Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), employers are required to provide reasonable accommodations to disabled workers, but not necessarily the accommodation favored by the employee. This principle was illustrated in the recent rejection by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals of a plaintiff’s failure to accommodate a lawsuit.

In Smith v. Shelby County Board of Education, the plaintiff was a school employee who received an organ transplant in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. At that time, school employees were working remotely, but the school district ordered employees to return in-person. The plaintiff provided medical information indicating that he was immunocompromised and requested to be allowed to continue working from home as an accommodation. The school responded by proposing several on-premises work locations where the plaintiff could be isolated from contact with other persons. He objected to this proposal and later resigned after being suspended for not returning to the worksite.

The Sixth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the suit, concluding that the plaintiff did not engage in the interactive process envisioned under the ADA. By ending communications with the school and insisting on working from home, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the alternative accommodations were not effective. The Sixth Circuit noted that the medical information provided by the plaintiff recommended isolation, but did not state that he needed to remain in his home.

Employers that receive accommodation requests from employees or applicants should engage in discussions about the worker’s medical condition and various ways in which it can be accommodated to allow that person to perform the essential functions of the job. The accommodation process should be documented. If the employer identifies effective ways to accommodate the employee, it can decline to provide the one preferred by the disabled worker.

[View source.]