Most employers know that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires a covered employer to provide "reasonable accommodations" for qualified employees with disabilities. What gets less attention is the process the law expects employers to use in getting there. This interactive process is the framework that courts and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) repeatedly look to when deciding whether an employer met its obligations under the law. When that process is handled thoughtfully, it is often the single best protection against later claims for failure to accommodate, disability discrimination, and retaliation. But, when it is rushed or otherwise handled poorly, even employers acting in good faith can find themselves explaining gaps in the record.
The interactive process can be triggered without any magic words. An employee does not need to mention the ADA, ask for a reasonable accommodation, or submit a written request. In most cases, the process begins as soon as an employee puts the employer on notice that a medical condition is affecting the employee’s ability to perform the job. That notice can come from the employee directly, from a manager observing changes in performance or attendance, or from a doctor’s note submitted in connection with leave. Managers should be trained to recognize those signals and escalate them to HR rather than trying to manage the process on their own.
Once the process is triggered, the employer’s first task is to define the job, not the accommodation. The ADA only requires that an employer provide a reasonable accommodation for qualified individuals, meaning those who can perform the essential functions of the position with or without reasonable accommodation. That makes the position’s essential functions the foundation of every analysis. Written job descriptions, performance expectations, attendance requirements, and the realities of how the work is actually performed should all be considered. Courts give considerable deference to an employer’s good-faith assessment of essential functions, but only when that assessment is grounded in specifics rather than general preferences.
From there, the employer should engage in a genuine, two-way dialogue with the employee. The hallmarks of a defensible interactive process are familiar but worth repeating: respond promptly, request appropriate medical information without overreaching, consider the accommodation the employee requests, and explore reasonable alternatives if that accommodation is not workable. The ADA does not require the employer to provide the employee’s preferred accommodation, only a reasonable one that allows the employee to perform essential functions. Reassignment to a vacant position, modified schedules, medical leave for an ascertainable period, assistive technology, and adjustments to nonessential duties should all be on the table where appropriate. Where a remote or hybrid arrangement is requested, employers should evaluate it against the actual demands of the role rather than treating remote work as either automatically required post-pandemic or automatically off-limits.
Documentation is what turns a good process into a defensible one. Notes of conversations, copies of correspondence, accommodations offered and declined, and the rationale for any decisions should be kept in a confidential file separate from the employee’s general personnel file.
The takeaway is that the interactive process is not a checklist; it is a habit. Employers that build it into their HR practices by training managers to recognize requests, anchoring decisions in essential functions, engaging promptly, documenting consistently, and revisiting accommodations as circumstances change are far better positioned to support their employees and to defend their decisions if a dispute arises.
Click here to subscribe to our latest alerts and insights.