unexplained delay is itself actionable in many circuits and always looks like resistance. A dated acknowledgment naming a contact converts a vague grievance into a managed process.

Phase 3 — Coverage (briefly)

[ ] Confirm the employer is covered: 15+ employees for 20+ weeks in the current or preceding year.
[ ] Confirm the individual has a physical or mental impairment substantially limiting a major life activity — construing the definition broadly, disregarding mitigating measures other than ordinary eyeglasses, and treating episodic or in-remission conditions as active. 42 U.S.C. § 12102(4).
[ ] Note that a "regarded as" claim carries no accommodation duty. § 12201(h).
[ ] Check whether state law covers the condition or the employer more broadly than the ADA.
[ ] Do not spend meaningful effort contesting coverage absent a genuine transitory-and-minor issue.

Why it matters, and the traps. The ADA Amendments Act of 2008 was enacted specifically to end threshold litigation over whether people with cancer, epilepsy, diabetes, and serious mental illness are covered. An employer arguing that a documented impairment is not a disability spends money to lose credibility on the questions that actually decide the case.

Phase 4 — Establish the essential functions

[ ] Pull the job description prepared before the request — ideally before the employee was recruited.
[ ] List each duty and mark it essential or marginal.
[ ] Gather the regulatory evidence: employer judgment; time spent on each function; consequences of not requiring it; CBA terms; experience of past and current incumbents. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n).
[ ] Ask explicitly: do any current incumbents already perform this function differently?
[ ] For any function claimed essential because of physical presence, document the specific reason — interactions, equipment, supervision, secure materials.
[ ] Do this before evaluating any proposed accommodation.

Why it matters, and the traps. An accommodation is reasonable only if it enables performance of the essential functions, so the parties cannot evaluate anything until they agree on what those are. The employer's judgment is weighty but not conclusive — an employer cannot make a function essential by declaring it so.

The incumbent question is the one that decides cases. If three of eleven auditors already attend the weekly conference by video, physical attendance is not an essential function for the twelfth. Find that out now, not in a deposition.

Sablewood. Document review is ~70% of the auditor role. The weekly on-site case conference is 90 minutes, and three auditors already attend remotely. Periodic handling of physical original documents in a secure room, however, is genuinely on-site and specific — and that distinction is what makes Sablewood's eventual partial denial defensible.

Phase 5 — Request medical documentation the right way

[ ] Request documentation only where the disability or the need for accommodation is not obvious.
[ ] Ask about functional limitations and expected duration, not the diagnosis.
[ ] Attach the essential functions and ask which the employee can perform, with what adjustments.
[ ] Include the GINA safe-harbor language, 29 C.F.R. § 1635.8(b)(1)(i)(B).
[ ] Do not request complete medical records or a full medical history.
[ ] Do not route the request through the employee's direct supervisor.
[ ] Confirm the inquiry is job-related and consistent with business necessity. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4).
[ ] Give a reasonable deadline and calendar a follow-up.

Why it matters, and the traps. Asking about limitations rather than diagnosis protects the employer as much as the employee: an employer that never learns the diagnosis cannot be accused of acting on it. Sending the essential functions is the cheapest available improvement in documentation quality — providers cannot answer questions nobody asked, and a request that omits them produces a note saying "patient has a medical condition and needs accommodation," which is useless.

The GINA safe harbor prevents a problem the employer never intended: a documentation request that elicits family medical history supports an inadvertent-acquisition claim under Title II of GINA, 42 U.S.C. § 2000ff.

Sablewood. HR sends a one-page functional-requirements sheet listing the auditor essential functions, asks only about limitations and duration, and includes the GINA paragraph. The provider reports progressive central vision loss, no cognitive restriction, and a need for magnification and high contrast. That is an answer the employer can act on.

Phase 6 — Evaluate the documentation

[ ] Determine whether the response is sufficient — does it identify a limitation and connect it to a job function?
[ ] If insufficient, explain specifically what is missing and give a reasonable opportunity to cure.
[ ] Contact the provider only for clarification, only through HR or the administrator, and only within the scope of what was asked.
[ ] Consider an employer-paid examination by a provider of the employer's choosing only where genuinely necessary, and only after a documented insufficiency — not as a first resort.
[ ] Keep every medical document in the separate confidential medical file.

Why it matters, and the traps. The employer is not required to accept a conclusory note, but it must say what is missing and give the employee a chance to fix it before treating the request as unsupported. Jumping straight to an independent medical examination reads as pretextual and is expensive.

