Alert

Fifth Circuit: Employer’s Unreasonably Delayed Response Is Failure to Accommodate

May 22, 2025

Case Specifics

This decision surrounds the case of Alisha Strife v. Aldine Independent School District, in which the plaintiff, a U.S. Army veteran employed in the school district’s Human Resources department, requested an accommodation for various disabilities, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), to bring her service dog to work. She sued the district for over $1 million, alleging discrimination under the Texas Human Resources Code, and that a six-month delay in granting such a request was unreasonable.

The plaintiff made the accommodation request pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) permitting her to bring her certified service dog to work to help with her physical and psychological disabilities. The district requested additional information and the employee provided a letter from her treating provider with the U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs (VA), who wrote that the dog was “invaluable to [the employee’s] mental and physical health recovery.” The district deemed this insufficient because the provider was not a board-certified medical doctor. In response, the employee provided a similar letter from her treating psychiatrist. The district then requested that the employee submit to an independent medical examination.

In response, the employee contacted an attorney, who requested information about any additional accommodations the district was contemplating. After the district scheduled a medical exam for the employee, her attorney provided three additional letters, including two from other physicians. The employee also filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charge. Four days later, she underwent a VA-led exam which confirmed that a dog was required “in all settings (including place of employment) to avoid further balance-related injuries.”

Legal Action

The district found the supplemental medical documentation and VA’s evaluation to be inadequate, and the employee sued asserting five claims under the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehab Act), and Texas state law. The parties were directed by the court to engage in the interactive process, and the district granted her accommodation request, six months after her initial request.

The Fifth Circuit determined that the six-month delay was unreasonable and that the employee had pled sufficient facts that could allow a factfinder to conclude the district unjustifiably delayed her request, reversing the lower court’s dismissal of her federal and state-law failure-to-accommodate claims. The court, however, affirmed dismissal of her disability-related hostile work environment claim as well as summary judgment against her disability discrimination, retaliation, and interference claims.

Delay as Failure to Accommodate

Addressing on appeal the employee’s contention that the six-month delay in granting her accommodation request constituted a failure to accommodate her disability, the Fifth Circuit determined that an employer’s delay of the interactive process under certain conditions might create liability. The court pointed out that an employer could otherwise circumvent the ADA’s protections by forcing an employee to endure an endless interactive process. The court also noted, however, that an employer “is entitled to move at whatever pace he chooses so long as the ultimate problem—the employee’s performance of her duties—is not truly imminent.”

Good Faith Requirement 

Here, the court noted that the employee’s allegations concerned more than delay, and also suggested a lack of good faith on the part of the employer to meaningfully evaluate her request in a timely manner. The court noted that the employee only requested she be allowed to bring her service dog to work, and did not request that it procure the dog or modify her workplace. The employee further alleged that the district was responsible for the six-month delay because it wanted her to undergo an independent medical exam despite having repeatedly provided information confirming her disabilities and the need for accommodation. From these allegations, said the court, a reasonable factfinder could find the district’s insistence that she undergo an independent medical exam unreasonable.

Observing that she also alleged the district failed to offer any reasonable accommodations, the court pointed out that the district granted her request only after she sued and shortly before a hearing on a request for an injunction. From this, said the court, a reasonable factfinder could disbelieve the district’s claim it needed to determine whether alternative accommodations were available. Accordingly, the court reversed the dismissal of this claim.

Take Away

This case highlights the importance of engaging in the interactive process in good faith and without undue delay. The interactive process generally refers to a two-way communication and collaboration between the employee and the employer; prompt initiation; good faith effort; and ongoing communication to find a reasonable accommodation. Medical documentation may be requested when the disability and/or need for accommodation is not known or obvious; however, an employer should not request additional documentation when documentation provided is sufficient to substantiate the existing disability and need for accommodation. While the employer is not necessarily required to provide the accommodation requested, the interactive process to discuss alternatives and effectiveness in removing workplace barriers is required.  

McGlinchey Stafford’s Labor and Employment Group are more than happy and available to assist employers related to the ADA, best practices, and responding to requests for accommodations.

Reprinted with permission from the American Bar Association’s Business Law Today May 2025, Month-In-Brief: Business & Regulated Industries.