The Sixth Circuit held that an employer cannot be liable for failing to engage in the ADA interactive process where the employee's requested accommodation is unreasonable as a matter of law, because an interactive-process claim presupposes the existence of a viable reasonable accommodation.
This is the legally correct result and the view of most federal circuits.
But here's the part that employers shouldn't miss. Winning the case doesn't mean the accommodation process was a success.
Too many employers approach accommodation requests defensively, driven by the fear that someone—somewhere—might try to take advantage. And yes, a small minority of employees will push the envelope. And your patience. That's reality.
But you shouldn't design your accommodation process around the outliers.
The ADA isn't a "gotcha" statute, and the interactive process isn't a trap. It's supposed to be a practical, good-faith conversation about how to keep a qualified employee working. When the response to a request starts and ends with "we can't," the employer has already shifted from problem-solving to problem creating. That's when employers lose the plot.
The better approach isn't complicated:
- Listen to the request.
- Ask follow-up questions aimed at solutions.
- Explore alternatives—even if the initial proposal won't work.
- Document the effort, not just the rejection.
This case turned on the fact that the employee's specific request was unreasonable as a matter of law. Next time, it may not be. And when a jury hears that an employer shut the conversation down because "people might abuse it," that explanation usually lands poorly.
Most employees asking for accommodations aren't gaming the system. They're just trying to work. If employers govern accommodation requests based on the few who might abuse them, they end up mistreating the many who won't—and inviting exactly the kind of litigation they're trying to avoid.
Winning cases is good. Avoiding them is better.