Phase 7 — Generate and evaluate options

[ ] Ask the employee what would work; the employee usually knows.
[ ] Ask the supervisor about operational constraints, in writing.
[ ] Consult external technical resources (Job Accommodation Network, ADA National Network) for low-cost solutions.
[ ] Consider the standard categories: assistive technology and equipment; workspace modification; schedule modification, part-time, or flexible hours; additional or flexible breaks; telework in whole or part; reallocation of marginal functions; modified supervisory method (written instructions, more frequent feedback); leave; and reassignment as last resort.
[ ] Confirm each candidate accommodation would actually enable performance of the essential functions.
[ ] Note that the employer need not: eliminate an essential function, lower a production or quality standard, create a new position, reallocate essential functions, or provide personal-use items.
[ ] Recognize that the employer may choose among effective options and need not grant the employee's preference.

Why it matters, and the traps. "Effective" is a real standard. Offering something the employer knows will not enable performance is not a discharge of the duty, and the record of that knowledge is discoverable. Conversely, an employer that identifies a genuinely effective alternative and explains why it chose that one is on solid ground even when the employee wanted something else.

Sablewood. Result: screen magnification and screen reader (already in the operating system, $0), a high-contrast monitor and document camera (~$700), display-setting changes in the review software, video attendance at the weekly conference, and a standing 20-minute afternoon break.

Phase 8 — If you are considering denial: undue hardship

[ ] Identify the specific hardship: significant difficulty or expense. 42 U.S.C. § 12111(10).
[ ] Compute cost net of tax credits, deductions, and any outside funding.
[ ] Measure against the resources of the covered entity as a whole, not the department budget.
[ ] Document operational disruption concretely — effect on other employees' ability to do their jobs, on the fundamental nature of the operation, on safety.
[ ] Confirm you are not relying on: co-worker morale or resentment; customer or client preference; administrative inconvenience alone; or "we'd have to do it for everyone."
[ ] Before denying, identify and offer an alternative that addresses the limitation.
[ ] Have the analysis reviewed by someone other than the person who prepared it.

Why it matters, and the traps. Undue hardship is an individualized, documented, quantified showing. Generalized assertions fail, and empirical surveys consistently find most accommodations cost little or nothing — so an employer asserting cost hardship should be prepared to state the number and defend it against the entity's total resources.

The precedent objection deserves a specific answer, because managers raise it constantly: the ADA is individualized by design, so the fact that another employee might request something similar is not a hardship. The answer to "we'd have to do it for everyone" is "no, we'd have to consider it for everyone, which we already must."

Phase 9 — If safety is the concern: direct threat

[ ] Confirm you are asserting a significant risk of substantial harm that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation. 42 U.S.C. § 12111(3); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r).
[ ] Base it on reasonable medical judgment, relying on the most current medical knowledge and the best available objective evidence.
[ ] Address all four factors on the record: duration of the risk; nature and severity of potential harm; likelihood it will occur; imminence.
[ ] Make the assessment individualized to this person and this job — never a generalization about a condition.
[ ] Consider whether accommodation reduces the risk below the threshold before excluding.
[ ] Document who made the assessment, on what evidence, and when.

Why it matters, and the traps. The failure mode is paternalism dressed as prudence. "We can't have someone with a seizure disorder on the floor" is exactly the generalization the individualized-assessment requirement exists to defeat. The threat may be to the employee's own health — Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Echazabal, 536 U.S. 73 (2002) — but that makes the evidentiary discipline more important, not less. School Board of Nassau County v. Arline, 480 U.S. 273 (1987), and Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624 (1998), both rejected exclusions grounded in generalized fear.

Phase 10 — Decide, implement, confirm

[ ] Select the accommodation and confirm it in writing: what it is, when it starts, who is responsible, and the review date.
[ ] Tell the supervisor only the restrictions and accommodations — never the diagnosis or the medical documentation.
[ ] Order equipment, configure systems, adjust schedules, and confirm they actually work.
[ ] File medical documentation in the separate confidential medical file. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(3)(B).
[ ] Set a follow-up date (30, 60, or 90 days depending on the accommodation).
[ ] If partially denying, state the reason and the alternative offered, in writing.

Why it matters, and the traps. The confidentiality provision applies to all employee medical information and is violated constantly by well-meaning managers explaining an absence to a team. The statutory exceptions permit telling supervisors about restrictions and accommodations, telling first aid and safety personnel where emergency treatment may be needed, and disclosure to government investigators. Nothing on that list authorizes telling colleagues why someone is out.

