The rules around workplace reasonable accommodation are shifting — and not quietly. Recent court decisions are sending a clear message to employers: the old “take it or leave it” approach won’t cut it anymore.
Two recent cases illustrate exactly what’s changing and why every HR team needs to pay attention.
The Interactive Process Is Not Optional
The first major shift is that courts are demanding individualized reasonable accommodation. Not a one-size-fits-all policy. Not a default offer. An actual, collaborative dialogue — tailored to the specific person and their specific needs.
That word — individualized — carries real legal weight now.
The Case That Should Be on Every HR Desk: Ali v. EPA
Here’s a scenario that might seem simple on the surface, but carries significant implications.
A labor economist employed at the EPA suffered from a severe fragrance sensitivity — exposure to perfume or cologne triggered restricted breathing and allergic reactions. Working in an open cubicle environment, he requested a private workspace where he could retreat and continue working if his condition was triggered. Not a corner office. Just a private area.
The EPA’s response? 100% telework. Take it or leave it.
The employee declined — not out of stubbornness, but because working from home genuinely didn’t work for his personal circumstances. He wanted to be in the office. He asked for a way to make that possible.
The EPA refused to explore any alternatives. No negotiation. No back-and-forth. No discussion of a quiet room, a partitioned area, or any other in-office solution. The door closed.
The court ruled that this was not a reasonable accommodation process. It was a unilateral decision — and that’s not what the law requires.
The Big Takeaway: Telework Is Not Automatically Reasonable
This is perhaps the most counterintuitive lesson from Ali v. EPA, and it cuts in both directions.
Most employees would jump at a 100% remote arrangement. For many, it’s a dream. But “most employees” is not the legal standard. The standard is whether the specific accommodation offered meets the specific needs of the specific individual.
Some people simply cannot be productive at home — noisy environments, caregiving responsibilities, lack of separation between work and personal life. These are real, documented barriers to remote work. The court recognized this: employees are entitled to an equivalent work experience, not isolation dressed up as flexibility.
The same logic applies in reverse. If an employee requests telework as an accommodation, that too must be evaluated on its own merits — it’s not automatically granted just because it’s popular. The question is always: does this accommodation actually address this person’s needs?
A one-option ultimatum — in either direction — is not an interactive process.
What “Interactive Process” Actually Means
The interactive process isn’t HR jargon. It’s a legal expectation. Here’s what it requires in practice:
1. Genuine dialogue, not a monologue. The employer proposes; the employee responds; both parties negotiate. Back-and-forth is the whole point.
2. No shutting down the conversation. Even if your first offer seems generous, the process isn’t over until both parties have reached an agreement that actually works — or you’ve genuinely exhausted all reasonable options.
3. Document everything. Courts are scrutinizing not just the decision, but how employers engaged. The paper trail matters as much as the outcome.
4. Individualized assessment, every time. What worked for one employee doesn’t automatically apply to another with a similar condition. Each request gets its own process.
The Equity Problem: Why Education Matters as Much as Policy
There’s a second challenge that’s just as important as the legal one — and it lives inside your teams.
When an employee receives an accommodation, colleagues often notice. And when they don’t understand why someone is getting what looks like “special treatment,” resentment can build. Retaliation — whether overt or subtle — becomes a real risk.
This is where the distinction between equality and equity becomes essential.
Equality means everyone gets the same thing. If the company serves steak at the banquet, everyone gets steak.
Equity means everyone gets what they need. If you’re a vegetarian, you get the vegetable plate. You’re not getting more than anyone else — you’re getting your version of the same meal.
Accommodation isn’t preferential treatment. It’s ensuring that every employee can do their job. But if managers and colleagues don’t understand that, even a perfectly compliant accommodation process can unravel in practice.
Training isn’t optional. It’s the second half of the equation.
The New Legal Landscape, Summarized
If you take one thing from these cases, let it be this: courts are now applying a more employee-centric interpretation of accommodation law, with higher expectations for employer flexibility and a sharp eye on process.
Specifically:
Documentation and individualized assessments are mission-critical. You need to show your work.
High-handed ultimatums — even generous ones — create legal exposure. The process matters as much as the outcome.
Telework is a tool, not a solution. It must be evaluated like any other accommodation: does it actually work for this person?
The dialogue must stay open. Shutting it down too early is itself a failure of the interactive process.
What Should You Do Right Now?
If you’re in HR, management, or leadership, this is a good moment to ask three questions:
How do we inform employees about the accommodation process? Is it findable? Approachable? Clear?
What do our managers actually know about their role when an accommodation is requested? Are they trained, or are they guessing?
Do our teams understand the difference between fairness and sameness? Have we had the equity conversation explicitly?
Common sense, it turns out, is not common. If it matters — say it. Repeat it. Put it in training. Build it into your culture.
The legal bar is rising. The organizations that will meet it aren’t just the ones with the right policies on paper. They’re the ones where managers actually know what to do when someone walks into their office and asks for help.
This article is based on Part 3 of Evie Wentink’s conversation with Rod Samra on Let’s Talk About Ethics. Next time, Evie and Rod will go step by step through the accommodation process itself — what it should look like at each stage, and how organizations can build a process that protects both employees and employers. Stay tuned.
#HR, #EmploymentLaw, #ReasonableAccommodation, #WorkplacePolicy, #DEI, #DisabilityRights, #ManagementTraining
