The ADA requires a reasonable accommodation—not the employee's preferred accommodation. Further, the ADA is a two-way street; employees have obligations, too.
One recent decision, Belval v. Electric Boat Corp., drives those points home.
The employee, who had multiple serious medical conditions, wanted to continue working from home full-time after COVID-era return-to-office policies resumed. Electric Boat didn't simply say "no." It allowed remote work throughout much of the pandemic, granted FMLA leave, consulted with his healthcare providers, engaged in the interactive process, and ultimately offered him three remote days each week—more than other employees received.
He insisted on full-time remote work.
The court sided with the employer because the ADA doesn't require an employer to provide the accommodation an employee wants. It requires an accommodation that is reasonable and enables the employee to perform the essential functions of the job. Employers may choose among effective accommodations.
Just as important, this opinion is a reminder that the interactive process should be documented like any other critical employment decision. Electric Boat had the receipts. It documented communications with the employee, consultations with his medical providers, proposed accommodations, repeated phone calls, follow-up correspondence, and even a final letter establishing a deadline to report to Occupational Health. That record showed more than participation. It showed cooperation.
Finally—and this may be the most overlooked lesson—the interactive process is a two-way street. Employees have obligations too. According to the court, the employee repeatedly failed to communicate with Occupational Health, directed company representatives to speak only with his attorney, ignored multiple attempts to discuss accommodations, and failed to appear for a required appointment. That mattered. The court held that the employee—not the employer—was responsible for the breakdown in the interactive process, which independently doomed his failure-to-accommodate claim.
Here are my three practical takeaways for employers from this case:
• The ADA requires a reasonable accommodation—not the employee's preferred one.
• Document every step of the interactive process: conversations, medical information, proposed accommodations, follow-ups, and attempts to communicate.
• Remember that good-faith participation is required from both sides. When an employee refuses to engage, ignores communications, or derails the interactive process, that failure can be fatal to an ADA claim.
Accommodation is a dialogue, not a demand. The employers that treat it that way—and carefully document every step—put themselves in the strongest position if that dialogue ever ends up in court.
He insisted on full-time remote work.
The court sided with the employer because the ADA doesn't require an employer to provide the accommodation an employee wants. It requires an accommodation that is reasonable and enables the employee to perform the essential functions of the job. Employers may choose among effective accommodations.
Just as important, this opinion is a reminder that the interactive process should be documented like any other critical employment decision. Electric Boat had the receipts. It documented communications with the employee, consultations with his medical providers, proposed accommodations, repeated phone calls, follow-up correspondence, and even a final letter establishing a deadline to report to Occupational Health. That record showed more than participation. It showed cooperation.
Finally—and this may be the most overlooked lesson—the interactive process is a two-way street. Employees have obligations too. According to the court, the employee repeatedly failed to communicate with Occupational Health, directed company representatives to speak only with his attorney, ignored multiple attempts to discuss accommodations, and failed to appear for a required appointment. That mattered. The court held that the employee—not the employer—was responsible for the breakdown in the interactive process, which independently doomed his failure-to-accommodate claim.
Here are my three practical takeaways for employers from this case:
• The ADA requires a reasonable accommodation—not the employee's preferred one.
• Document every step of the interactive process: conversations, medical information, proposed accommodations, follow-ups, and attempts to communicate.
• Remember that good-faith participation is required from both sides. When an employee refuses to engage, ignores communications, or derails the interactive process, that failure can be fatal to an ADA claim.
Accommodation is a dialogue, not a demand. The employers that treat it that way—and carefully document every step—put themselves in the strongest position if that dialogue ever ends up in court.