Sablewood. One-page confirmation letter, 90-day review, medical file separate, manager told only: magnification software, video conference attendance, afternoon break. Elapsed time from request: eleven business days. Cost: about $700.

Phase 11 — Reassignment, if nothing else works

[ ] Confirm no accommodation permits the employee to remain in the current position.
[ ] Search for vacant positions — current and reasonably anticipated — across the organization, not just the department.
[ ] Assess whether the employee is qualified for each vacancy with or without accommodation.
[ ] Prefer an equivalent position; a lower position is acceptable only if no equivalent exists.
[ ] Determine your circuit's rule: some require appointment rather than an opportunity to compete (EEOC v. United Airlines, Inc., 693 F.3d 760 (7th Cir. 2012)); others permit competition under a uniform best-qualified policy (EEOC v. St. Joseph's Hospital, Inc., 842 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 2016)).
[ ] Do not require the employee to displace an incumbent, and do not ordinarily override a bona fide seniority system — US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391 (2002) — while remaining alert to "special circumstances."
[ ] Document the search: positions reviewed, dates, and why each was or was not suitable.

Why it matters, and the traps. The undocumented vacancy search is a routine loss. A plaintiff who identifies three vacancies the employer never mentioned turns a defensible reassignment analysis into a credibility problem. Run the search of record.

Phase 12 — If the process breaks down

[ ] Identify who stopped moving and document it contemporaneously.
[ ] If the employee has gone quiet or the documentation is still deficient, send a written follow-up stating what is needed, the deadline, and the consequence.
[ ] Send a second follow-up before taking any adverse step.
[ ] If the employer caused the delay, fix it and restart rather than relying on the delay.
[ ] Never let a file simply age into a termination.

Why it matters, and the traps. Courts assign the loss to the party that caused the breakdown. A genuine employee-caused breakdown is a complete defense — but only if the record shows the employer kept making dated, visible moves. The six-week silence followed by a termination letter is the single most common fact pattern in failure-to-accommodate litigation.

Phase 13 — Managing performance and conduct while accommodation is in place

[ ] Continue to hold the employee to the same conduct standards, applied uniformly and job-related.
[ ] Continue to hold the employee to production and quality standards; the ADA does not require lowering them.
[ ] Before disciplining, confirm the accommodation is actually functioning as designed.
[ ] Document performance issues specifically and contemporaneously, on the same standard applied to others.
[ ] Recognize that the accommodation request was protected activity, so subsequent adverse action invites a retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. § 12203.
[ ] Watch the separate interference prohibition, § 12203(b), which reaches conduct discouraging requests even without a tangible adverse action.

Why it matters, and the traps. The most common employer error after a successful accommodation is to relax performance documentation out of caution, then terminate abruptly when the situation becomes intolerable — producing a record with no contemporaneous performance history and a recent protected activity. Document normally and consistently.

Phase 14 — Special situations

FMLA exhaustion.

[ ] Never auto-terminate at twelve weeks. Open the ADA process in writing.
[ ] Evaluate additional finite leave with a reasonably certain return date; indefinite leave generally is not required.
[ ] Know your circuit — compare Severson v. Heartland Woodcraft, Inc., 872 F.3d 476 (7th Cir. 2017) with Humphrey v. Memorial Hospitals Ass'n, 239 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2001).
[ ] See Processing an FMLA Leave Request: A Practical Checklist.

Telework.

[ ] Determine whether physical presence is genuinely essential and document the specific reason.
[ ] Account for whether the role was performed remotely in the past; that history is now evidence.
[ ] Consider partial telework and task-blocking as an intermediate solution.

Mental health conditions.

[ ] Treat as any other impairment; do not require greater documentation.
[ ] Consider low-cost standard accommodations: flexible scheduling, quiet space, noise-cancelling equipment, written instructions, modified supervisory method, leave for treatment.
[ ] Run the process before disciplining non-egregious conduct connected to a known condition.

Workers' compensation overlap.

[ ] A "maximum medical improvement" finding does not answer the ADA question.
[ ] Light duty may be offered; an employee on FMLA leave may not be required to accept it.

Pregnancy.

[ ] Apply the PWFA's separate accommodation obligation, which has no substantial-limitation threshold. See Accommodating Pregnancy and Nursing Under the PWFA and PUMP Act: A Practical Checklist.

Federal contractors.

[ ] Confirm Section 503 obligations: affirmative action program, invitations to self-identify, utilization goal, annual self-audit. 41 C.F.R. Part 60-741.

