Complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Understanding Unreasonable Accommodations
Jeannine LeCompte, Compliance Research Specialist
Although the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 compels employers to provide what it calls “reasonable accommodations” to “employees with disabilities,” it does recognize that certain demands are “unreasonable” and will impose “undue hardship” if implemented.
Before any employer uses this provision to deny an accommodation, they should have a clear understanding of exactly what is meant by an “unreasonable accommodation.”
The EEOC defines this as an “undue hardship” on the company, and states that an employer does not have to provide an accommodation if it can be shown that such a step will “cause significant difficulty or expense.”
A determination in this regard is based on several factors, including:
- the nature and cost of the accommodation needed;
- the overall financial resources of the facility making the reasonable accommodation; the number of persons employed at this facility; the effect on expenses and resources of the facility;
- the overall financial resources, size, number of employees, and type and location of facilities of the employer (if the facility involved in the reasonable accommodation is part of a larger entity);
- the type of operation of the employer, including the structure and functions of the workforce, the geographic separateness, and the administrative or fiscal relationship of the facility involved in making the accommodation to the employer;
- the impact of the accommodation on the operation of the facility.
Undue hardship is determined based on the net cost to the employer. Thus, an employer should determine whether funding is available from an outside source, such as a state rehabilitation agency, to pay for all or part of the accommodation.
In addition, the employer should determine whether it is eligible for certain tax credits or deductions to offset the cost of the accommodation. Also, to the extent that a portion of the cost of an accommodation causes undue hardship, the employer should ask the individual with a disability if s/he will pay the difference.
If an employer determines that one particular reasonable accommodation will cause undue hardship, but a second type of reasonable accommodation will be effective and will not cause an undue hardship, then the employer must provide the second accommodation.
An employer cannot claim undue hardship based on employees’ (or customers’) fears or prejudices toward the individual’s disability. Nor can undue hardship be based on the fact that provision of a reasonable accommodation might have a negative impact on the morale of other employees.
Employers, however, may be able to show undue hardship where provision of a reasonable accommodation would be unduly disruptive to other employees’ ability to work.
In cases where an employee applies for open-ended leave in order to deal with a disability, the employer need not modify the work hours of an employee with a disability if doing so would prevent other employees from performing their jobs.
This means that if the result of modifying one employee’s work hours (or granting leave) is to prevent other employees from doing their jobs, then the significant disruption to the operations of the employer constitutes an undue hardship.
However, providing leave to an employee who is unable to provide a fixed date of return is a form of reasonable accommodation. Only if an employer is able to show that the lack of a fixed return date causes an undue hardship, can it then deny the leave.
In determining the “undue hardship” inflicted on a company, it is important to bear in mind that a court will make the determination based on the employer’s resources, and not on the individual’s salary, position, or status. This means that a court will make a ruling based only on the “reasonableness” of the employer’s ability to absorb the financial impact, and not the actual cost.
An employer also cannot claim undue hardship solely because a reasonable accommodation would require it to make changes to property owned by someone else. If the contractual relationship between the employer and property owner requires the owner’s consent to the kinds of changes that are required, or prohibits them from being made, then the employer must make good faith efforts either to obtain the owner’s permission or to negotiate an exception to the terms of the contract.
Only if the owner refuses to allow the employer to make the modifications, can the employer claim undue hardship. Even in this situation, however, the employer must still provide another reasonable accommodation, if one exists, that would not cause undue hardship.
Finally, it should be borne in mind that court cases have established defined burdens of proof. In US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S., 122 S. Ct. 1516 (2002), the Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiff/employee need only show that an accommodation seems “reasonable on its face.” Once the plaintiff has shown that the accommodation s/he needs is “reasonable,” the burden shifts to the defendant/employer to provide case-specific evidence proving that reasonable accommodation would cause an undue hardship in the particular circumstances.
References:
“The ADA: Your Responsibilities as an Employer,”
https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/ada17.cfm
“Disability Discrimination”
https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/disability.cfm
“Facts About the Americans with Disabilities Act”