Phase 15 — Denial, if it comes to that

[ ] State the specific essential function at risk or the specific undue hardship, with the supporting analysis.
[ ] Recite the process: dates, documents requested and received, options considered.
[ ] Identify the alternative offered, if any.
[ ] Invite the employee to propose further alternatives, and mean it.
[ ] Have counsel review before sending.
[ ] Retain the full file, including the options considered and rejected and why.

Why it matters. A denial letter is the document a jury will read. One that shows a real process, a specific reason, and an alternative reads as a considered business decision. One that says "your request is denied" reads as the thing the statute prohibits. And a documented good-faith process forecloses punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(a)(3), which is worth the drafting time even in a case the employer expects to lose.

Phase 16 — Records and audit

[ ] Keep medical documentation in separate confidential medical files with access controls.
[ ] Retain the accommodation file including the interactive-process record, options considered, and review notes.
[ ] Calendar every accommodation review date.
[ ] Pull ten closed accommodation files annually and audit them against this checklist.
[ ] Retrain supervisors annually on recognition and routing.

Notes and Resources

Primary authority

42 U.S.C. §§ 12101–12213 — the ADA
42 U.S.C. § 12102 — definition of disability, as amended by the ADAAA
42 U.S.C. § 12111 — definitions: qualified individual, reasonable accommodation, undue hardship, direct threat
42 U.S.C. § 12112 — discrimination; medical examinations and inquiries; confidentiality
42 U.S.C. § 12203 — retaliation and interference
42 U.S.C. § 1981a — damages, caps, and the good-faith defense
29 C.F.R. Part 1630 — EEOC Title I regulations and interpretive appendix
29 U.S.C. §§ 791, 793, 794 — Rehabilitation Act §§ 501, 503, 504
41 C.F.R. Part 60-741 — OFCCP Section 503 regulations
29 C.F.R. § 1635.8 — GINA safe harbor

Key decisions

US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391 (2002) — burden framework; seniority systems.
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Echazabal, 536 U.S. 73 (2002) — direct threat to self.
Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624 (1998) — coverage; direct threat evidence.
School Board of Nassau County v. Arline, 480 U.S. 273 (1987) — individualized assessment.
Raytheon Co. v. Hernandez, 540 U.S. 44 (2003) — neutral no-rehire policy.
Cleveland v. Policy Management Systems Corp., 526 U.S. 795 (1999) — SSDI application not automatic estoppel.
Board of Trustees of Univ. of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001) — Title I damages barred against states.
Severson v. Heartland Woodcraft, Inc., 872 F.3d 476 (7th Cir. 2017) — extended leave.
EEOC v. Ford Motor Co., 782 F.3d 753 (6th Cir. 2015) (en banc) — telework and attendance.
EEOC v. United Airlines, Inc., 693 F.3d 760 (7th Cir. 2012) — mandatory reassignment.
EEOC v. St. Joseph's Hospital, Inc., 842 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 2016) — competitive reassignment.

EEOC resources worth having on hand

Enforcement Guidance on Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship Under the ADA
Enforcement Guidance on the Americans with Disabilities Act and Psychiatric Disabilities
Guidance on Applying Performance and Conduct Standards to Employees with Disabilities
Resource document on employer-provided leave and the ADA
Enforcement Guidance on Disability-Related Inquiries and Medical Examinations of Employees

The six habits that prevent most accommodation liability

Supervisors route the same day; they never evaluate, diagnose, or contact providers.
Essential functions are documented before requests arrive, with time allocations.
Documentation requests ask about limitations, attach essential functions, and include GINA language.
Medical information lives in separate confidential files, and supervisors learn only restrictions.
Every accommodation is confirmed in writing with a review date.
Files never go quiet — the next move is always visible and dated.

Handling an Accommodation Request Under the ADA: A Practical Checklist

Phase 0 — Before any request arrives: delete the landmines

Phase 1 — Recognize the request

Phase 2 — Acknowledge and open the file

Phase 3 — Coverage (briefly)

Phase 4 — Establish the essential functions

Phase 5 — Request medical documentation the right way

Phase 6 — Evaluate the documentation

Phase 7 — Generate and evaluate options

Phase 8 — If you are considering denial: undue hardship

Phase 9 — If safety is the concern: direct threat

Phase 10 — Decide, implement, confirm

Phase 11 — Reassignment, if nothing else works

Phase 12 — If the process breaks down

Phase 13 — Managing performance and conduct while accommodation is in place

Phase 14 — Special situations

Phase 15 — Denial, if it comes to that

Phase 16 — Records and audit

Notes and Resources

Related Documents